Alexandre Brassard, Ph.D2013-06-19T09:07:27-04:00Alexandre Brassard, Ph.Dhttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=alexandre-brassard-phdCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Alexandre Brassard, Ph.DGood old fashioned elbow grease.Which Ontario Candidate Will Dare Address Separate School Funding?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9568542011-09-13T09:07:30-04:002011-11-13T05:12:02-05:00Alexandre Brassard, Ph.Dhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alexandre-brassard-phd/Going back to school couldn't be more complicated
If you have kids, I don't have to tell you that back-to-school season is upon us. You've already spent a month's salary on must-have supplies and fashions for your little angels. You've met with teachers, visited classrooms, and made your way through the maze of registration.
But if you live in Ontario, that maze is especially confusing. Which school board will you pick for your child? French public, French Catholic, English public or English Catholic?
You read correctly -- Ontario ratepayers fund four separate school systems. And as you can imagine, this fragmentation creates some serious management issues. All that duplication costs close to $500 million a year.
It's not just about the cost -- this set-up leads to absurd scenarios. For instance, when the number of children goes down in smaller communities, public and Catholic schools both suffer drops in numbers. But instead of putting students together under one roof, school boards are instead forced to close the local schools. In the end, it's the kids who suffer the consequences. They get separated from their neighbourhood friends, and are forced to endure long daily bus rides to schools far from their home community.
A violation of equality and freedom of conscience
I'm not saying we should have just one system. French-language education is essential for the survival of the Francophone minority. It is a central element of Canada's founding pact, and came about after a long and historic struggle by Franco-Ontarians. But religious segregation is simply not necessary -- you don't have to go to school to learn the Ten Commandments. The majority of parents in Western countries transmit their faith in private.
In fact, there are many good reasons to phase out denominational schools in Ontario. Why are we funding Catholics but ignoring Muslims, Jews and Protestants? The system is inherently discriminatory. It also attacks the freedom of conscience of seven million non-Catholics, forcing them to subsidize the Vatican's teachings while denying them the opportunity to work in Catholic schools.
Catholic school boards sometimes make matters worse by abusing their privileges. They ask teachers to reference the Bible and the Catechism in chemistry and biology classes, and they prevent their pupils from expressing themselves freely on the issue of abortion.
But most disappointing, perhaps, is the insensitivity of Catholic schools toward their lesbian and gay students. Back in 2002, the Durham Catholic School Board fought tooth and nail to stop a student from going to the prom with his boyfriend. More recently, the Halton Catholic School Board and St. Joseph's Catholic Secondary School in Mississauga prevented gay and lesbian students from forming support groups. And the Dufferin - Peele board was ridiculed when it censored rainbow images for being "too political".
Worse still, the Toronto Catholic District Board voted to undermine the Ministry of Education's Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy, by stipulating, "Where there is an apparent conflict between denominational rights and other rights, the board will favour the protection of the denominational rights." We now have a situation where provisions adopted in 1867 to protect one minority are being used to harass another.
State neutrality, citizenship and integration
To be fair, we shouldn't single out Catholics. After all, every religion has its quirks. It's the fact that these schools are both public and religious that's problematic.
The state shouldn't be favouring one creed in particular; it should accommodate all the various visions of the good life. Everyone should be free to live according to his or her particular belief, and the state should only promote general principles necessary for coexistence, democracy and freedom. Public education should not be used for sectarian indoctrination.
The current system also hinders the integration of new Canadians. How can this religious segregation help develop a sense of common citizenship? The system makes no sense for the Anglophone majority, but it's suicidal for the Francophone minority. Franco-Ontarians can ill-afford to dilute their resources and separate their children.
Inertia of political parties
Administrative efficiency, human rights, respect for minorities and the integration of immigrants are all good reasons to put an end to religious segregation. In survey after survey, Ontarians have confirmed they support a change. Yet for politicians, the question remains taboo. We're in the early days of the provincial election campaign, and leaders are avoiding the subject like the plague. There is no mention of it in any of the parties' political platforms.
Section 93 of the 1867 Constitution Act protects Catholic School Boards, but nothing is stopping Ontario from initiating a bilateral amendment with Ottawa. The procedure is legitimate and straightforward. It's already been done in Quebec, as well as in Newfoundland and Labrador. Clearly, the obstacles are political, not legal. In Ontario, the separate schools issue was controversial in 1985 and 2007, and the three major parties now support the status quo.
The Conservative Party is a traditional ally of religious groups, and it would risk alienating this electoral base if it promoted secularism. John Tory thought he had found a fair solution during the last election, promising to fund schools of every religion. But the proposal sparked an outcry and contributed to his electoral defeat. His successor, Tim Hudak, has learned his lesson -- he now scrupulously avoids the subject.
Ever since Mitchell Hepburn sat in the premier's office, the Liberals have usually been able to count on the Catholic vote. So it's no surprise that they too support the current system. The McGuinty government has developed an excellent equity and inclusion policy for schools, but it has not dared to impose it on uncooperative schools. As for Andrea Horwath, she is also reluctant to make waves, perhaps because the Catholic teachers' union supports the NDP.
The religious segregation of our children is expensive, regressive and unfair. It's high time we secularize Ontarios French and English schools. Politicians will take great pains to avoid the subject, so it's up to us to make it an issue during this election campaign.
"Conservative values are Canadian values. Canadian values are conservative values...They always were. And Canadians are going back to the party that most closely reflects who they really are: the Conservative Party, which is Canada's party." (Globe and Mail, July 10, 2011).
Obviously, Harper was playing to his base with these exaggerated claims. In fact, he used a similar tactic at his first caucus meeting in May, and again at the Conservative convention in June. This kind of slap on the back to partisan supporters is normal, and it shouldn't be taken as a serious contribution to public discourse. Frankly, I'd love to see Harper stand up in the House of Commons and declare, with a straight face, that his party holds a monopoly on Canadian identity. Are we supposed to believe that today's Conservative Party members are more Canadian than Wilfrid Laurier, Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Tommy Douglas, Norman Bethune, Nellie McClung, Agnes Macphail, Thérèse Casgrain, George Erasmus, André Laurendeau, Jean Lesage and David Suzuki?
In mingling national identity with party affiliation, the Conservatives seem to be targeting immigrants and exploiting their desire to integrate. The not-so-subtle message? You need to toe the Conservative Party line to be fully Canadian. But newcomers won't be so easily fooled. Our rigorous citizenship test pretty much guarantees that immigrants know our country's history better than most made-in-Canada citizens. New Canadians could remind Harper that the Liberals have governed for 84 of the 144 years of Confederation. They could also point out that it's thanks to the NDP that we have our public health system, a treasured cornerstone of our national identity. Clearly, the Canadian spirit is too vast and too rich to be contained within a single party.
If we believe certain Manning Centre polls, Canadians are leaning to the right nowadays. But these studies should be taken with a heaping tablespoon of salt. I believe that the poll sponsor is, of course, partisan, and the chosen indicators are neither reliable nor valid. At any rate, no one can claim to know Canada's character after only two surveys. A country's political culture is read in its formative events, its constitution and through its institutions. It is revealed through its cultural products and in the kind of political education citizens receive. From this angle, it's hard to accept the Conservatives as the main architect of Canada.
That being said, I'm pleased that Harper harkened back to the values of the great late Progressive Conservative Party. If he takes this political legacy seriously, he might finally break free of the Reform Party's narrow dogma. As heir to Macdonald and Bennett, he might remember the importance of state economic intervention, which could soften his obsession with the free market. Taking a page from Borden, he would have to concede that key infrastructure should be nationalized, that income tax is a necessary evil and that it's a good idea to fund scientific research.
Inspired by Diefenbaker, Harper might develop an appreciation for our parliamentary traditions. In following Robert Stanfield's example, he'd recognize the importance of social programs, even in the context of budgetary restrictions. He could also turn to George-Étienne Cartier or Joe Clark to get a better grasp of our federation's founding pact, which lays out Canada as a 'community of communities.' This may persuade him to consult the provinces before embarking on any kind of Senate reform. Examining the legacy of Brian Mulroney, Harper might also decide to ratify international agreements that seek to protect the environment and prevent climate disasters.
Harper should set aside Ezra Levant, and instead read some true conservative intellectuals like W.L. Morton, Northrop Frye, Donald Creighton, George Grant and Hugh Segal. Not only would he rediscover the importance of scholarship, research and critical thinking -- our prime minister might be surprised to find multiple references to the idea of common good among these authors' writings. He would see that Canada is more than a collection of isolated individuals and selfish taxpayers. More than an electoral clientele. Canada is a country of people who live interdependently in deeply rooted communities.
Anglophone, Francophone and Aboriginal communities have all developed their own cultures and values. They have different concepts of justice and different visions of the good life. Together, they offer citizens a wide range of rich identities to choose from. But at the same time, these groups are partners within our federation, and their values often overlap. Certain ideas and objectives are shared by all the founding communities: democracy, federalism, rule of law, respect for rights and freedoms, gender equality, the protection of linguistic and cultural minorities, the welcoming and integration of immigrants, economic redistribution between communities and social solidarity.
It is here, at this convergence, where true "Canadian values" reside. These values are not the property of the Conservative Party, or of any community in particular. Or even of Canada itself for that matter. But they explain and justify our desire to live together in a single state within North America.
Right now, the Forum Research poll published on July 30 reveals a strong Conservative lead. Of the 2,256 Ontarians surveyed on July 27 and 28, 38 per cent intend to cast their ballots for the Conservatives, 28 per cent will vote Liberal, 24 per cent support the NDP and seven per cent are Green voters. These results are accurate to within 2.8 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
How would this particular provincial poll translate into seats at Queen's Park? The research firm doesn't provide any answers, but we can attempt a projection based on a rough model. First, subtract current voting intentions from the election results of each party in 2007. This gives an idea of the direction opinion is moving in the province: +7.23 (NDP), +6.38 (CON), -1.02 (GP) and -14.25 (LIB). Apply these current trends to the 2007 results in each district, and voilà, we have our seat projection.
The details are available here, and they're pretty interesting. They predict the Conservatives in a majority government with 64 seats, the Liberals reduced to 26 seats and the New Democrats gaining 17.
According to this model, Tim Hudak and Andrea Horwath would handily win their districts, but Dalton McGuinty would have trouble getting elected. The Liberals would lose most of their current cabinet members, including Leona Dombrowsky (Education Minister), Deb Matthews (Health), Kathleen Wynn (Transport) and Sophia Aggelonitis (Revenue).
On the other hand, the Conservatives would elect four star candidates: Jack McLarren (former president of the Ontario Landowners Association), Rocco Rossi (former federal Liberal organizer and Toronto mayoral candidate), Donna Skelly (a local TV host) and Simon Nyilassi (CEO of Caldwell, an investment company).
Any Conservative win would be at the expense of the Liberals. Gains would be made:
in the 905 region (Ajax-Pickering, Oak Ridges-Markham, Richmond Hill, Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Mississauga South, Mississauga Erindale, Brampton-Springdale, Brampton West, Etobicoke Centre, Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Pickering-Scarborough East, Scarborough Southwest, Scarborough-Guilwood);
in the North of Toronto (Don Valley West, Eglinton-Lawrence, Willowdale, York Centre);
in Ottawa and the East of the province (Ottawa South, Ottawa West-Nepean Ottawa-Orleans, Northumberland-Quinte West, Prince Edward-Hastings Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry)
in Kitchener and the Centre-West of the province (Guelph, Huron-Bruce, Kitchener Centre, Kitchener-Conestoga, Perth Wellington, Wellington-Halton Hills).
The New Democrats would retain all their current seats and gain four new districts in the North of the province (Algoma-Manitoulin, Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Thunder Bay-Superior North, Timiskaming-Cochrane). They'd pick up two more in Toronto (Davenport, South York -Weston), and could also take Ottawa Centre from the Liberals.
A majority of provincial districts would thus align with their federal riding counterparts. In Toronto, the polarization that played out in last municipal election might be repeated, with urban areas supporting centrist or progressive platforms and the suburbs voting for right-wing candidates. These projections paint a picture of a three-pronged, right-wing hegemony in the Toronto, Ontario and Canadian governments.
But this model is pretty rudimentary, and it's not perfect. It doesn't take into account the electoral advantage usually enjoyed by party leaders, former ministers, incumbents or star candidates. In addition, the data shows a pretty narrow margin of victory (less than five per cent) in more than a quarter of the districts. That leaves plenty of room for local conditions and plain uncertainty to have a profound influence.
Nevertheless, this analysis raises alarm bells. In Canada, all levels of government have considerable power, but federalism maintains a system of checks and balances. It allows ambition to counteract ambition and limits the abuse and corruption that inevitably results from the concentration of power. By electing three levels of government with same conservative agenda, Ontarians would drop this counterweight. They'd be putting all their eggs in the one basket.