Writing to Members of Provincial Parliament (Ontario)
 
If you only plan to write one type of person on the subject of discrimination and waste in the school system, make it a Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP).  If you only have the time to write one letter, address it to the Minister of Education and carbon copy the Premier, the Parliamentary Assistants to the Minister of Education, the opposition education critics, and your own MPP (see Who to write - How to contact them).  Ontario MPPs ultimately hold the reins to the machinery of government through which equitable and fiscally responsible school reform will happen.
 
Some MPPs might insist that a very difficult constitutional change process must precede an equitable reorganization of our school system and that such a change is a practical impossibility, requiring the agreement of many provinces.  Either they are very ignorant of our constitution and its amending formulas or they are engaging in a very deliberate deception to excuse inaction.
 
Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provided constitutional protection for denominational schools in both Quebec and Ontario.  Section 93 as it applied to Quebec was amended in 1999 to permit the reorganization of the school system along linguistic, rather than religious lines.  That amendment was authorized by the Quebec and federal governments alone, as permitted by Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which specifies the amending formula for amendments affecting one or more, but not all provinces.  A similar bilateral amendment would permit the elimination of denominational schools in Ontario, now the only province to have denominational schools protected by Section 93.
 
When first writing to an MPP regarding our issue, please give them the benefit of the doubt; they might be supportive.  Concentrate on communicating the unfairness of the current system and the indefensible waste of the duplication at a time when budgets for essential services such as education and health care are stretched to the limit.  If you don't get satisfactory answers, you might then increase the urgency of your tone, but remain polite at all times.
 
Points you could raise:

• Tell them you don't like having fewer educational opportunities and choices for your children than are available to your Catholic neighbours.  Tell them that you bear the same tax burden as your Catholic neighbours, but that you are guaranteed only one school choice for your money (public school), while they are guaranteed two (public and/or separate school).  Those two choices give Ontario Catholics a significant advantage over their neighbours; the ability to choose the better of two available school options for their children after considering factors such as location, transportation, facility quality, and standardized test results.  Choice should be available to all or to none.

• If you are a non-Catholic teacher, tell them how you don't appreciate the fact that one-third of the province's publicly funded teaching positions are effectively closed to you, while all are open to your Catholic neighbours.

• Remind them that the discrimination in the Ontario school system was condemned by the UN Human Rights Committee in 1999 as a violation of Article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; a covenant ratified by Canada with the approval of all provinces and requiring change to domestic law if necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the covenant.

• Ask them if they believe the special denominational rights of a non-disadvantaged minority should take precedence over the fundamental (and thus more important) human rights of the majority to equality and to freedom from discrimination.

• Talk about the wastefulness of the duplication in the current school system.  Mention the tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Ontario students who are bused past their nearest publicly funded school each day to attend another publicly funded school.  Mention the duplication of administration, services, and facilities.  Mention the lost economies of scale.  Ask them how such a duplication premium can be justified while our schools decay, our health care system is in shambles, and government deficits are spiraling out of control.

 
Possible responses from MPPs and suggestions for follow-up:

• Response:  "We have a constitutional obligation to fund separate schools."

• Point out that remaining committed to the special denomination rights of a privileged, non-disadvantaged minority is immoral and unjust when the consequence of doing so is failure to respect the fundamental human rights of the majority.

• Point out that the discrimination in Ontario's school system puts Canada in violation of its international human rights commitments to its own citizens.

• Point out that Ontario's constitutional obligation to fund separate schools can be removed just as easily as similar obligations were removed for Quebec and Newfoundland in the late 1990s.  Legal opinions received by the Federal and Quebec governments and a decision of the Quebec Superior Court were quite definite in saying that Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 was the appropriate mechanism for amending Section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867.  Section 93 is the section of the constitution providing denominational school rights to Ontario Catholics.  Section 43 specifies the amending formula for amendments affecting one or more, but not all provinces, and could be used by Ontario to amend Section 93 with the agreement of the federal Parliament alone.  Ask your MPP if they would support an amendment to remove Ontario's constitutional obligation to fund separate schools and if not, why not.

• Response:  "We need to protect minority rights."

• If the government was sincerely interested in the protection of minority religious rights, it would extend support to every other religious group before even thinking about extending it to Roman Catholics.  Roman Catholics are the largest religious minority in the province by a large margin (see 2001 Population Distribution By Religion) and are arguably the least in need of protection.  There may be minorities in need of protection in the province, but Roman Catholics are certainly not one of them.

• Response:  "The PC Equity in Education tax credit addressed the discrimination."

• It did not.  See FAQ #4.

• Response:  Appeals to "tradition"

• Some MPPs have suggested that separate schools are a Canadian tradition and are thus deserving of continued support.  They need to be reminded that the "authority of tradition" is a fallacious argument indicative of a lack of compelling or relevant arguments.  It is diversionary.  They are suggesting denominational school rights should continue for no other reason than they have existed for so long.  "We should continue to discriminate because we have a time-honoured tradition of discriminating."  It is a non-argument; it is logically invalid political fertilizer.

• Point out that Ontario now stands alone with Saskatchewan and Alberta in providing additional education and employment opportunities to it Catholic citizens.  Three provinces in ten (plus three territories) hardly constitutes a Canadian tradition.  If anything, the new tradition seems to be a national trend toward respecting the more fundamental and important rights to equality and to freedom from discrimination.

 
Who to write - How to contact them:
 
Your own MPP should be copied on any letters you write to Ontario MPPs.  If you don't get a satisfactory response, it will be incumbent upon him or her to help you to get one.  The following are MPPs you might consider writing on this issue or at least copying on your letters (see Members of Provincial Parliament for complete contact information including mailing addresses):
 
Principal Contacts
The Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
The Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Minister of Education
Ted McMeekin, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education
Liz Sandals, Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Education
Frank Klees, PC Education Critic
Rosario Marchese, NDP Education Critic
 
Liberal Education Policy Committee
Dave Levac, Chair
Liz Sandals, Vice-Chair
The Hon. Christopher Bentley
David Orazietti
Jennifer Mossop
The Hon. Kathleen Wynne
Khalil Ramal
Maria Van Bommel
The Hon. Mary Anne Chambers
Monique Smith
Richard Patten
 
PC Education Policy Committee
Ted Arnott
Cameron Jackson
Frank Klees, Education Critic
Laurie Scott
Elizabeth Witmer
 
NDP Education Policy Committee
Rosario Marchese, Education Critic
 

---