My question for Dalton McGuinty

The CBC invites us to submit our questions for the Ontario leaders to be asked in the leaders debate on September 20th. Here's what I submitted:

Mr. McGuinty, you appear to have taken a very principled stand against public funding of faith-based education in Ontario. Does that mean you are advocating a single, secular public education system? And if so, will you be proposing a constitutional amendment to establish non-denominational school boards in Ontario, similar to what was done in Quebec?

I would be very curious as to how he might reconcile the inconsistencies of his position with his own faith-based public education and that of his wife and kids.

McGuinty opens door to constitutional change

There is no other way to interpret this:

"If you want the kind of Ontario where we invite children of different faiths to leave the publicly funded system and become sequestered and segregated in their own private schools, then they should vote for Mr. Tory."

"If they think it's important that we continue to bring our kids together so that they grow together and learn from one another, then you should vote for me."

But it might be a good idea to take it up with his wife first:

Some proponents of change, however, disagree with the Premier's position. Mr. McGuinty, his wife, Terri, and the couple's four children all attended Catholic schools. Ms. McGuinty continues to teach part time in the Catholic system. York University professor Eric Lawee said he sees "tremendous hypocrisy" in Mr. McGuinty's opposition to extending funding to religious schools.

In the rain with Trudeau and the Queen 25 years ago

It was raining that day on Parliament Hill when I and countless other proud Canadians stood in the rain to witness Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and Queen Elizabeth II sign the Constitution. Canada had at long last broken free of its colonial status.

Thrown into the bargain was a controversial Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although one of Trudeau's few real achievements, the charter has, nonetheless, been a disappointment. Intended to enshrine individual rights in the constitution, the charter has in many ways come up short.

First, the existence of that pesky notwithstanding clause means that governments can always override the charter if they see fit. While the argument for parliament supremacy is compelling, it is little consolation for non-francophones living in Quebec where the provincial government has repeatedly used the notwithstanding clause to circumscribe minority linguistic rights. We should not be surprised that majorities sometimes act like majorities. That's why we have a charter. Too bad that when it really counts, the rights of minorities can still be sacrificed.

Second, the charter has proven to be quite a malleable instrument in the hands of activist lawyers and judges, and has been used in ways that parliament never imagined, let alone intended. A constitution is a living document, the interpretation of which will evolve over time to reflect changes in broader society. Yet it is a fine balance between reflecting societal change and inducing it. I would argue that rather than being pulled by those changes, the charter has often been doing the pushing.

Finally, many people mistakenly believe the charter is about individual rights. It is not. We are not all equal before the law. In many cases, group rights trump individual rights. Consequently, if you are an aboriginal, a catholic or a francophone, to take three examples, you may have "rights" that the rest of us don't. In effect, individual freedom still sits at the back of the bus.

All the same, I think Canada is better off with an imperfect charter of rights and freedoms than without. For that, Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party deserve our appreciation. But please, spare me the mock indignation of Paul Martin and others that our rights are somehow threatened by a Conservative government. The charter is there to protect the rights of all Canadians, not just the favoured causes of the left. Until it does, do not be surprised that some of us do not hold it up on a pedestal.