In Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic.
In Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic. This situation has the explicit and public support of the ONDP brass, although most of the party membership, I'd wager, do not share their views.
The following letter was submitted to the Niagara Falls Review in response to the article Mother loses fight for kids' school bus, printed September 17, 2009.
Printed September 25, 2009:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Little sympathy for family with busing problems
I CANNOT BRING MYSELF to have much sympathy for Tammy Mott. As a member of Ontario's pre-eminent faith under law, she is guaranteed a choice of publicly funded schools wherever she chooses to live in this province and ultimately, that choice provided her with busing for her children. Non-Catholics are often not so lucky.
Like Ms. Mott, I live within walking distance of a school, albeit a public one, not Catholic. That school was so overcrowded during my childrens' kindergarten years the school board bused kindergarten-aged kids 90 minutes a day to a community far away for the 2 1 /2 hour school day.
I found that unacceptable and tried to enrol my children in the local Catholic school, where I was turned down cold on account of the non-Catholic "colour" of my faith.
I ended up paying a private school nearly $20,000 a year for two years to escape an overcrowding situation that my Catholic neighbours could escape for free by going to the Catholic school that had rejected my children.
After reaching grade school age, my children walked the 1.5 kilometres from their babysitter's house to their school for six years.
She lived just within the 1.6-km busing limit for grades 1 to 6 in the Ottawa public school board. Again, I could not have switched to the Catholic school, where my children would have been bused, even if I had wanted to.
In Ottawa, parents of public high school students living in the urban transit area must pay $626 per child per year for bus passes while the Catholic board furnishes those same passes to their high school students for free.
Ms. Mott should count her blessings. In Ontario, it still pays to be Catholic. One day, hopefully in my children's lifetimes, the rest of us will enjoy equal respect and consideration from a religiously neutral provincial government.
Leonard Baak, President,
Education Equality in Ontario
www.OneSchoolSystem.org
Catholics are too high a percentage of the electorate for the NDP to take a principled stance on this issue.
According to the 2001 Census, the last to include religious data (the next is 2011), Catholics are 34% of the Ontario population. In Newfoundland and Quebec at the time of the elimination of public funding for Catholic schools, they were 37% and 83% respectively.
Many Catholics do not support our wasteful and discriminatory system:
"Our continued status as part of the publicly funded education system is not only dependent on legislation (provincial and federal), but it is also dependent on the political commitment of the prevailing government of the day, and the political will is in no small way influenced by prevailing public opinion.
Survey results of a Vector Poll for the Canadian Opinion Coalition, conducted in June, 2001, presented a very disturbing challenge to Catholic education from within. The results stated that 56% of Catholics who responded to the poll indicated that they believed a unified school system (Catholic and Public) would cost less to run and save money, while 52% of the Catholics polled said that a unified board would be more accountable and provide better education." - from an undated document entitled "Preserve The Legacy Of The Enduring Gift Of Catholic Education", posted on a separate school board web site.
The thread title should read, "In Liberal-Tory Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic" And especially if you're one of the 22% of registered voters propping-up old line party dictatorships here. Democracy is the right's most hated institution still.
I realize that - but the argument you'll hear is that just because a majority of Ontarians support such a stance, doesn't mean they'll cast their vote on it, but Catholic school suppoters definitely will. Some of these Catholics are NDPers and if they bolt they won't be able to come into power and do all these bold, amazing, progressive things.
Don't expect the party to change its position under Horwath
I realize that - but the argument you'll hear is that just because a majority of Ontarians support such a stance, doesn't mean they'll cast their vote on it,
It was the defining issue of the last two weeks of the last election campaign. The two third rail parties and their friends in the newz media made it so. And it resulted in one of the lowest voter turnouts in Ontario's history. The ONDP is attacking in the correct manner, we just need more resources and to get the message and vote out. I'd love to see the two third rail parties and those in so-called news media buried for their efforts. We can't let the bozos do it to us again.
To quote Barney Frank, on what planet do you spend most of your time?
Well I wasn't on that exoplanet where 22% of registered voters and jokers in the newz media were in the last week of the election campaign. Sorry.
Well, one solution to bussing favourism is for board's to be forced to form consordiums (for bussing for eg) and that those consordiums be arms length from their respective boards thus no political interference. All walking distances should be the same for all boards without privelege for some.
In fact there is movement now for consortium's at arm's length of boards so this nonsense can end. That said, there is movement for coternimous board's to build schools together to "serve all students." Eg. Brantford.
I agree with Leonard - it is stupid to bus kids all over the place when their is a "school close by." That said, one may see more of this as northern and rural boards close half filled schools and bus kids to the next community where there is a public school.
Many parents just want their kids to attend the local community school - whether public or separate - so they enrol them in the half-filled separate school - who can keep open because of getting a lot more money per student - wait out the public local school, and than reap the reward - filling up with the public school children that they need (no discrimination as they need those warm bodies) to keep their separate school humming.
Personally, the province should make board's automatically hold accomodation reviews when schools trigger under 80%. This would force all board's to act in "good faith."
IMPV
And dont forget that reduced school busing would be green policy and good for the environment, too.
No it was Tory's plan of funding "faith based schools" vs. the status quo position of "no funding for religious schools (unless they're Catholic)." Although support for one system is a very popular position among Ontarians, none of the three major parties would take that stance.
they prefer the slow death approach. Which in the end leaves less $$$ for kids and their educational needs. But that's the way the cookie crumbles, so pushing in other ways makes sense - equitable funding for all kids - no special privelege based on school Boards' religous/non-religous dsscripter.
Advertising dollars by outsiderd not allowed for any school board - get rid the catholic church's bucks for pushing their schools, while public schools cannot do this as they don't get money from the prov. That would also level the playing field.
It's about leveling the playing field so we all "play fairly." I'm sure catholic boards would support that as fair.
No it was Tory's plan of funding "faith based schools" vs. the status quo position of "no funding for religious schools (unless they're Catholic)." Although support for one system is a very popular position among Ontarians, none of the three major parties would take that stance.
So you're saying that four million plus voters stayed home not because they felt their votes would be wasted by an inefficient 19th century electoral system, but because none of the three parties have clear policy for school funding? Ontarians are more fickle than I could have imagined.
Fidel that was not what LP was saying - please don't suggest something that isn't what was said - it lowers your credability when you post elsewhere.
LP is suggesting that tackling the third rail issue of school funding would be a popular policy among Ontarians. Okay, and he did not say that it would do anything positive for voter turnout. And LP did not suggest that of those 22% of registered voters who elected McGuinty to a false majority, that very many of them would switch to the NDP if the NDP writes a clear policy for one system fits all school funding. I'm not trying to be sarcastic just wanting to understand this issue of school funding and why I should care when so many other issues are smoking on the backburner.
Perhaps both you and LP are right, and this is exactly the kind of can of political worms the ONDP need to pry open in order to stir Ontario voters from their slumber. So let's go for it. I am now of the opinion that we need to shake it up by quite a lot in Ontario, and this could well be the ONDP's most potent weapon in the next election. I'm not crazy about it, but we really must check the electorate for vital signs.
thanks Fidel - I was concerned that you might respond negatively to me - thanks for coming back so thoughfully. I know there are lots of pressing issues, least of all the economy.
That said, the two biggest files are health care and education under prov. jurisdiction.
LP is suggesting that tackling the third rail issue of school funding would be a popular policy among Ontarians. Okay, and he did not say that it would do anything positive for voter turnout. And LP did not suggest that of those 22% of registered voters who elected McGuinty to a false majority, that very many of them would switch to the NDP if the NDP writes a clear policy for one system fits all school funding. I'm not trying to be sarcastic just wanting to understand this issue of school funding and why I should care when so many other issues are smoking on the backburner.
Perhaps both you and LP are right, and this is exactly the kind of can of political worms the ONDP need to pry open in order to stir Ontario voters from their slumber. So let's go for it. I am now of the opinion that we need to shake it up by quite a lot in Ontario, and this could well be the ONDP's most potent weapon in the next election. I'm not crazy about it, but we really must check the electorate for vital signs.
Holy Cow! Cause for celebration. Fidel acknowledged a flaw in ONDP stand (or lack thereof) and would agree on correcting it. Let us hope Fidel is sober.
Other than the fact that the constitution would need to be amended to reverse the rights of the catholic schools I can't think of ant reason to chance the status quo. Apparently changing the constitution in Canada is a bit of a big deal.
Education
Legislation respecting Education
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:—
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges, and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen's Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen's Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen's Subjects in relation to Education:
With respect to education Kropotkin1951, it is not difficult to change the Constitution at all. Vested interests often try to suggest that it is to discourage even discussion of the possibility. They point to earlier Constitutional conferences like Meech Lake and say "See, look -- it is darned near impossible!". But they are not comparing apples to apples (and I think a lot of them know that). Some Constitutional changes, like those affecting one province, are much easier to achieve and are governed by a different and much more streamlined amendment procedure.
Education is solely a provincial responsibility and the feds have established a precedent of not interfering with the will of the provinces. Three provinces have so far eliminated denominational separate schools with Ottawa's blessing (Quebec, Newfoundland, and Manitoba).
The Constitutional change to pave the way for the elimination of publicly funded Catholic schools in Ontario can be accomplished through a simple bilateral agreement between Ottawa and Ontario (the route taken by both Newfoundland and Quebec in eliminating Catholic schools). No other provinces need to be involved, unlike other sorts of Constitutional changes, which involve greater consensus. To go the bilateral route, all the Ontario legislature need do is pass a motion asking Ottawa to amend the constitution to erase the "obligation" (I say "obligation" in quotes because as obligations go, this one is really quite illusory).
Ontario could also choose to eliminate the Catholic system unilaterally as it was done in Manitoba, whose constitutional "obligation" reads identically to Ontario's and proved to be not so obliging after all.
We've covered the constitutional issue ad nauseam in other discussions on this forum. See "Is there a principled, progressive case for continued support for funding separate schools?" and "Why the constitution is relevant to discussion of denominational schools". The Constitution is not that relevant really; Peter, the author of the second post, just wants people to believe it is a big scary obstacle because he likes Catholic privilege and wants to protect it (no doubt he's Catholic and likes the view from the top -- damn the cost and the consequences). They can't justify Catholic privilege any other way, so they just say "It would be too hard to change". They are blowing smoke out their ass.
I didn't say it can't be done I just pointed out the obvious that it takes a constitutional amendment and they seem to be very hard to pass. I am very sorry that this has been discussed before but quite frankly that is because it is the relevant point otherwise it might have been changed ages ago.
In BC they went the other way and they fund every denominational school not just the catholics including the school on Bountiful. I think it is a major mistake and has the potential for ghettoizing people but I can still imagine the political blow back if a party in BC tried to run on a platform of no more money to denominational schools. You would have every organized religious group in the province fighting against it. I suspect that the catholics in Ontario would also put up a fight that most politicians would prefer to avoid.
http://www.bountifulschool.org/
Interesting since my nephew went to a Catholic school through his entire primary and high school careers (in Ontario). This despite being non-Catholic (and the schools knew it). But my brother and his wife were adamant that the public school system was broken and they couldn't afford private schools.
Where do you find a private school for multiple children for $20,000 a year - day school tuition is typically that much per student.
I had classmates in Catholic school who were not Catholic. The all-public school down the road had no room for them, or at least that was what they were told. They were "Indian" and wards of the CA.
And in my hometown you could be bussed anywhere if there was no room at the school down the road, or even if you simply lived on the wrong side of a ward boundary. There was no bending the rules then for the sake of the environment let alone convenience. And there were two primary schools in our neighborhood. My older sister didnt attend either one and walked well over a mile most school days to a Catholic school where there was room for her. It was quite a mess.
Schools operate most cost-effectively when enrolment nears design capacity -- that is, if a school was designed for 600, then it is most cost-effective to operate it with that many students. When school boards have too many half-empty schools, the per pupil costs of education go up and the quality of education declines. In Ontario, this has always led co-terminous Catholic and public school boards to "poach" students from each other (to use the term employed by Liberal MPP Dave Levac, a former Catholic school principal and chair of the Ministry of Education's Declining Enrolment Working Group). They want to protect the quality of education in their boards and avoid uncomfortable decisions involving closing schools. Damn the effect on their friendly neighbourhood co-terminous board -- they really don't care.
Catholic elementary schools typically only admit non-Catholics in declining enrolment areas, where a few warm-bodied non-Catholics can bring the enrolment level of a school up to a more cost-effective level and protect the quality of education for the other [Catholic] kids. It is the other [Catholic] kids who matter. The door is almost universally slammed in the faces of non-Catholic children in areas where school enrolment approximates design capacity. The non-Catholic kids are "cash cows" in declining enrolment areas, welcome for the holy enrolment grants that come with them, but spurned where the extra money is not needed. It is sickening really.
Catholic high schools are not supposed to discriminate in grade 9 and up ("open access" policy), so you will see more non-Catholics there, particularly when the only high school or the closest high school in a community is a Catholic one.
The absolute right of Catholic school boards to discriminate against non-Catholics in admissions up to grade 9 means that non-Catholics are very rare in Catholic elementary schools -- except where they need those "cash cows" for the holy enrolment grants that come with them. "Cash cow" children are typically needed in rural, urban, and northern communities where the population of school aged children is and has been in decline. Non-Catholics are pretty much non-existent in Catholic elementary schools in growth areas (and if you ask, you'll often find that at least one of the parents was baptized Catholic with a "right" to enrol their children -- the case in my non-Catholic Church).
The Hamilton Catholic District School Board is only 7% non-Catholic (2006 figures), vs. 66% of the Ontario population that is non-Catholic. Most of that 7% is likely skewed towards the high school level, where "open access" is supposed to apply. Few to no non-Catholics are likely to be found in their elementary schools.
Yes, you can find the odd non-Catholic kid in a Catholic school in Ontario, but they aren't wanted. They are allowed in for the money that comes with them. They are barred (at the elementary level) or discouraged from applying (at the high school level) where that money is not needed.
Oh, to be Catholic in Ontario is a blessed thing. You bear the same tax burden as your neighbours according to your income, not your faith, but you and yours alone are guaranteed a choice of publicly funded schools. You get a two for one deal. All that Charter of Rights and Freedoms rubbish about equality is just that -- rubbish.
All animals [Ontarians] are equal, but some are more equal than others. If you believe that, then the status quo in Ontario's school system probably doesn't bother you at all. But if you believe that, well ... I don't want to say. It's not a nice thought. I hope you don't believe that and are willing to help look for a solution.
One needs to come to terms with 2009 and not remember the days of long ago to see what is happening in Education in Ontario. Declining enrolment is happening all over the place. Why do you think the Ministry is pushing schools as community hubs - we have half filled buildings.
And what community partner would make the most sense? Well, it would be a partner with interest in public education? Geez, now that would be too smart - sharing buildings for starters and why not programs?
As I said earlier, only certain types of amendments are hard to pass -- like those affecting multiple provinces. Amendments concerning areas of sole provincial concern, like education, are easy to pass.
The amendment removing denominational school rights in Newfoundland was proclaimed into law by the Governor General barely four months after being requested by the Newfoundland legislature. Politically, the Quebec amendment went even more smoothly, despite Catholics being 83% of their population (way more than Ontario, where 34% of the population is Catholic).
The idea that education amendments are hard to pass is a fiction, no, an outright lie, peddled by Catholic education vested interests. I have to be charitable and assume that some of the people peddling this mistruth may be genuinely ignorant, but I believe many are deliberately making false comparisons between difficult and easy amendments, counting on public ignorance of the Constitution and our constitutional history (Newfoundland and Quebec have already removed denominational school rights). Very deceptive -- and thus not very Christian.
Look at the poll results quoted above, which were from a newsletter to Catholic parents in the Halton Catholic District School Board:
Survey results of a Vector Poll for the Canadian Opinion Coalition, conducted in June, 2001, presented a very disturbing challenge to Catholic education from within. The results stated that 56% of Catholics who responded to the poll indicated that they believed a unified school system (Catholic and Public) would cost less to run and save money, while 52% of the Catholics polled said that a unified board would be more accountable and provide better education."
A non-Catholic (Peter Jones) who ran for Catholic school trustee in Brantford the last election on a one school system platform (eliminate Catholic boards) garnered almost 1 in 5 votes from Catholic ratepayers. He was very open about his position. Many Catholics are pro one school system, but won't speak out for fear of retribution against their kids. Give them a secret ballot, however, and they will speak their mind.
I think if you had a public debate on the future of Catholic schools, that is, if a major party actually proposed it, you'd find few Catholics willing to wear the "religious bigot" label they would inevitably wear while trying to argue "More rights for us -- we are more equal than others". The media was almost universally pro one school system in the 2007 election and will be again when the issue next comes up. The status quo is indefensible. Few people would want to publicly defend it -- that is a hopeless task.
The suggestion that there would be a general Catholic insurrection if the end of Catholic schools was proposed is therefore nonsense. They are not a bunch of bigoted goons. No such insurrection took place in the other provinces that eliminated Catholic schools -- and they had a greater proportion of Catholics in their populations.
Catholic education vested interests peddle crazy myths like "the Constitution is hard to change" and "there would be a Catholic insurrection" because they can't justify their preferential treatment or the wastefulness of dual overlapping systems. They want to discourage and scare people. They are grasping at straws -- lies actually, in desperation.
.
Mahmud that's just the sort of thing that's really unhelpful and contributes to getting these threads off the rails. Thanks for restraining yourself in the future.
.
Ya gotta wonder just what that would look like.
As I have posted in related threads, I really think a single quality publically funded public school system is an idea whose time has come. I believe a party with the will to do so, and the skills to really put put out the message in a clear and convincing way (at the moment that's nobody) would be pleasantly surprised at the polls.
There is a party that ran on that. The Greens. They won 0 seats.
Mahmud that's just the sort of thing that's really unhelpful and contributes to getting these threads off the rails. Thanks for restraining yourself in the future.
Ok oldgoat. I retract, apologize and come to the core subject.
The spineless ONDP position is an example of sacrificing the principles of equality and fairness for political expediency.
There is a party that ran on that. The Greens. They won 0 seats.
Good point. People should just give up now.
Maybe. At the very least they should stop claiming it's a political winner when there is no evidence that it is.
All parties are forced to play by the unwritten rules of political expediency. It's a product of our obsolete electoral system. And Howard Hampton was the only leader of the three main parties to publicly endorse MMP during the last election campaign. If you prefer the millions of wasted votes and paternalistic governments taking Ontario voters for granted, and their non-transparency when governning by what amounts to dictatorial rule, then you should make good and sure not to vote NDP. It's your guarantee that politicians will be forced to continue playing to a fickle and politically conservative phony majority of voters electing governments in this province.
There is a party that ran on that. The Greens. They won 0 seats.
They increased their popular vote from 3% to 8%. The fact that they didn't win any seats is an artifact of our phony voting system.
Truly. In a fair voting system this incredibly resonant issue would have taken them from fourth place to fourth place.
Quite right Spector. The Greens were coming from a place of weakness and for the most part very poorly resourced local campaigns and volunteers, and yet they got 8% of the vote. In fact they came very close to unseating a popular con MPP in Owen Sound. The local green candidate gardnered the support of normally lib supporters, NDP supporters, and also some cons (who didn't want to fund all religion schools).
I also know that the green candidate was supported by people who work in the education field because it is those people who know that propping up 4 school systems is not in the best interests of kids and their educational needs in Ontario.
There is a party that ran on that. The Greens. They won 0 seats.
Good point. People should just give up now.
And the Greens had their best showing ever in 2007, going from 2.82% popular vote to 8.02%. In terms of gains, they had the best showing of all parties. That's what happens when you get onside with an idea like one school system that is supported by the majority of the population. You draw new support from across the political spectrum.
Poll after poll in the 2007 election showed that most Ontarians want one school system more than the status quo or the extended funding proposal of the Tories, but support for new parties grows slowly. It takes time to shake a fringe label, but now that the Greens are outpolling the ONDP in many areas, perceptions are changing. They will attract better and better candidates and their policies will become more coherent and credible.
And what of the sorry ONDP? They had perhaps their most dismal showing ever in the 2007 election. One thing the ONDP has going for them is a better policy apparatus, but they could have had a much stronger platform with the addition of one policy -- one school system.
Failure to embrace a one school system policy was a huge opportunity lost for the ONDP in 2007. Will they blow it again in 2011? I predict that as soon as one of the big three parties adopt a one school system policy, the other parties will follow. They could not afford to head into an election being portrayed as defenders of waste and unjustifiable privilege for a favoured few. It is so easy to argue the merits of one school system, while it is impossible to convincingly argue the merits of the status quo. It is immoral, unjust, and fiscally and environmentally irresponsible.
The Greens' one school system proposal was largely if not mostly responsible for their outstanding success in 2007. To suggest that it contributed to a failure on their part is ridiculous. They made tremendous gains.
Canada will likely be censured by the UN Human Rights Committe again next year for the discrimination in the Ontario school system (on the occassion of their sixth periodic report on how they give effect to the rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). What parties in Ontario will be standing on the side of the righteous when that happens? Will the ONDP be among them? Or will they blow a golden opportunity again?
Unfortunately, the current ONDP leader is quite hostile to discussing this issue.
Truly. In a fair voting system this incredibly resonant issue would have taken them from fourth place to fourth place.
And of course, in the Sunday Hat theory of political campaigning, the worst sin of all is to lose.
To avoid this, a party must forget about promising to do what's right, and instead do what it thinks is popular.
You're not intimidated by grumpy people like Horvath, are you LP? Please say it ain't so. I thought, from previous discussion threads, that you were on our side. Been whipped into line by the ONDP brass?
Horvath is indeed hostile to even discussion of this issue, but so what? Does she own the Ontario New Democratic Party? Or has it become the Ontario New Autocratic Party on her watch? Her position on the one school system issue is incredibly bigoted, hypocritical, and weak -- and especially outrageous coming from one of the privileged elite (she is a Catholic). Yet my comments on her drivel can wait for detailed dissection in another post.
Not at all. I'm no NDP partisan cheerleader. I hope people continue the fight for one school system inside and outside the NDP.
And I've been pretty disappointed with Horwath's leadership so far.
That's quite something isn't it? The leader of a "democratic" party can be hostile to even discussing an issue? How can that be? Is that right? The suppression of free and open dialogue is not a characteristic of "democratic" parties.
That idea escaped me on first reading your post and just struck me now. Are ONDP members OK with that? Maybe they are used to it by now -- Hampton and the party brass have quashed free and open dialogue on the one school system issue for years.
The ONDP had a whole leadership campaign devoted to debate of this issue. The candidate who championed the issue came fourth - out of four. So, if we want to fly the democracy flag I'd say we had the debate and the people have spoken. Pretty decisively.
But, as M. Spector notes, I have a predilection for effective organizing that actually makes gains for people. A lot of people prefer masturbation. Stroke on!
All parties are forced to play by the unwritten rules of political expediency. It's a product of our obsolete electoral system. And Howard Hampton was the only leader of the three main parties to publicly endorse MMP during the last election campaign. If you prefer the millions of wasted votes and paternalistic governments taking Ontario voters for granted, and their non-transparency when governning by what amounts to dictatorial rule, then you should make good and sure not to vote NDP. It's your guarantee that politicians will be forced to continue playing to a fickle and politically conservative phony majority of voters electing governments in this province.
ًWell the ONDP well knows that unlike on the Catholic funding issue, the MMP game is stacked. Cons and Libs enjoy it too much to change it. If political expediency is part of the political game, are lack of vision and plain stupidity too?
I found that unacceptable and tried to enrol my children in the local Catholic school, where I was turned down cold on account of the non-Catholic "colour" of my faith.
Let me get this straight. The school is publicly funded but is not accessible to the public? Hmmm....
Doesn't it make sense that any school that accepts public money must needs be universally accessible?
Democracy is the right's most hated institution still.
On the contrary. The majority group, be it ethnic or religious, loves democracy (not to be confused with justice) because it legitimizes a 50% + 1 majority dictatorship and suppresion of the minority. let's not forget that democracy is only a means to an end and is neither good nor bad in its own right. It's but a tool which put in the wrong hands could be used as a weapon.
By the way, if the issue is too hot for the ONDP to support officially, then would it not be possible for the ONDP to at least adopt no policy on it and leave it up to each individual MP to decide for himself whether to support this religious apartheid? At least it would prevent the ONDP from adopting an explicitely discriminatory stance.
All parties are forced to play by the unwritten rules of political expediency. It's a product of our obsolete electoral system. And Howard Hampton was the only leader of the three main parties to publicly endorse MMP during the last election campaign. If you prefer the millions of wasted votes and paternalistic governments taking Ontario voters for granted, and their non-transparency when governning by what amounts to dictatorial rule, then you should make good and sure not to vote NDP. It's your guarantee that politicians will be forced to continue playing to a fickle and politically conservative phony majority of voters electing governments in this province.
ًWell the ONDP well knows that unlike on the Catholic funding issue, the MMP game is stacked. Cons and Libs enjoy it too much to change it. If political expediency is part of the political game, are lack of vision and plain stupidity too?
It wasnt the NDP who created this school system. And it's not an NDP in government in Toronto today and grossly under-funding elementary schools at lower per student amount than secondary schools by comparison.
If you enjoy games of political expediency and about a fifth of eligible voters choosing your government, and you enjoy underfunded elementary schools in Ontario, then make damn good and sure not to vote NDP. I guarantee you'll get more of the same.
Really? The whole campaign was devoted to the one school system issue? I don't think so, but it certainly was something people wanted to discuss. It was probably one of the few issues that made the media pay any attention at all -- probably because they saw it as the ONDP considering an issue where they could make a difference and and issue that could make a difference for the ONDP.
Supporters of one school system had to fight to even get to debate whether to get to debate the issue at the January 2007 policy conference. They failed to get a full debate on the issue. In their annual report shortly after, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association wrote:
And the largest donors for the other three? The Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association. What a surprise. See this post giving details of that. All Michael Prue wanted to do is let the debate happen -- to let the party be democratic. The Catholic teachers worked hard to make sure he didn't get the chance. The desperately want to prevent the issue from seeing the light of day or getting to a debate.
What were they afraid of? They don't want a big three party to give expression to the majority desire of the electorate for one school system or the jig is up for them. They are terrified of that possibility because it spells the end of a system where they have always enjoyed a greater number of job opportunities.
We haven't touched on this yet in this discussion, but it is worth noting at this point that one third of the publicly funded teaching jobs in Ontario are effectively closed to two thirds of the population -- the non-Catholics. One must be a practicing Catholic with a letter from a Catholic priest to be hired by a Catholic school board. Non-Catholic teachers are as rare as hens teeth in Ontario Catholic schools. Those that you can find are in temporary positions and are ineligible for advancement or promotion. The ones I've met and spoke to are all dying to find a position in a public board and get out of there. They want a secure and stable career. Can anyone blame them?
Catholics pay the same taxes as anyone else, but have 50% more job opportunities than their non-Catholic neighbours. Sweet. Another bonus deal for Catholics. And the ONDP is party to OECTA's efforts to keep that sweet deal for Catholics -- to their shame.
Welcome to aparthied brother -- Ontario style!
If you are a white (Catholic) kid, you get to go to the white (Catholic) school and teach there when you grow up. If you are black (non-Catholic), we have a different school for you. Of course, if the black (public) school in a given area has better facilities, programs, or test scores, white (Catholic) kids can still go there if they want. White (Catholic) kids can also teach at the black (public) schools when they grow up. The reverse, black (non-Catholic) kids getting into white (Catholic) schools, is only possible if the white (Catholic) school is underenrolled and desperate for a few more holy enrolment grants. Blacks (non-Catholics) teaching at white (Catholic) schools is out of the question unless they are desperate and unable to find a white (Catholic) teacher. When black (non-Catholic) teachers are hired, it is bye-bye blackie as soon as a qualified white (Catholic) teacher can be found.
That's the way it has been in Ontario since 1841. Let me hear you say "Amen", white (Catholic) parents and teachers.
This all has the support of the ONDP and Ontario's other big three parties. Only the Greens can see the wrong in it.
The trotting out of the "oppressed Catholic" talk here by several posters is really disturbing. Yeah Catholics are soooo oppressed in today's Ontario (where all three major party leaders are Catholic).
Democracy is the right's most hated institution still.
On the contrary. The majority group, be it ethnic or religious, loves democracy (not to be confused with justice) because it legitimizes a 50% + 1 majority dictatorship and suppresion of the minority.
And whenever they do manage the rare 50% plus one, it's usually a phony majority still when compared to how many people didnt vote.
And even the Green party leader LP -- Frank de Jong is Catholic as well (and he likes the one school system idea, I might add). The fact that all four leaders are Catholic actually creates perfect conditions for a move to one school system -- provided they are not all intolerant bigots (Frank de Jong is obviously not). Both Quebec and Newfoundland had Catholic leaders when they dismantled denominational schools. It kind of takes away the ability of the religious elite to play the "persecuted" card, not that anyone with an IQ over 50 would believe that those atop the pedestal of educational privilege are persecuted anyway.
Up here in Northern Ontario, they would often burn barns down if the spelling of their surname looked funny and especially if you were Catholic. It wasnt so long ago there were orangemen and even klan meetings here. Not long before I was born, they used to burn crosses on the hill in centre of town.
Well, maybe they'll just burn down all the Catholic schools and problem solved. Thanks for the update from the front lines, Fidel.
Well, maybe they'll just burn down all the Catholic schools and problem solved.
A complete waste of time and effort. Burning down Queen's Perk would be much more productive. And besides, she's not my queen. And the red chamber in Ottawa could do with some redecorating.
Welcome to aparthied brother -- Ontario style!
If you are a white (Catholic) kid, you get to go to the white (Catholic) school and teach there when you grow up. If you are black (non-Catholic), we have a different school for you. Of course, if the black (public) school in a given area has better facilities, programs, or test scores, white (Catholic) kids can still go there if they want. White (Catholic) kids can also teach at the black (public) schools when they grow up. The reverse, black (non-Catholic) kids getting into white (Catholic) schools, is only possible if the white (Catholic) school is underenrolled and desperate for a few more holy enrolment grants. Blacks (non-Catholics) teaching at white (Catholic) schools is out of the question unless they are desperate and unable to find a white (Catholic) teacher. When black (non-Catholic) teachers are hired, it is bye-bye blackie as soon as a qualified white (Catholic) teacher can be found.
That's the way it has been in Ontario since 1841. Let me hear you say "Amen", white (Catholic) parents and teachers.
This all has the support of the ONDP and Ontario's other big three parties. Only the Greens can see the wrong in it.
I must tell that to my niece and nephew who send their children to a catholic school since I am sure they didn't know it was a race issue. They are like Obama from a north american white mother and a black immigrant father. To say there are no catholics who are black and send their kids to those indoctrination centres is inaccurate. I don't know the percentage but in most catholic communities I have seen recently (my family is catholic but not me) I notice that there seem to be a larger percentage who are Filipino or Latin American or Korean. Lots of us white folks have fled the church leaving plenty of room in the pews for immigrants from catholic countries.
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
The trotting out of the "oppressed Catholic" talk here by several posters is really disturbing. Yeah Catholics are soooo oppressed in today's Ontario (where all three major party leaders are Catholic).
Apartheid? Isnt that where they segregated people onto narrow strips of land outside major cities controlled by whites? And they were abused by police to extremes? Our colonial administrators would never do anything like that in Canada, would they?
It's a papist conspiracy! We won't be governed by Rome! Quickly! To the Orange Lodge!
It says a lot about your character, Sunday Hat, that you would make light of very serious waste and discrimination that has real consequences for all Ontarians generally, but for non-Catholics in particular. Suggesting, even by implication, that opposition to the preferential treatment of Catholics is rooted in anti-Catholic sentiment is particularly reprehensible. Where is your evidence of an anti-Catholic, Orange bogeyman conspiracy?
Supporters of one school system just want equality -- and if it were white people who sat atop the pedestal of educational privilege, the situation would be no more or no less objectionable. This really has little to do with religion. It has more to do with wasteful spending and discrimination on prohibited grounds (religion, race, or ethnic group).
It is bad enough that non-Catholic parents must sometimes shell out money that their Catholic neigbours don't have to pay, that your kids may have to be bussed well past the nearest publicly funded school to attend another school, that those of your non-Catholic ilk have a third fewer teaching opportunities than their Catholic neighbours, or that your religion does not get the government assistance the Catholic faith does; but when someone (presumably Catholic) then rubs your face in it by suggesting that YOU are persecuting HIM by daring to protest HIS preferential treatment, it is beyond outrageous. We only want fair and equal treatment.
It is really hard to believe that a person who would object to his neighbour seeking equality, or who would make light of that, could be either Catholic or Christian. Perhaps you are in the great majority of Catholics: those who trundle their kids off to Catholic school while sleeping in on Sunday morning because the Government of Ontario relieves you of the need to be involved in the spiritual and moral upbringing of your children. You could use the lessons you might get from the pulpit, my friend.
Religious intolerance was a real and dreadful reality in 19th century Ontario and was perhaps the most significant factor leading to the creation of Catholic separate schools. We are so fortunate it has been virtually eradicated today, save for a few like you who would callously dredge it up while suggesting, without so much as a shred of evidence, that others are religiously intolerant.
I'm afraid you totally missed my point, my friend. I wasn't talking about whites and blacks, I was talking about the privileged and the non-privileged in the Ontario school system, represented by the purely symbolic labels "white" (Catholic) and "black" (non-Catholic) respectively.
You bring up an interesting topic for another day, however: the relative diversity of Ontario's public and Catholic school systems.
We have had many immigrants to Canada and professionals trained in other countries and experiencing higher than white Canadian average unemployment levels. Over 200,000 Latino argricultural workers have been working seasonally here for 20 and 30 years and can't apply for citizenship or so much as EI benefits. And they'ev worked hard at back-breaking work in Canada's agruicultural industry for a large part of their working lives. I can't imagine a group of workers in Canada who are mainly Catholic and discriminated against moreso.
A Ryerson study of a couple of years ago revealed that somewhere over 650,000 first and second generation Asian emigres left Canada and many citing a lack of job opportunities. And the study revealed that we let some of Asia's best educated and well trained professionals leave our fair country. The reaons for the exodus could have been everything from nepotism and corruption at local levels, to plain old racism right here in Canada. The colour of the street in our major cities is varied, But some say as you ascend the floors in buildings and office towers of some well known Canadian businesses, banks, and even government buildings, the colour of the street tends to disappear as you make your way to the top.
We have had many immigrants to Canada and professionals trained in other countries and experiencing higher than white Canadian average unemployment levels. Over 200,000 Latino argricultural workers have been working seasonally here for 20 and 30 years and can't apply for citizenship or so much as EI benefits. And they'ev worked hard at back-breaking work in Canada's agruicultural industry for a large part of their working lives.
A Ryerson study of a couple of years ago revealed that somewhere over 650,000 first and second generation Asian emigres left Canada and many citing a lack of job opportunities. And the study revealed that we let some of Asia's best educated and well trained professionals leave our fair country. The reaons for the exodus could have been everything from nepotism and corruption at local levels, to plain old racism right here in Canada. The colour of the street in our major cities is varied, But some say as you ascend the floors in buildings and office towers of some well known Canadian businesses, banks, and even government buildings, the colour of the street tends to disappear as you make your way to the top.
And this is evidence of an anti-Catholic, Orange bogeyman conspiracy? What is your point?
The trotting out of the "oppressed Catholic" talk here by several posters is really disturbing. Yeah Catholics are soooo oppressed in today's Ontario (where all three major party leaders are Catholic).
The choice of words was completely appropriate, although I can understand how the privileged folks seeking to protect Ontario's educational aparthied might want to avoid the negative connotations of the word. The meaning of the word long ago expanded to include any sort of "policy or practice of separating or segregating groups".
See the definition of "aparthied".
We have had many immigrants to Canada and professionals trained in other countries and experiencing higher than white Canadian average unemployment levels. Over 200,000 Latino argricultural workers have been working seasonally here for 20 and 30 years and can't apply for citizenship or so much as EI benefits. And they'ev worked hard at back-breaking work in Canada's agruicultural industry for a large part of their working lives.
A Ryerson study of a couple of years ago revealed that somewhere over 650,000 first and second generation Asian emigres left Canada and many citing a lack of job opportunities. And the study revealed that we let some of Asia's best educated and well trained professionals leave our fair country. The reaons for the exodus could have been everything from nepotism and corruption at local levels, to plain old racism right here in Canada. The colour of the street in our major cities is varied, But some say as you ascend the floors in buildings and office towers of some well known Canadian businesses, banks, and even government buildings, the colour of the street tends to disappear as you make your way to the top.
And this is evidence of an anti-Catholic, Orange bogeyman conspiracy? What is your point?
The point is that racism does exist in Canada. And some say there is evidence that racism is systematic in our fake G8 country, our Northern Puerto Rico with a few polar bears. We're not talking about a country or province that is perfect in every way except for its separate school system in place since Confederation, no. We have duplication of expensive and inefficient government bureaucracy like few modern countries in the world put up with. We have racism, and we have corruption at the highest levels of government. And we are still forced to endure an obsolete Westminster electoral setup that was invented before electricity. So here's my question to you: What is your point? Is it our goal to clean up Bananada by closing down the separate school at a time in Ontario on school at a time? I think the NDP's energy conservation and efficiency proposal would save more money and the environment at the same time. As you can tell, I didnt vote Liberal in the last election.
You quoted my question to Sunday Hat regarding his "evidence of an anti-Catholic, Orange bogeyman conspiracy" as if you were providing such evidence and then you immediately went off topic.
I agree with you there are other injustices to correct in Canada such as the ones you identify, but that doesn't relate to my question that you quoted -- or to the focus of this discussion: how it pays to be Catholic in education in Ontario. I just didn't know what you were driving at. Thanks for the clarification.
The Klan and Orange order idiots and rightwing militia whackos arent supposed to exist in the States either. But they do. Racism in Canada isnt based so much on skin colour as are more subtle angles to it, such as the spelling of your last name, which often implies religious affiliation etc. Today they don't burn your barn down in places like Northern Ontario - they just don't hire you if they can help it.
Not long before I was born, they used to burn crosses on the hill in centre of town.
Would that have been in Prince George, Hedy?
Not long before I was born, they used to burn crosses on the hill in centre of town.
Would that have been in Prince George, Hedy?
Sault Ste Marie on Moffley Hill, two hills down from the highschool I attended. There was an orangeman and suspected Klan member/mason in the hood where I grew up. He ended up murdering his wife with a shotgun about the time I was born. He did about four or five years in prison for it.
And even the Green party leader LP -- Frank de Jong is Catholic as well (and he likes the one school system idea, I might add). The fact that all four leaders are Catholic actually creates perfect conditions for a move to one school system -- provided they are not all intolerant bigots (Frank de Jong is obviously not). Both Quebec and Newfoundland had Catholic leaders when they dismantled denominational schools. It kind of takes away the ability of the religious elite to play the "persecuted" card, not that anyone with an IQ over 50 would believe that those atop the pedestal of educational privilege are persecuted anyway.
What was I thinking?! I was raised Catholic, my mother is Cathoic, I'd gone to an Ontario French-Catholic school in Ottawa in elementary school before moving to BC, and even did my confirmation (under peer pressure from classmates, teachers, and family) ... and turned away from the Catholic Faith. Well, I guess that shoots my opportunities down in Ontario politics, doesn't it. :D
And for those who are offended at the word apartheid, I can't remember if I used the word in a post above, but if so, my apologies. I'll use the word unjust instead. Is that better?
unjust is fine, "apartheid" is rhetorical and inflaming. This is about equality and justice for all in order to provide the best opportunities for all kids for their educational needs - public.
Not long before I was born, they used to burn crosses on the hill in centre of town.
Would that have been in Prince George, Hedy?
Sault Ste Marie on Moffley Hill, two hills down from the highschool I attended. There was an orangeman and suspected Klan member/mason in the hood where I grew up. He ended up murdering his wife with a shotgun about the time I was born. He did about four or five years in prison for it.
I wasn't aware of that. Well, that's reason enough to protect the Catholic kids in their own separate publicly funded schools, I guess.
I wasn't trying to suggest that either. What I am suggesting is that Catholics were not always considered to be the first class A-1 citizens they are made out to be in comments above. And somewhere arpund 200,000 agricultural workers from Latin America, and mostly Catholics, are certainly not treated like first class citizens in this country either. In fact, they have very few rights in this country after putting in 20 and 30 years of their working lives as seasonal workers here. Carry on.
Fidel, I mean this very sincerely. My folks made it (through sheer dumb luck) through genocide not that long ago, based on racial and ethnic hatred and segregation and the rest of it. But we don't need separate public schools, separate neighbourhoods, or a separate country. Catholics - longer ago in history - suffered oppression in many countries, and discrimination and second-class status in Canada. I'll leave you to draw the conclusion.
ETA: Just read your addition about Catholic farm workers from Latin America. I guess if they were Protestant, they'd be getting decent wages and working conditions. In the meantime, they'll need separate publicly-funded Catholic schools, to perpetuate their oppression I guess. I just honestly don't get you sometimes.
So because your parents suffered under a dictatorship which rounded up and murdered Jews(and Catholics etc), there should be no Catholic schools in Ontario? I think I'm seeing things your way now. Carry on.
Just read your ETA: No, I don't think Protestant Latinos should be treated any worse than Catholics. What I would expect from Canadians, if I were Latino myself, would be some understanding of the repression in the country I might be coming from.
My father spent five years in n. Africa and Italy and Holland, and finally Belgium during the war, and as much as he disliked being bothered by Jehovah's, for example, he always cut them some slack knowing what they went through in Europe. He said he didnt fight in the war so any religious group could suffer some more here in Canada.
Not of direct relevance to this topic, but of interest to followers of the publicly funded Catholic education debate:
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/lgbtq/catholic-school-fires-teacher-changing-god-given-gender
This discussion centers around the termination of a Catholic teacher in Alberta for a gender change.
These Latin American farm workers are not super-expolited and treated like crap because they are Catholic. I'm sure the non-Catholics among them are treated just as badly.
The key word here is "were" (past tense). In ancient Ontario, there may have been intolerance against Catholics, but it was mutual -- Catholics were intolerant against Protestants in 19th century Ontario as well. It it total and complete BS to suggest that Catholics are persecuted or the victims of intolerance in Ontario today. Catholics are now the largest religious minority in the province (34% of the population according to the 2001 Census) and arguably the least in need of protection. In many ways, they are socio-economically advantaged. Also accoring to the 2001 Census, Catholics suffer suffer lower unemployment and have a higher level of educational attainment (high school, college, university) than the Ontario averages. Within the school system, non-Catholics are now the people facing intolerance and "non-Catholic" includes a much more varied lot than is covered by the "Protestant" label. Non-Catholics are the primary religious victims today, not Catholics. Catholics are at the top of the social order.
These Latin American farm workers are not super-expolited and treated like crap because they are Catholic. I'm sure the non-Catholics among them are treated just as badly.
Amen. If these agricultural workers are exploited, it is because they are from a poor country and will work on the cheap, not because of their religion. It is absolute BS to suggest otherwise. Catholicism is the faith of privilege in Ontario. We are talking about Ontario today, not the Ontario of our great-great-great-great-great grandfather's generation.
OL12, don't overdo it please. You can oppose public funding of religious schools. You can oppose the Church and its influence in education. You can oppose segregation in our school system. You will find broad agreement here and elsewhere on those issues. But when you start making comments about "Catholics" vs. "non-Catholics", you definitely lose at least one ally here.
OL12, don't overdo it please. You can oppose public funding of religious schools. You can oppose the Church and its influence in education. You can oppose segregation in our school system. You will find broad agreement here and elsewhere on those issues. But when you start making comments about "Catholics" vs. "non-Catholics", you definitely lose at least one ally here.
It's not Catholics vs. non-Catholics, Unionist -- it's about waste and discrimination.
As for overdoing it, it is the BS assertion, without any evidence, that Catholics are somehow persecuted or hard done by in Ontario today that is over the top. That is simply preposterous and shouldn't go unchallenged.
I wasn't trying to suggest that either. What I am suggesting is that Catholics were not always considered to be the first class A-1 citizens they are made out to be in comments above. And somewhere arpund 200,000 agricultural workers from Latin America, and mostly Catholics, are certainly not treated like first class citizens in this country either. In fact, they have very few rights in this country after putting in 20 and 30 years of their working lives as seasonal workers here. Carry on.
I do agree that catholics suffered discrimination too in the past. One way to counter that is to simply introduce world religion courses in school teaching respect for all. No need to go from discrimination to reverse discrimination.
Agreed.
One thing I should point out is that those harbouring prejudice against Catholics certainly don't help the cause of opposing special legal privileges for Catholic schools. I suppose one solution in any campaing for a just education system is to be equally outspoken for equality for all religious faiths and non-believers in Ontario and for respect for Catholics. This would make it clear that our opposition to the special privileges for Catholics is nothing personal against Catholics but would apply equally to all.
Regarding this idea that efforts to move Ontario to one school system are "Catholic vs. non-Catholic"; they are not. Our efforts are about achieving fairness, equality, and fiscal responsibility. It is about one group of people that suffer no disadvantage that might warrant their preferential treatment getting preferential treatment anyway. It is about the waste of enormous sums of money on duplicate school systems serving overlapping jurisdictions.
The fact that people are described in terms of "Catholic" and "non-Catholic" in the discussion reflects the unfortunate reality of the situation. It is the Ontario Government (all parties) that forces such terminology to be used by daring to discriminate for and against people based on the "colour" of their faith. With regard to educational rights, our government blatantly and brazenly distinguishes between persons based on faith (normally a prohibited ground for discrimination) -- specifically discriminating based on whether they are Catholic or non-Catholic. That is reprehensible in itself (both to non-Catholics and many Catholics), but it also has the unfortunate consequence of leading to discussions that necessarily make the same distinctions.
If people do not want such distinctions to be made, they should take the issue up with the Ontario Government, because such distinctions are made in Ontario law. The Government does have the authority to change things -- they choose not to. Don't take issue with those who are merely describing the reality of the situation accurately and who are understandably upset about it. We hate making these distinctions more than anyone (since the distinction in law legislates a situation in which non-Catholics have inferior rights), but they inevitably result from the reality of Ontario law.
Green leader Frank de Jong presents the case for one system here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqSfLKF0Qhc
I don't fully agree with one unified school system though. It's clear that French-medium and English-medium schools will have different needs as far as teacher training, materials, culture, etc. are concerned. Same with schools teaching indigenous languages, etc. But I could see only one unified English-medium school system, one unified French-medium school system, etc. This would save on translation costs within each system.
From an incrementalist standpoint, if it should not be possible to eliminate the separate school system, then one first step could eb to at require at least those schools receiving public funding to accept pupils on a first-come-first-served basis and not on religious grounds. Then, if a non-catholic parent decides to send his child to a public Catholic school for reasons of convenience, etc., then the onus would be on the school ot figure out how to accommodate him. That could be a start at least.
And the requirement in my post above is not farfetched when we consider that in the Swedish system, even privately owned schools receiving any public funding through their voucher programme are bound by the first-come-first-served principle. So how much more a state-owned school which Ontario's public Catholic schools are.
I don't fully agree with one unified school system though. It's clear that French-medium and English-medium schools will have different needs as far as teacher training, materials, culture, etc. are concerned. Same with schools teaching indigenous languages, etc. But I could see only one unified English-medium school system, one unified French-medium school system, etc.
Language rights are not at stake in this debate:
"To realize that vision, OSSN seeks the establishment of a single secular school system for each official language, namely English and French public school boards."
I don't fully agree with one unified school system though. It's clear that French-medium and English-medium schools will have different needs as far as teacher training, materials, culture, etc. are concerned. Same with schools teaching indigenous languages, etc. But I could see only one unified English-medium school system, one unified French-medium school system, etc.
Language rights are not at stake in this debate:
"To realize that vision, OSSN seeks the establishment of a single secular school system for each official language, namely English and French public school boards."
Fair enough.
And a related thread here:
http://rabble.ca/babble/central-canada/incrementalist-approaches-elimina...
It's not Catholics vs. non-Catholics, Unionist -- it's about waste and discrimination.
This same thought was shared by western world economists at start of the decade, and it said that government spending as a share of economic output should be reduced to somewhere between 15 percent and a third of GDP. But there is a wide array of excessive government wrt the unique setup in Canada. Our's must be the one of the few countries in the world to have this weird arrangement with weak central government and twelve provincial and territorial sub-governments, a model of duplicative excess and inefficiency constructed by 19th century ideologues Canada probably has more government bureaucracy than 90 percent of countries in the world. Reducing this kind of excess doesn't interest some Canadians apparently. The focus is on a specific religious group seen to be pulling the whole country down from their point of view.
I don't think the education budget should be trimmed at all - and the "saving money" argument doesn't appeal to me. I support ending the separate school system on principle.
The it's the right thing to do also appeals to my better judgment, LP. I can't argue against that very well.
It's not Catholics vs. non-Catholics, Unionist -- it's about waste and discrimination.
This same thought was shared by western world economists at start of the decade, and it said that government spending as a share of economic output should be reduced to somewhere between 15 percent and a third of GDP. But there is a wide array of excessive government wrt the unique setup in Canada. Our's must be the one of the few countries in the world to have this weird arrangement with weak central government and twelve provincial and territorial sub-governments, a model of duplicative excess and inefficiency constructed by 19th century ideologues Canada probably has more government bureaucracy than 90 percent of countries in the world. Reducing this kind of excess doesn't interest some Canadians apparently. The focus is on a specific religious group seen to be pulling the whole country down from their point of view.
About time to reduce the confederation to one of Canada, Quebec and Nunavut. France has about 62 million inhabitants and one ministry of education. Canada has half the population and 13 ministries of education. Ridiculous !
It's not Catholics vs. non-Catholics, Unionist -- it's about waste and discrimination.
This same thought was shared by western world economists at start of the decade, and it said that government spending as a share of economic output should be reduced to somewhere between 15 percent and a third of GDP. But there is a wide array of excessive government wrt the unique setup in Canada. Our's must be the one of the few countries in the world to have this weird arrangement with weak central government and twelve provincial and territorial sub-governments, a model of duplicative excess and inefficiency constructed by 19th century ideologues Canada probably has more government bureaucracy than 90 percent of countries in the world. Reducing this kind of excess doesn't interest some Canadians apparently. The focus is on a specific religious group seen to be pulling the whole country down from their point of view.
About time to reduce the confederation to one of Canada, Quebec and Nunavut. France has about 62 million inhabitants and one ministry of education. Canada has half the population and 13 ministries of education. Ridiculous !
Seeing that education defines the culture of the next generation, you would think we'd support one single nationwide federal ministry of education. The problem though is that, unlike France which, like England albeit to a much lesser degree, has for the most part subdued its indigenous cultures (where do you think we learnt it from?), in Canada, the english have failed to subdue the French-Canadian population and the First Nations are still in a fighting stance of sorts. As a result, we're always trying to balance out competing interests. Clearly Quebec would never give up its ministry of education to the federal level. First Nations educaiton on reserves is funded by the feds. Then each province has its own identity. Canada is a UN of sorts, an international conglomeration.
Machjo,
I am not arguing for one federal ministry of education, but three. Canada, Quebec and the Aboriginals. I do wonder what is exactly this arangement that makes Ontario, PEI, Manitoba and the whole provinces of Anglo-Canada so different if not a modern day British tribalism.
Machjo,
I am not arguing for one federal ministry of education, but three. Canada, Quebec and the Aboriginals. I do wonder what is exactly this arangement that makes Ontario, PEI, Manitoba and the whole provinces of Anglo-Canada so different if not a modern day British tribalism.
Good points. Be aware though that the First Nations themselves are as diverse from one another as English-Canada is from French-Canada. I'm sure they're not interested in just assimilating into the more powerful Cree or Inuktitut communities either. For them it might be better to have one a ministry of department of education for each nation with federal transfer payments to them I suppose.
Linking this thread to related discussions for the benefit of those of us who never tire of discussing Ontario's wasteful and discriminatory dual school systems (until there is one anyway
):
Jan 13, 2010: In Ontario, in education, it pays to be Catholic II (full day kindergarten)
Jan 7, 2010: Ontario NDP Education Task Force starts
Oct 1, 2009: Catholic school fires teacher for changing God-given gender
Sep 26, 2009: In Ontario, in education, it still pays to be Catholic
Mar 25, 2009: Why the constitution is relevant to discussion of denominational schools
Mar 13, 2009: Is there a principled, progressive case for continued support for funding separate schools?
Closing for length.