PEEL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD
School Services & Staff Development
FAITH as an "ISM"
ISSUE PAPER - #5 (Full Discussion)
WHAT IS FAITH AS AN "ISM"?
The cultural, institutional and individual set of practices and beliefs that assign differential
value to people according to their religion or creed or their lack of religion or creed. (For
more information please read Manifesting Encouraging and Respectful Environments, pages 43-50).
WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE FOR PEEL BOARD?
Peel Region is made up of three municipalities -- Mississauga, Brampton and Caledon -- which
together cover 1,225 square kilometers containing a very diverse population. The 1996 census
data report Peel Region as having a population of 852,525 (approximately 40% of whom were
immigrants). The data indicates a multicultural, multilingual, and multifaith population. There
are some fifteen non-official languages spoken in Peel. In 1991, Peel had 87 multicultural
groups and 166 places of worship.
The 19911 census data reported that Canada is made up of Catholics, Protestants, Muslims,
Buddhist, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Báhái's and other faith communities. These
communities are also reflected within the Peel District School Board staff, students and
parents. Therefore, faith issues must be a consideration for the Board in its goal to achieve
equity for students and staff.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN PEEL BOARD.
Policy
In March 2000, the Peel District School Board approved its Human Rights Policy #51. The
policy relies on the Ontario Human Rights Code, which recognizes the dignity and worth of
every person and outlines the legal obligation to provide equal rights and opportunities
without discrimination. Policy #51 clarifies the various types of discrimination addressed in
the Code:
 direct discrimination - A student or staff member is denied a benefit or treated unfairly
because of his or her religion (or other ground of discrimination).
 indirect or constructive discrimination - A student or staff member experiences a
negative impact because of a rule or policy imposed by an individual or institution.
 systemic discrimination - Student(s) or staff member(s) are affected by subtle and
unsubtle barriers imposed through existing structure, policies and/or practices.
Harassment is defined as one or a course of vexatious comment or incident that is known or
ought reasonably to have been known to be unwelcome. The policy also offers examples of
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
1/14
harassing behaviour, e.g., comments or gestures, jokes, pictures, electronic messages that by
their nature are embarrassing or offensive.
Policy #51 defines a “poisoned environment” as a work or study place that has become
unpleasant because of discriminatory and/or harassing behaviour or comments, for example,
when someone puts up offensive signs, pictures or cartoons in the office or school.
Finally, Policy #51 reaffirms the important difference between intent and impact in matters
of discrimination and harassment. The intentions of the offending person do not matter
(perhaps he or she does not mean to discriminate); only the result or effect of the action (unfair
impact on the victim) counts. (Please refer to the actual policy for more details.)
The Peel Board’s Policy School Services #10 guidelines, “Days of Commemoration and
Celebration” respond to the Ontario Human Rights Code, s.1, the Education Act, s.(50)(2), and
the requirements of the Ministry of Education documents, PPM 112 and PPM 119.
As part of its Antiracism and Ethno-cultural Equity Plan for the Ministry of Education and
Training, Peel Board established a Citizens Advisory Committee, which operated from 19952002. The Board also provides for staff and student absences for holy days.
Through community consultations, the Board established a multi-faith calendar to ensure
recognition of diverse communities. Approximately 6,000 calendars are distributed annually to
business and academic staff.
Further, the Board has produced a multi-faith resource kit for board-wide distributions and
involves faith communities in helping with professional development.
As a result of a human rights decision allowing Sikh students/teachers to wear the ceremonial
dagger, (kirpan - discussed below under “Case Law”), Peel Board revised its Discipline Policy
#48 and created a new policy entitled, “Wearing of Kirpans, School Services Operating
Procedures #9”. The new policy outlines conditions governing use of the kirpan,
incorporating the safety requirements and limitations established by the board of inquiry.
A review of Peel Board’s operating procedures has also led to changes such as those reflected
in its Distribution of Material, School Services #2. This specifically related to Gideon
International of Canada and a recent challenge to the distribution of Gideon Bibles in schools
(EduLaw, 1997).
A document currently under development, “The Duty to Accommodate because of Creed”
(religion), will complement the MERE and TFWW documents. The document will be
designed to establish a process that:
1. Helps the school, parent and child resolve issues in a way that respects the beliefs of
the parent/child and the school
2. Is consistent with MERE and TFWW, and
3. Meets or exceeds the Board’s legal obligations under the Code.
It is expected that all members of the Peel District School Board community will contribute to
this process and that our students will benefit and be strengthened by gaining an appreciation
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
2/14
and respect for diversity. To achieve equity, we cannot treat everyone the same. We must
recognize, value and honour the many customs, traditions and beliefs that make up our
community.
Other
The Board will continue to work on achieving equity for students and staff specifically through
two new initiatives – the launch of the Human Rights Campaign (www.gobeyondwords.org)
and implementation of The Future We Want. The Board will also continue to look for ways to
acknowledge and celebrate the work of individuals and groups within our school community.
SOCIAL AND LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS
The Ontario Human Rights Commission
The Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") states that it is public policy in Ontario to
recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide equal rights and
opportunities without discrimination. The Code aims at creating a climate of understanding
and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels part of
the community and able to contribute fully to the community.
The Code is quasi-constitutional in nature and complements the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which guarantees religious freedom and equality, among other things. The Code not
only sets the standard for public policy in Ontario, but also has primacy over all other
legislation in the province. The rights and corresponding responsibilities outlined in the Code
guarantee that certain standards of appropriate and respectful behaviour must be maintained in
various areas such as employment and the provision of services (e.g., education), to name a
few. Thus, all employees and service users in Ontario are guaranteed the right to equal
treatment and freedom from harassment based on their religion, as enunciated in the Code.
Judge Rosalie Abella’s Royal Commission report, Equality in Employment, represents
Canada’s pivotal examination of the notion of equality. That report states2:
Formerly, we thought that equality only meant sameness and that treating
persons as equals meant treating everyone the same. We now know that
to treat everyone the same may be to offend the notion of equality.
Ignoring differences may mean ignoring legitimate needs. It is not fair to
use the differences between people as an excuse to exclude them arbitrarily
from equitable participation. Equality means nothing if it does not mean
that we are of equal worth regardless of differences in gender, race,
ethnicity, or disability. Ignoring differences and refusing to
accommodate them is denial of equal access and opportunity. It is
discrimination.
Building on this notion of equality, the Ontario Human Rights Commission has developed
policies and guidelines to help employers and service providers determine their legal
obligations with respect to accommodation for creed (religion), a protected ground under
human rights legislation. The Commission’s Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious
Observances states:
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
3/14
Freedom of religion is the basic principle that informs the right to equal
treatment under the Code on the ground of creed. First, this implies that the law
can require measures to facilitate the practice of religious observances. Second, it
also means that no person can force another to accept or comply with religious
beliefs or practices. This dual aspect of equality is emphasized by case law that
has consistently protected freedom of religion and expressions of religious beliefs
as well as non-beliefs and refusal to participate in religious practices. According to
a 1989 board of inquiry, no matter how convinced a person may be that he or
she has a religious message that others should hear and heed, the Code prohibits
the imposition of that message onto others. "In the workplace, a religiously
militant employer is no more entitled to impose his or her version of religious
enlightenment on employees than a sexually militant employer is entitled to
impose his or her sexual ideas or wishes"3.
The Ministry of Education
In response to a court decision concerning religious opening and closing exercises in public
elementary schools, the Government of Ontario amended its Regulation 262 (see discussion
under the section on “case law”). Under the new approach, outlined in its Policy Program
Memorandum 112 (PPM 112, 1991), boards of education could provide programs in education
about religion, both at the elementary and secondary level, provided that the programs did not
involve indoctrination or give primacy to any particular religious faith. The Ministry also
introduced Policy Program Memorandum 108 (PPM 108, 1993) to help boards of education
frame their policies and procedures. PPM 108 states that, "one or more readings that impart
social, moral, or spiritual values and that are representative of our multicultural society must be
used”. Under the policy, parents have the right to remove their children from part or all of the
exercises.
The Ministry of Education also produced a document entitled “Education about Religion in
Ontario Public Elementary Schools” (May 1992) as a resource document setting out guidelines
consistent with government policy.
In 1992, a further amendment to the Education Act, R.S.O. 1990, (Chapter E.2 section 8
subsection 1, paragraph 29.1) required school boards to develop and implement antiracism and
ethno-cultural equity policies. Policy Program Memorandum 119 (PPM 119) stresses the need
for school boards to review their operations, develop policies, and implement plans.
Case Law
Tensions between secular Canadian society and the constitutional right to freedom of religion
have been examined in a number of human rights cases. Several court rulings, including the
"kirpan" decision against the Peel Board of Education, have established benchmarks and
resulted in clearer direction for employers and service providers with respect to their legal
obligations under the Human Rights Code.
In the areas of employment and education, courts have ruled that two aspects of religious
rights must be provided simultaneously. First, employers and boards of education must
accommodate those whose faith includes religious obligations, for example with regard to
dietary restrictions, manner of dress, reciting prayers at prescribed times or observance of holy
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
4/14
days. Second, they must ensure that the rights of employees and students of who do not
practice or believe in an organized religion are upheld and that they are not required to
participate in or be exposed to religious practices or beliefs in the workplace or while in
school. In practice this means that boards of education, as both an employer and provider of
a service, have a duty to accommodate persons of faith but have a corresponding duty to
ensure that no activity which might constitute proselytization occurs on the board's property.
In 1988, the Ontario Court of Appeal struck down subsection 28(1) of Regulation 262, which
dealt with religious opening and closing exercises in public elementary schools. The Court's
decision clarified that no religion must have a position of primacy, opening and closing
exercises must recognize the diversity of Ontario's population and traditions, and the exercises
could not be for religious indoctrination (Ministry of Education, 1993).
In another landmark decision, Pandori and The Ontario Human Rights Commission v. The Peel Board
of Education, 1990, (12 C.H.R.R. D/364) a Khalsa Sikh student and teacher were not allowed to
wear the ceremonial kirpan in Peel schools. The Board had a “no weapons” policy that
banned knives. The Board argued that non-Sikhs might perceive the kirpan as a weapon or
that a Sikh could use the kirpan as a weapon (Zuker, 1997). In July 1990, human rights board
of inquiry adjudicator Dr. Plaut issued his ruling:
1. There was no direct discrimination
2. There was indirect discrimination against the teacher and the student contrary to
section 10 of the Ontario Human Rights Code, 1981 (now section 11)
3. The student’s and teacher's needs could be accommodated; therefore the defense of
"undue hardship" was not applicable (12 C.H.R.R. D/384).
Dr. Plaut based his decision on the fact that there was "no evidence that a kirpan has ever
been drawn or used as a weapon in any school under the Board's jurisdiction” (12 C.H.R.R.
D/477). Further, no other boards in the Metropolitan Toronto Area had policies prohibiting
or restricting kirpans (Zuker, 1997).
Dr. Plaut was nevertheless concerned about safety issues. He wished to balance the
accommodation of individual religious rights with the need to ensure safety. He therefore
outlined a number of safety requirements (Zuker, 1997):
1. The kirpan must be no more than 7 inches (17.8 cm) in length (handle, blade and
sheath)
2. It must be worn out of sight under the individual's clothing
3. It must be sufficiently secured so that removal, while not impossible, is difficult.
(Kirpans that have been stitched or tied in place in the sheath would meet this
requirement.)
4. If a principal is unsure or concerned with the security arrangement, he/she should
consult with the Superintendent of Schools and the Superintendent of School Services
prior to refusing admission of a student to the school
5. Principals may institute such program modifications for kirpan-wearing students as
they deem advisable.
In Bal v. Ontario (Attorney General), 1990, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously struck
down the religious education curriculum of the Elgin County Board of Education. According
to the Court, the curriculum set forth by the Education Act under subsection 28, regulation 262,
violated s.2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In making its decision, the Court
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
5/14
relied heavily on three earlier cases in Ontario: Zylbeberg v. Sudbury Board of Education (1988),
65.O.R. (2d) 641,34 C.R.R. 1 (C.A.), Canadian Civil Liberties Association v. Ontario (1990) 71.O.R.
(2d) 341,46 C.R.R. 316 (C.A.) and Adler v. Ontario 19.O.R. (3rd) 1,22 C.R.R. (2d) 205. The
presiding judge summarized these as the "trilogy of minority religious educational cases in
Ontario" (Zuker, 1997).
In the Islamic Schools Federation of Ontario v. Ottawa Board of Education (1997), No. 1082/96 O.J.
No. 1615 (O.C.J. (Gen. Div.)), the court determined that the board had tried to provide
reasonable accommodation for students and staff. In reaching its decision, the court noted
that the board had:
1. granted students a day for religious observance on holy days, and required teachers to
offer make-up lessons and tests for these days
2. refrained from scheduling examinations or major co-curriculum events or board
meetings on religious holy days
3. distributed a multi-faith calendar to all schools
4. circulated a letter outlining the observance of Islamic holy days and requesting the
needs of students be respected
5. established a Multiculturalism Advisory Committee and operated heritage language
classes
6. adopted a written policy on racism and ethnic relations
7. allowed its schools to facilitate noon prayer meetings by making facilities available and
allowing for announcements in both English and Arabic.
SIGNIFICANT AND COMMEORATIVE DATES OR EVENTS
There are many significant and commemorative days associated with our various faiths and
beliefs. Please refer to the Days of Commemoration & Celebration produced annually by
the Board.
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
6/14
COMMON QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTED RESPONSES
1. What do “creed” and “accommodation” mean within the context of the
Ontario Human Rights Code?
Creed is not defined in the Code, but through application and case law is interpreted to
mean “religious creed” or “religion – a professed system and confession of faith”. Creed
does not include secular, moral, ethical, or political beliefs. The belief in a God or gods is
not a requisite. The Ontario Human Rights Commission's Policy on Creed and the
Accommodation of Religious Observances states:
The existence of religious beliefs and practices are both necessary and
sufficient to the meaning of creed, if the beliefs and practices are sincerely
held and/or observed. "Creed" is defined subjectively…The [Ontario
Human Rights Code] Code protects personal religious beliefs, practices or
observances, even if they are not essential elements of the creed, provided
they are sincerely held.
2. When parents/guardians ask for accommodation for their children
because of faith, must they provide a rationale for the request?
Yes, a written request explaining the rationale must be provided and may include a letter
from a clergy person. The principal should confirm in writing the agreed-upon
accommodation.
The Commission determines "rights and duties" with respect to requests for
accommodation because of faith in the following way:
Both the people responsible for providing the accommodation and the
person requesting it have rights and responsibilities during accommodation.
The person requesting accommodation takes the initiative to request
accommodation, explain why accommodation is required, provide notice of
request in writing and allows a reasonable time for response, explains what
measures and accommodation are required, deal in good faith, be flexible
and realistic.
3. What happens in intermediate grades when a student does not like
particular subjects and the parent asks for the student to be exempt from
the respective curriculum?
This is not a human rights issue. The legal duty to accommodate does not apply unless
there is a protected ground of the Code cited.
4. For how long are these requests valid and who determines the validity?
As long as the beliefs are sincerely held by the individual and supported by tenets of the
faith. While the written request is submitted to the Principal, the individual and the
appropriate clergy, determine the validity of the request based upon the tenets of the faith
and the sincerity of the individual's belief.
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
7/14
5. Should the decision to provide accommodation for a student because of
faith be made in conjunction with the respective superintendent?
Yes. This allows for fairness, equity and consistency across the system with regards to
issues of creed.
6. How do principals deal with the logistics of supervision when, for
example, 20 parents at a school request various exemptions for their
children?
The duty to accommodate remains. Where appropriate, the principal may consult with the
superintendent in order to contextualize the accommodation required vis-à-vis the
resources at the local school. This could include consideration of human resources such as
supervision by parent volunteers and availability of space.
7. What does total withdrawal of a student from particular segments of
curriculum state about the parent’s view of "our" value system and what
"we" believe education encompasses?
Canadian culture values diversity and the many customs, traditions and beliefs that
comprise and enhance our Canadian multicultural society. The recognition and valuing of
someone else's beliefs and value system does not make a statement about the worth of
“our” value system and what “we” believe education encompasses. However, if total
withdrawal fundamentally changes the nature of the curriculum or does not allow for the
outcomes established by the program, then as a public board of education, we may not be
able to provide the requested accommodation. Therefore matters of accommodation
because of creed have to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.
8. This is a Judeo Christian country, so why should we accommodate other
faiths?
The rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians are among the most extensive and best
defined in the world. At the national level, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees Canadians equality before the law and protection against discrimination on
grounds of religion, among other things.
Canadian multicultural policies are based on respect, understanding, and appreciation of
the differences that make us unique and the similarities that unite us. The Canadian
Multiculturalism Act, 1988, states that "multiculturalism is a fundamental characteristic of the
Canadian heritage and identity and . . . provides an invaluable resource in the shaping of
Canada's future." It is the policy of the Canadian government, as outlined in this Act, to
"ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law,
while respecting and valuing their diversity", and to "encourage and assist the social,
cultural, economic, and political institutions of Canada to be both respectful and inclusive
of Canada's multicultural character."4
At the provincial level, the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code) recognizes the dignity
and worth of every person and provides for equal rights and opportunities without
discrimination because of creed.5
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
8/14
Ontario's Policy on Multiculturalism too acknowledges that "the ability of many different
cultures and races to thrive together strengthens our society and provides a richness of
heritage and understanding that can benefit us all."6
Furthermore, Ontario’s Education Act was amended by the former Bill 21, which received
royal assent in July 1992, to include ethno-cultural equity. The Ministry of Education and
Training now requires all Ontario school boards to develop and implement a policy on
ethnocultural equity and antiracism.7
In 1981 the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that "one religion must not be given a position
of primacy."8 In keeping with this, the Ministry of Education and Training developed
Policy/Program memorandum 108, dated January 12, 1989 as guidance for Ontario school
boards. This policy makes it very clear that teaching a single religious tradition is no longer
valid.
9. Why is the Lord's Prayer banned?
The Lord's Prayer is not banned, but it no longer has primacy. On January 30, 1990, the
Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously struck down subsection 28(4) of Regulation 262
concerning religious education in the public elementary schools. The court ruled that the
subsection infringed on the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by section 2(a)
of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court made it very clear that subsection 28(4) of the regulation was invalid because it
allowed teaching a single religious tradition as if it were the exclusive means through which
to develop moral thinking and behaviour. The court also ruled that teaching about religion
and fostering moral values without indoctrination in a particular religious faith would not
contravene the charter. In distinguishing between religious indoctrination and education
about religion, the court made the following statement:
While this is an easy test to state, the line between indoctrination and education, in
some instances, can be difficult to draw. With this in mind, it may be of assistance to
refer to the following more detailed statement of the distinction:
 The school may sponsor the study of religion, but may not sponsor the practice of
religion.
 The school may expose students to all religious views, but may not impose any
particular view.
 The school's approach to religion is one of instruction, not one of indoctrination.
 The function of the school is to educate about all religions, not to convert to any
one religion.
 The school's approach is academic, not devotional.
 The school should study what all people believe, but should not teach a student
what to believe.
 The school should strive for student awareness of all religions, but should not
press for student acceptance of any one religion.
 The school should seek to inform the student about various beliefs, but should not
seek to conform him or her to any one belief.
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
9/14
The Ministry of Education and Training amended sections 28 and 29 of Regulation 262 to
reflect the following permanent policy, which applies to public elementary and secondary
schools:
Schools and programs, including programs in education about religion, under the
jurisdiction of boards of education must meet both of the following conditions:


They must not be indoctrinational.
They must not give primacy to any particular religious faith.
Boards of education may continue to provide space before the beginning or after the
close of the instructional program of the school day for indoctrinational religious
education. Given the provisions for equality of treatment in the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, boards choosing this option must make space available on an
equitable basis to all religious groups.
The policy came into effect on January 1, 1991.
10. How can I get information and knowledge about faith communities to
develop the appropriate terminology and conduct when working with
parents and communities?
Staff, students and parents can be excellent sources of information and/or for clarification.
However, be aware of the diversity of interpretations, schools of theology and
commitment within faith communities. Resources and information can be found within
the Peel District School Board and communities. The local library and university/college
have many useful resources.
Peel District School Board:
Staff Development Officer: Equity
Human Rights Officer
Equity Officer: Race Relations
905-890-1010 x 2114
905-890-1010 x 2440
905-890-1010 x 2625
Educational Resources:
Available from School Services and Staff Development
The Future We Want: building an inclusive curriculum
Manifesting Encouraging Respectful Environments documents
Days of Commemoration and Celebration (calendar)
Available from ETFO
We're Erasing Prejudice for Good (K to 8) - kit
Resources:
The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, A Source Book for the Community
of Religions, Chicago, 1993.
Ontario Multifaith Council on Spiritual and Religious Care, Multifaith Information
Manual, Toronto, 1995. Keeling Partners Ltd.
Caroline Parry, Let's Celebrate! Canada's Special Days, Toronto, 1984. Kids Can Press.
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
10/14
Multifaith Calendar, Unity Arts, 26 Concourse Gate, Napean, Ontario, K2E 7I7. Tel. 1800-465-3287, Fax. 613-727-3704. www.unityarts.com
Vision TV, Viewers Guide, 80 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1X2. Tel. 416-3683194, Fax. 416-368-9774, Web. www.visiontv.ca.
Ministry of Education and Training:
Opening or Closing Exercises for Public Schools in Ontario, PPM No. 108.
Education About Religion in the Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, PPM 112.
Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity Policy and Implementation Plan, PPM 119.
Community Resources
ROMAN CATHOLIC
Father Moacir Balen
St. Catherine of Siena
Roman Catholic Church
2340 Hurontario Street
Mississauga, ON L5B
1N1
Tel: 905-272-1454
Fax: 905-272-1455
HINDUISM
Surendra Sharma Shastri
Vaishno Devi Temple
Regional Road, Hwy # 25
Oakville, ON L6J 4Z3
Tel. 905-825-4202
Fax: 905-825-2812
PROTESTANT
Rev. Neil Young
Erindale United Church
1444 Dundas Crescent
Mississauga, ON L5C
1E9
Tel: 905-277-3656
Fax: 905-277-3657
ISLAM
Mr. E. Gad
Reflections on Islam
P.O. Box 375, Station P
Toronto, ON M5S 2S9
Tel: 416-260-7544
Fax: 416-260-0417
EASTERN RITE
Community Liaison
St. Mary’s Ukrainian
Catholic Church
3625 Cawthra Road
Mississauga, ON L5A
2Y4
Tel: 905-279-9387
Fax: 905-279-6859
BÁHÁ’I
Beverley Davis
The Spiritual Assembly
of the Báhá’is of
Brampton
22 Hanover Road, # 210
Brampton, ON L6S
5K7
Tel. 905-458-4373
Email:
beverley.davis@home.c
om
SIKHISM
Pardeep Singh Nagra
Centennial Foundation
76 Bankview Circle
Etobicoke, ON M9W
6S4
Tel: 416-727-1577
Web: www.sikhs.org
JUDAISM
Rabbi L.A. Englander
Solel Congregation
Synagogue
2399 Folkway Drive
Mississauga, ON L5L 2M6
Tel: 905-820-5915
Fax: 905-820-1956
BUDDHISM
Ven. Miao Tsun
International Progress
Buddhist Society of
Toronto
6525 Millcreek Drive
Mississauga, ON L5N
7K6
Tel: 905-814-0465
Fax: 905-814-0469
ENDNOTES
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
11/14
Portraits of Peel, United Way of Peel Region. Statistics Canada. 1991 Census
A Royal Commission Report. Equality in Employment, Judge Rosalie Abella. Ottawa, November 1984
3 Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances. Ontario Human Rights Commission,
Queen's Printer for Ontario, 2001
4Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Statutes of Canada, 1988, ch. 31.
5Opening or Closing Exercises for Public Schools in Ontario, 1993.
6Ontario, Ministry of Citizenship, Policy on Multiculturalism.
7An Act to Amend the Education Act in Respect of Education Authorities and Minister's Powers,
Statutes of Ontario, 1992, subparagraph 8(1) 29.1.
8Opening or Closing Exercises for Public Schools in Ontario, 1993.
1
2
REFERENCES
1.
2.
Abella, Judge Rosalie. A Royal Commission Report, Equality in Employment. Ottawa. November 1984
The Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions, A Source Book for the Community of Religions,
Chicago, 1993.
3. Ministry of Education and Training, Opening or Closing Exercises for Public Schools in Ontario, PPM No.
108.
4. Ministry of Education and Training, Education About Religion in the Public Elementary and Secondary
Schools, PPM 112.
5. Ministry of Education and Training, Antiracism and Ethnocultural Equity Policy and Implementation Plan,
PPM 119.
6. Multifaith Calendar, Unity Arts, 26 Concourse Gate, Napean, Ontario
7. Ontario Multifaith Council on Spiritual and Religious Care, Multifaith Information Manual, Toronto, 1995.
Keeling Partners Ltd.
8. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Policy on Creed and the Accommodation of Religious Observances.
Queen's Printer for Ontario. 2001
9. Peel District School Board. Manifesting Encouraging Respectful Environments. Mississauga. August 2000.
10. Peel District School Board. The Future We Want: building an inclusive curriculum. Mississauga. August
2000.
11. Parry, Caroline, Let's Celebrate! Canada's Special Days, Toronto, 1984. Kids Can Press.
12. Vision TV, Viewers Guide, 80 Bond Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5B 1X2. Tel. 416-368-3194, Fax. 416-3689774, Web. www.visiontv.ca.
Issue Paper #5 – Faith as an 'ism'
The Future We Want
Fall 2002
12/14