It is a fact that most boards will only hire non-catholic teachers if Catholic are not available and expect all applicants to supply a pastoral reference.
Employment FAQ from one board.
http://www.ldcsb.on.ca/Community/careers/Documents/FAQ Info.pdf
Should a Protestant work in the Catholic school board?
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Employment FAQ from one board.
http://www.ldcsb.on.ca/Community/careers/Documents/FAQ Info.pdf
Only true for secondary. Most elementary boards will only allow practicing Catholics to attend.
It grandfathered the existing situation at that time. They had the right to opt out of funding the public boards and fund their own board at the time of union and this Act of the British Parliament forbids removing that. Potentially the Provinces that joined later than the original union of Upper and Lower Canada are not bound to fund them, but at least the original Provinces are bound by that Act.
School funding isn't entirely public. People choose which school board to fund on their property tax, thus, Catholic parents can opt out of funding the public system, and fund their own board instead. Originally this was the only way schools were funded.
However in the modern world, the Province tops up local funding with per pupil funding designed to ensure everybody gets the same education even if they live in a poorer community. Whether the Province could withhold the per pupil payments.. who knows.. seems like it would be challenged as discriminating based on religion, given that the Catholic boards are required to exist as peers to the non Catholic system.
What an ass hat!!! The constitution as the BNA act spells out clear divisions of power between the federal and provincial governments, The provinces have jurisdiction over things such as; education, health, natural resources, the Federal government has jurisdiction over things such as, justice, negotiating with other states, banking, defense. The federal government has NO jurisdiction over education at all full stop! Any discretionary funding to the provinces for education or health is in the form of discretionary funding which comes in the form of a block funding and by law cannot dictate how and where the money is used.
Stop confusing the two issues.
Stop confusing the two issues.
The constitution grandfathered rights that existed at confederation. That applies to the rights that existed in Upper and Lower Canada at confederation. It isn't clear that it would apply to other provinces that joined after the original confederation, where there were no preexisting religious school rights.
OK from an ignorant Protestant what is Catholic Education perspective?
Tell me how the CEP is used in math class in music class in chemistry class etc.
I just don't buy or get the Catholic School system. It is a costly unnecessary tax burden.
Four years ago two schools were built in my neighbourhood. The schools were identical. They share the playgrounds etc. School buses go up and down the streets dropping off kids to the respective schools. It is duplication of services! If you want your kids to have religion in their lives take them to CHURCH!
What exactly does the BNA have to do with the funding of catholic schools or the admission of students or faculty to the aforementioned? You keep citing an obsolete act that died in 1982. Ontario started full funding of catholic schools in 1984/85, what is your point? The BNA ceased being law of the land once the constitution was ratified, patriated and hence superseded the BNA of 1867.
The BNA gave specific and clear powers to each level of government where one can't over rule the other,
get your facts straight and stop trying to be the definitive voice on all matters especially ones you obviously know little or nothing about.
So, on one hand you are saying that the BNA is an " obsolete act" that "died" when the constitution was ratified. And in the same breath your are relying upon the BNA 's division of powers to substantiate your argument - and you really don't see any inherent flaws in the logic of your argument?
I don't like to let facts interfere with a good rant but have you actually read the Constitution Act, 1982? You know, all the way to the end where it references the BNA and makes the BNA part of the Constitution of Canada?
The Constitution, coupled with the BNA trumps all boys.
Look at it this way.... The forefathers in USA seen fit to, for instance, bear arms . It's engrained. Cannot be changed without a lot of rigmarole.
So, if you against catholic funding, u would be like the American against guns.....always pulling your hair out Tryna get change.
Look at it this way.... The forefathers in USA seen fit to, for instance, bear arms . It's engrained. Cannot be changed without a lot of rigmarole.
So, if you against catholic funding, u would be like the American against guns.....always pulling your hair out Tryna get change.
You've summarized the most important piece of the debate. There needs to be more school girls in kilts!:eyebrows:
Yes, elements of the BNA were rolled into constitution, yet nowhere in either document is there reference to the public funding of said schools, it only protects thier right to exist. And if put in historical context you would understand why it's mentioned. To paraphrase, it was intended to do was protect catholic schools for the French in Canada full stop. It wasn't aimed at enshrining the rights of Irish Catholics or the large Ukrainian population on the prairies. To answer the original question, yes Protestants should be able to work in catholic schools if those schools take our money.
1) Yes, those elements of the BNA Act (including Section 93) not specifically repealed by the Constitution Act, 1982 are still in effect, and are in fact subsumed within the latter.
2) Catholic and Protestant education in Quebec, and the denominational school system in Newfoundland, were equally constitutionally enshrined as separate school education in Ontario. Those provinces chose to eliminate religious school funding in the last two decades, and the federal government provided the necessary assistance. The exact same option, using the exact same mechanism, is available to Ontario; the provincial government chooses not to exercise that option.
3) The Supreme Court found that Ontario's separate school system would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they are specifically exempted from Charter scrutiny by Section 29 of that document. The UN, which is not limited by Canada's political bargaining, did find the separate school system in violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1999.
4) There is no moral or ethical argument in favour of the status quo. Either the provincial government should choose to fund schools of all religions equally (subject to transparent and impartial critera, such as sufficient demand within a reasonable catchment area), or it should fund none of them. The argument that the constitution imposes the status quo upon Ontario is an outright falsehood propagated by ignorance or dishonesty.
2) Catholic and Protestant education in Quebec, and the denominational school system in Newfoundland, were equally constitutionally enshrined as separate school education in Ontario. Those provinces chose to eliminate religious school funding in the last two decades, and the federal government provided the necessary assistance. The exact same option, using the exact same mechanism, is available to Ontario; the provincial government chooses not to exercise that option.
3) The Supreme Court found that Ontario's separate school system would be a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they are specifically exempted from Charter scrutiny by Section 29 of that document. The UN, which is not limited by Canada's political bargaining, did find the separate school system in violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1999.
4) There is no moral or ethical argument in favour of the status quo. Either the provincial government should choose to fund schools of all religions equally (subject to transparent and impartial critera, such as sufficient demand within a reasonable catchment area), or it should fund none of them. The argument that the constitution imposes the status quo upon Ontario is an outright falsehood propagated by ignorance or dishonesty.
No justification
This in itself, should prove the quoted to be correct.
The ONLY reason that it exists to-day in Ont., is lack of political will, which translates into guts.
If the Tories thought they would be elected as a majority, with elimination being part of the parties proposals,...it would be gone in a flash,...one can only hope.
Anyone who justifies its existence,...is looking at this in purely religious eyes, and not the rights of people of Ont.
FAST
As I understand, there are some Western provinces that never had publically funded "separate/ Catholic" school system.
This in itself, should prove the quoted to be correct.
The ONLY reason that it exists to-day in Ont., is lack of political will, which translates into guts.
If the Tories thought they would be elected as a majority, with elimination being part of the parties proposals,...it would be gone in a flash,...one can only hope.
Anyone who justifies its existence,...is looking at this in purely religious eyes, and not the rights of people of Ont.
FAST
The only "childish" thing here is your reading comprehension. Alas, this means the choice for you is clear.
Yes, I know that. That's the "necessary federal assistance" and the "mechanism" I referred to in my post. I'm sorry I was too subtle for you, next time I'll spell it out in flashing 3-inch letters so even you can't miss it.
Or are you suggesting that Ontario is somehow less capable of securing a constitutional amendment than Quebec or Newfoundland? Do you think our legislators and bureaucrats are "special" in some way?
I'm also aware of this, hence my commentary regarding "dishonesty". Politicians who decry the constitutional difficulty in abolishing separate school education, while conveniently neglecting to mention the campaign donations they receive from the likes of OECTA (e.g. the last NDP leadership race) are being mendacious.
