SUBMISSION BY B’NAI BRITH CANADA
to the
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
on
Bill 2 - Fiscal Responsibility Act 2003
Proposed Repeal of Equity in Education Tax Credit Act
December 9, 2003
Established in Canada in 1875, B’nai Brith is Canadian Jewry’s only independent national community service organization. B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights is considered by many to be one of Canada’s foremost human rights agencies, dedicated to combatting antisemitism, racism, bigotry and hate in all its forms.
It is perhaps coincidental, and sadly ironic, that these hearings are taking place on the eve of International Human Rights Day - a day which commemorates the unanimous adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This masterful document - to which Canada and its provinces were signatories - commits to paper the highest, most worthy ideals of men and women: the recognition of the inherent dignity and equal rights entitlement of ALL members of the human family, and the commitment to universal freedom and justice. We in Canada, and in Ontario, are fortunate, indeed. We live in a democracy where injustice and discrimination are condemned by political philosophy, and punishable by law. And therein lies the irony - because we believe that what is being proposed by Bill 2, is neither fair nor respectful of Ontario’s pluralism and diversity.
The purpose of this briefing paper is to provide members of the Legislature of the Province of Ontario, and particularly members of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, with information that will help guide their deliberations on Bill 2, also known as the Fiscal Responsibility Act 2003. Our submission deals with this Bill as it pertains to the provision of tax relief to parents who send their children to private, faith-based schools in Ontario through the Equity in Education Tax Credit (EETC).
In its 2001 budget, the Ontario government introduced the Equity in Education Tax Credit. This credit, when fully implemented, was to provide parents of children in Ontario attending private schools with a reimbursement of 50٪ of the tuition they pay, up to a maximum of $3,500.00 per child, per calendar year.
The implementation of the EETC was to occur in increments of 10٪ over a period of five years beginning in 2002. According to this schedule, the amount parents could claim for the calendar year 2003 would be 20٪ of the tuition they pay per child, up to a maximum of $1,500.
During the recent general election campaign, Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty promised that, if elected, his government would move to eliminate the EETC. Bill 2 includes a provision to do just that.
Independent schools are the exclusive domain of the wealthy.
Opponents of the EETC often portray independent schools as exclusive institutions available only to the children of parents who can afford to pay prohibitively high tuition fees. “Parents who can afford to pay tuitions of $20,000 per year hardly need tax relief, especially given Ontario’s present fiscal situation,” so the argument goes.
This is an admittedly compelling argument. But while there may be a number of institutions and families that fit into this category, most independent schools, and the parents of children who attend them, do not. According to a study recently conducted by the Fraser Institute, of the 800 or so independent schools in Ontario, only approximately 5٪ could be characterized as “elite and exclusive”. The other 95٪ offer alternative programming for children whose needs are not, or cannot, be adequately served in the public system. This includes faith-based schools. According to the Fraser Institute, the average annual tuition per child of an independent school is approximately $7,000, which is similar to what is spent per student in the public system.
The financial situation of Jewish educational institutions in Ontario is consistent with the figures presented above. According to the Ontario Association of Jewish Day Schools (OAJDS) there are some 12,000 Jewish children attending 44 independent Jewish schools across Ontario. The overwhelming majority of these students come from middle and lower income families. For most of these families, tuition represents the largest item in their household budgets. Parents of these children make tremendous sacrifices in their standards of living in order to send their children to Jewish schools.
The decision of parents to send their children to independent schools is simply a matter of choice.
Much of the opposition to public funding for independent schools is predicated on the mistaken belief that the decision of parents to send their children to such institutions is, in all cases, merely a matter of choice. This is not so for parents who send their children to faith-based schools.
It is simply untrue that public schools are as accessible to children of faith as are parochial schools. Ontario’s public schools are not, as some would argue, simply non-denominational. Quite the contrary, Ontario’s public schools by and large reflect the predominantly Christian character of our society. For example, the entire school year is organized around the Christian calendar. Moreover, many of the beliefs and values, not just tolerated but actively promoted in public schools, are incompatible with the teachings of other faiths, nor do they reflect the religious and moral imperatives of these faiths.
According to figures provided by the OAJDS, the number of children attending independent faith-based schools in Ontario is estimated to be less than 50,000. It is imperative for members of this committee to understand that, for the parents of these children, there is no real choice. They are compelled by their religious convictions to send their children to independent schools. It is inequitable to perpetuate a system that forces these parents to choose between their religious beliefs and a public education system that truly does not - and arguably cannot - adequately accommodate those beliefs and value systems.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ontario was not violating human rights by refusing to fund schools of other religious denominations.
The case normally cited in support of this argument is Adler v. Ontario1 . It is untrue, however, that the Supreme Court ruled in this case that Ontario was not committing a human rights violation by funding Roman Catholic schools, while denying funds to other faith-based schools. In fact, what the Supreme Court said was that any inequality of treatment arising out of the Ontario government’s policy was due to a constitutional obligation to fund the Roman Catholic schools. In essence, the court ruled that Ontario could legally ‘get away with it’.
In November of 1999, the Human Rights Committee (HRC) of the United Nations ruled, pursuant to a complaint made by Ontario parent Arieh Waldman, that Ontario’s policy of funding Roman Catholic schools while denying funds to other faith-based institutions, violated the terms of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This instrument, which came into force in 1976, was signed by the federal government after having obtained the consent of all ten provinces, including Ontario. While the HRC’s ruling in Waldman did not provide for specific remedies, it confirmed that, Ontario’s policy was not only discriminatory, it also violated the terms of this international agreement.
B’nai Brith Canada welcomed and strongly supported the creation of the EETC in 2001 on the grounds that, even if its main purpose was to promote ‘generic’ school choice, a corollary benefit to its adoption was that it rectified in some small way this long standing and serious human rights deficiency. As then Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier Jim Flaherty said in the Ontario Legislature on December 12, 2001, if parents choose to send their children to an alternative school “for mainly religious or cultural reasons…they’re entitled to receive some credit for doing that. That, we think, is reasonable.”2
Public schools are the only institutions transmitting our democratic values. They alone foster tolerance and anti-racist attitudes, while private and denominational schools foster racial segregation, cultural divisiveness and social fragmentation.
Tolerance is defined as “the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others” and “a disposition to allow freedom of choice and behaviour.” Tolerance manifests itself in many ways, such as racial integration, religious freedom, and yes, school choice. Several key studies have been done in recent years, comparing the development of tolerance and strong civic values in both independent and publicly funded schools.
It is true - the ideal of the public school, where students learn respect for their fellow citizens by mixing with students of different backgrounds was, and continues to be, central to the justification of the public funding of education - bringing together children of widely differing social and economic strata - rather than developing an elitist ethos. These schools are held up as the great leveller.
However, studies on this subject suggest that, in reality, public schools are not the unifying institutions in our society. The fact is, many public schools are already segregated - both racially and economically - based on the community demographics. The wealthier school districts inadvertently promote segregation by only accepting the privileged students who live within their boundaries, or within the artificial attendance areas which the district itself has created. Private and denominational schools have no geographic limits to attendance, thus ensuring a more representative cross-section of students.
Private schools, especially faith-based schools, transcend political and neighbourhood boundaries to gather a more racially and financially mixed student body - as opposed to the geographic criteria which tend to reinforce segregation. Better integration leads to better race and ethnic relations, which promotes greater tolerance and harmony. In truth, racial and ethnic conflict and fighting is more of an issue in the public schools than in the private schools.
It follows, then, that expanding access to private schools is likely to improve integration in education, and not lead to race wars, ethnic cleansing or genocide, as some critics purport.
By simply eliminating the EETC without due regard for the rights of those who send their children to independent faith-based schools as a matter of necessity, not choice, the government will inflict grievous and in some cases irreparable harm on these children, especially given the typical socio-economic condition of the families that fit into this category Furthermore, since the EETC was an imperfect solution as best, the obligation rests on the government to find an equitable alternative solution.
Although the Ontario Government can rely on existing jurisprudence to deny that it has a legal obligation to maintain a level of funding for schools serving these children, there is no longer any credibility to the argument that Ontario has no moral obligation to do so.
B’nai Brith Canada therefore makes the following recommendations:
In conclusion, Ontario created and implemented the EETC in part to rectify the inequities in funding for faith-based schools, and to provide parents who send their children to these schools partial access to the pool of funds to which they are compelled by law to contribute through their taxes. It is our view, therefore, that eliminating the EETC may give rise to a new round of litigation that would be costly for all parties and, in the end, immensely damaging to Ontario’s reputation as a tolerant, pluralistic society.
Many Liberal candidates who were elected this fall called during their campaigns for an end to the ‘politics of division’ in Ontario. B’nai Brith Canada strongly supports this goal, and urges the new government to use this occasion to show good faith to the entire electorate of Ontario, including its faith-based communities.
1Adler v. Ontario, 1996 3 S.C.R. 609
2Hansard. December 12, 2001
Index to Briefs | B’nai Brith Canada