This page contains a selection of fast facts of probable interest to our audience.
 
Please report broken links to the Webmaster.
 
----------------
 
Myth:  The Ontario Government cannot do away with separate schools; their hands are constitutionally tied.
 
Fact: The Ontario government can indeed do away with separate schools. Suggestions to the contrary are at best misinformed and at worst, deliberately dishonest.  While Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 offers some protection for the denominational school rights existing at Confederation, it did not tie the hands of legislators for perpetuity.  Constitutional change in an area of provincial jurisdiction (such as education) can be accomplished through bilateral agreement between the province and the Parliament of Canada alone.  A wider consensus is not required.  Quebec and Newfoundland once had denominational school systems not unlike Ontario's.  Both provinces modernized their school systems in the 1990s following constitutional amendments permitting them to eliminate denominational schools.  Both provinces worked bilaterally with Ottawa alone in achieving those amendments.  In Newfoundland's case, the elapsed time from request to proclamation of the amendment was only four months.  Ontario could easily follow suit.
 
Constitution Amendment, 1997, (Quebec)
Constitution Amendment, 1998 (Newfoundland Act)
 
Back to top
 
----------------
 
Ontario Catholics Support One School 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.
 
Back to top
 
----------------
 
 
Back to top
 
----------------
 
Canada:  Human Rights Leader?
 
Canada ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on May 19th, 1976, with the consent of all provinces, including Ontario.  In November 1999, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found Canada in violation of the equality provisions of that Covenant by virtue of Ontario's discriminatory school system (see Waldman v. Canada).  That discrimination remains without remedy to this day, a situation that in November 2005 led the same Committee to censure Canada again for failing to "adopt steps in order to eliminate discrimination on the basis of religion in the funding of schools in Ontario." (see Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Canada. 02/11/2005).  The same day, an Iranian human rights envoy brushed off a Canadian sponsored UN resolution concerning human rights violations in Iran by wondering:  "Being charged itself with human rights violations, is Ottawa competent enough to initiate a human rights resolution in the UN against another country?"  The incident poignantly underscored the importance of living up to our human rights obligations.
 
As the table below illustrates, the discrimination in Ontario's school system violates a number of similar provisions in other international human rights instruments under which Canada has voluntarily undertaken responsibilities to persons in its jurisdiction.
 

Instrument	Date	Section(s) violated by virtue of the discrimination in the Ontario school system
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights	19 May 1976 (ratified). 19 Aug 1976 (entry into force).	2 (establishes that all other rights in the CCPR must be offerred without discrimination), 18, 26
Universal Declaration of Human Rights	10 Dec 1948 (adopted).   Declared to constitute "an obligation for the members of the international community" at the UN International Conference on Human Rights in 1968.	1, 2 (establishes that all other rights in the UDHR must be offerred without discrimination), 7, 18, 21(2), 26
Convention on the Rights of the Child	13 Dec 1991 (ratified). 12 Jan 1992 (entry into force).	2 (establishes that all other rights in the CRC must be offerred without discrimination), 14, 28
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief	25 Nov 1981 (proclaimed).	1, 2

 
Back to top
 
----------------
 
When can a separate board discriminate against non-Catholics in admissions?
 
At the elementary school level, all the time.  At the secondary school level, they must admit the children of public board supporters desiring admission beginning in grade 9.
 
The right to discriminate in admissions is exercised by separate school boards as is most advantageous to their Catholic students.

• Non-Catholic students are routinely denied admissions in growth areas with crowded separate schools, even in situations where public schools, which have no right to discriminate, are considerably more crowded. This can result in serious inequities in the quality of education between the public and separate schools of an area (and by extension, between Catholic and non-Catholic students).

• Non-Catholic students are often admitted in large numbers in mature areas, when operating a school at or near capacity ensures greater efficiency, a higher overall quality of education, and may prevent the closure of a neighbourhood separate school. Costly competition for student market share is often characteristic of such areas.

See FAQ Q&A #5 for a more detailed discussion of this question.
 
Back to top
 
----------------
 
When can a separate board discriminate against non-Catholics in hiring?
 
All the time.  One-third of the province's publicly-funded teaching positions are effectively closed to non-Catholic teachers.
 
Most teaching positions in the separate school system require that applicants submit documentary proof that they are not only Catholic, but that they are practicing Catholics. This proof usually consists of a pastoral reference letter from a priest, but a “faith portfolio” may also be required in some separate school boards.
 
The right of separate school boards to discriminate in favour of Catholic teachers in employment, advancement, and promotion is absolute and was confirmed in Re Daly et al. and Attorney General of Ontario; Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association et al. December 17, 1997. This case struck down Section 136 of the Education Act, which forbade such discrimination, as unconstitutional (offending denominational rights under Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867).
 
See FAQ Q&A #6 for a more detailed discussion of this question.
 
Back to top
 
----------------
 

---