Until a couple of months ago it was looking like the Ontario provincial election was going to be a bit of a yawner. Apart from the long list of McGuinty broken promises there were no juicy scandals to trumpet, and on policy issues the two main parties didn’t appear to be all that different from each other.
Then along came the Liberal “slush fund†controversy and the John Tory proposal to fund faith-based schools. Things sure did get interesting in a hurry.
While the people of Ontario have become somewhat complacent when it comes to Liberal broken promises and the flagrant abuse of public money, the faith-based funding debate has ignited some real honest discussion among folks on the street. The Liberals, on the other hand, have chosen to use the issue as a means to divert attention from their own record while fostering divisions among the secular and faith-based communities in this province.
Whether you support the proposal to fund faith-based schools or not, the approach that the McGuinty Liberals are employing to frame this debate is nothing short of deceptive opportunism.
As recently described by Bernie Farber in The Star, McGuinty was on the record as a supporter of Tory’s suggestion not all that long ago:
He was asked about the continuing unfairness faced by parents who send their children to Jewish day schools. What, the questioner wanted to know, was McGuinty’s position on funding faith-based schools? A hush descended on the meeting room. Said McGuinty: “I have no ideological opposition to ensuring that public funds support Jewish day schools.” Yes, he wanted to first reinvigorate public education, but he recognized the inherent “unfairness” in the present funding policy and was prepared to do something about it.
This was no flash in the pan. Over the next three years, McGuinty would continue to herald this position, as noted in an interview he gave to the Ottawa Citizen on June 1, 2001. When asked about whether he would provide funding for faith-based schools, he responded, “If we’re looking at equity, yes, somewhere down the road. I would have all kinds of strings attached when it comes to public dollars.”
He went on to explain, “The ideal here is equity with the Catholic system. Let’s understand what that means. First of all, it means you shall admit any child of any faith. Number two, it means you must hire Ontario-certified teachers. Number three, you must participate in all standardized testing. Number four, you must be subject to all the usual inspections, qualifications and regulations to which all publicly funded schools are subject at the present time. That’s what equity means.”
McGuinty had it right in 2001. Funding for faith-based schools ought to be a matter of principle.
Source: http://www.thestar.com/OntarioElection/article/254043
Here’s another article from 2001:
It turns out McGuinty isn’t opposed to the idea either, if we’re to believe the tune he’s singing now, but that’s not the impression he gave when he wrote former Foreign Affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy on the subject last year. That was shortly after the United Nations criticized Ontario for funding Catholic schools but not those of other faiths.
The Liberal leader now says money for religion-based educational institutions should be made available, just not right away. First, he says, we need to fix a public school system that’s in total disarray.
As usual, the Liberals want to have it both ways.
And there are many others in the Liberal Party that held the same views:
What a mess. Still, Gerard Kennedy, the Grits’ education critic, doesn’t see a contradiction in the Liberal position.
He contends that funding for religious schools doesn’t necessarily mean less money for the public system. Both can be accommodated, he says.
…
Kathleen Wynne, who unsuccessfully sought the Liberal nomination in St. Paul’s before the last election, says the party could have avoided this mess if it had taken what she calls a “principled stand” in favour of funding for religious schools during the election.
Source: www.nowtoronto.com
Andrew Coyne also has something to say on the issue.
While the faith-based funding debate may be about fairness and choice for parents vs. protecting the status quo, in this election campaign it also offers a striking indication of which candidates are honest and which are manipulative.
—-
Update Andrew Coyne posted a follow-up to his earlier column and he nails it:
Just to be clear — it probably is true that having kids of different backgrounds mix together at school contributes to greater social harmony. It’s also fair, in light of experience, to worry about what might be taught at the odd madrassa. What’s wrong is to draw a straight line from funding a few religious schools, with appropriate safeguards, to a total breakdown in social cohesion. What’s wrong is to whip this up into the single central issue of the campaign, as if there were some enormous crisis at hand. It’s the difference between legitimate concern and fearmongering — especially fearmongering directed, explicitly or implicitly, at a vulnerable minority. It’s the difference between statesmanship and demagoguery.
