The parents, identified only by their initials, S.L. and D.J., said that the program interfered with their ability to pass on the Catholic religion to their children, and that exposing their children to various religions was confusing for them.

The program is taught throughout elementary and secondary school (grades 1-11) and covers Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, aboriginal and other beliefs. All students in the province, including children who are homeschooled, are required to take it.

“Exposing children to a comprehensive presentation of various religions without forcing the children to join them does not constitute an indoctrination of students that would infringe the freedom of religion,” wrote Justice Marie Deschamps in the majority report on behalf of seven of the nine justices. “Furthermore, the early exposure of children to realities that differ from those in their immediate family environment is a fact of life in society.”

As many as 2,000 parents had requested that their children be exempted from the course, but their requests were denied by both local school boards and the Quebec Ministry of Education. The parents’ appeal had been rejected by the Quebec Superior Court in 2009 and the Court of Appeal of Quebec in 2010.

Seven groups had presented arguments as interveners in support of the parents, including Christian Legal Fellowship; Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Coalition pour la liberté en education; Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (EFC); Regroupement Chrétien pour le droit parental en education; and Canadian Council of Christian Charities/Canadian Catholic School Trustees’ Association.

The parents expressed their disappointment with the decision. “As a parent, I feel like I have a right to a say in the education of my children,” the mother told Life Site News.

Jean-Yves Côté, the family’s lawyer at the trial, said that, as a result of the ruling, “the state is now in a position to impose in the public schools an ideology that doesn’t correspond to the parent’s faith.”

In a news release, the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada called the decision a threat to parental rights: “This is a disappointing decision. Parents are the primary educators of their children in all regards and must be allowed to both know what is being taught in their child’s classroom and remove their children from classes as they see fit.”

The Catholic Civil Rights League noted that Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, the Quebec Civil Code and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all affirm “the rights of parents as first educators” but that “The overall impact of the court’s decision enlarges the state’s role into family autonomy.”

“We are disappointed with the decision,” stated Don Hutchinson, EFC Vice-President and General Legal Counsel. “Historically, Canadian parents have had the right, affirmed by the courts, to teach morality and religion to their children from their perspective, or decide who will do so on their behalf, without government interference.”

The Supreme Court’s decision stressed the neutrality of the state in regards to religion and determined that the program was religiously neutral and designed only to teach toleration. However, commentator Barbara Kay, writing in The National Post, argued that teaching that “all religions are…equally valid” is not religiously neutral. She noted that one activity in the program encourages students to invent their own religions.

Kay also suggested that it was paradoxical for the government to promote diversity by insisting on “a one-size-fits all program of education about religion.”

The court decision stated that the couple had failed to prove objectively that the ERC Program infringed on their freedom of religion or “interfered with their ability to pass their faith on to their children.” However, in its intervention, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association argued that the onus should have been on the state to prove that its program doesn’t infringe freedom of religion, rather than on parents to prove that it does. In putting the onus on the parents, the decision seems to make the state rather than parents the primary educator of children.

In its response to the decision, the EFC noted that the Supreme Court did not even address the issue of parental rights and responsibilities in educating their children. Instead, the court decision was based on the lack of evidence that the program had negatively influenced the children.

In a minority report, two of the nine justices made precisely that point. Justice Louis LeBel, writing on behalf of himself Justice Morris Fish, noted that the only evidence the plaintiffs had been allowed to present were a program outline and a textbook. They continued, “In its current form, the program says little about the actual content of the teaching and the approach that teachers will actually take in dealing with their students.…It is not really possible to assess what the program’s implementation will actually mean.” The minority report concluded that the program might, in fact, infringe the parents’ rights and religious freedom and that a further court challenge could be possible once there is more evidence on how the course is taught.

EFC Legal Counsel Faye Sonier stated that because of the minority report, “The Court has left the door open to a similar case returning to the court if an objective infringement of rights can be demonstrated.…What is troubling about the decision is that the Court could have dealt with the issue instead of setting it up for the potential to return in…four to seven years…after somebody has the objective evidence of their rights being violated by the program.”

Jean-Morse Chevrier, president of the Catholic Parents Association of Quebec and a director with the Catholic Civil Rights League, said it would be difficult to prove harm “on the psychological level and the spiritual level,” and added, “Once the damage is done, it’s not that easy to undo.”

For another perspective on this issue, see the blog post by Regent College professor John Stackhouse here.

Lloyd Mackey in front of the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill in Ottawa

How do you get the government to listen, anyway? Or the opposition, for that matter?

One way is to very carefully prepare a brief for a standing committee, whose makeup comes from all political parties.

The brief may not get much public attention, although the group presenting it may have its own ways of letting its own “public” know what its spokespersons had to say.

One such brief was presented, recently, to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. It was a nine-page federal pre-budget submission from the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. And it was entitled Families, Compassion and Charities: Key Components to Maintaining a Strong Canada.

The EFC is one of three major trans-denominational Christian influencers, nationally. The other two are the Canadian Council of Churches and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops.

In reading the EFC brief, I was intrigued by its use of tight writing and brevity, as well as the use of headings and key words which are often used, both by government politicians and those who are members of other parties.

In the next few moments, I will summarize some of the brief’s highlights. OttawaWatch readers wanting to check out the details can go to www.evangelicalfellowship.ca, find the “Key components to maintaining a strong Canada” headline, then chose the blue link dubbed “submission”.

Early on in the brief, the EFC self-identifies as “the national association of evangelical Christians, gathered together for influence, impact and identity in ministry and public witness.” While it avoids saying how many Canadians it represents, it tosses in some interesting statistics about EFC affiliates. There are 39 different denominations actually affiliated, along with another five maintaining observer status. Additionally, there are 76 ministry organizations, 34 educational institutions and close to 1,000 individual congregations.

The brief begins with an executive summary which notes that the EFC “does not generally engage in the number crunching of the government budget process.”

But it asserts that a budget is, “fundamentally, a moral document in which the nation’s leaders decide what is ‘right and wrong’ for public expenditure.” Thus, it maintains, “Biblical principles are relevant to the budgeting process.”

The EFC, it should be noted, maintains a permanent Ottawa office, two blocks from Parliament Hill, known as the “Centre for Faith and Public Life.” One of the EFC’s vice-presidents, Don Hutchinson, heads the centre, with several staff members doing research in such portfolios such as human rights, care for the vulnerable, religious freedom, sanctity of human life, marriage and family, and freedom of conscience.

In referring to the aforementioned ‘Three components”, the brief suggests that they “remain key to the success and strength of Canada’s present and future as well.”

Here summarized, is what the EFC says are the points to be noted about the three components:

• Families. The stability of Canadian families underlies and evidences the stability of the nation.
• Compassion. Our long history of compassion toward the less fortunate, at home and abroad, testifies to the heart of the Canadian people.
• Charities. Canadian charities, particularly religious charities, have been significant in the development of Canada’s health, education and compassionate response mechanisms and continue to be vital to the life of Canadians and Canadians’ expression of compassion toward those in need.

In talking with Hutchinson about the EFC brief, I learned that politicians of all parties had been particularly interested in the obvious generosity of religiously-motivated contributors to charity. Intriguingly, no matter their party affiliation, they seemed interested to know how government could encourage stronger support for such charities.

That discussion, Hutchinson said, turned to some of the studies being done by such “think” or “do” tanks as Cardus and Imagine Canada, about the use of more generous tax credits to encourage faith-based charitable giving.

(It has been noted elsewhere that donors to political parties get a better tax break than do those contributing to religious charities.)

*  *  *

In wrapping up, today, I would like to mention both the Manning Centre Networking Conference, set for  March 8-10 in Ottawa, and, particularly, one the of sponsored luncheons at this year’s conference.

That March 9 luncheon will be sponsored by the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada and will feature, as speaker, Marvin Olasky, editor-in-chief of World Magazine, a substantive and popular American Christian-rooted newsmagazine. Olasky, some may recall, was one of the originators of the phrase “compassionate conservatism”.

More information about the Networking Conference can be found at www.manningcentre.ca. I will be lurking around the edges, there, registered as a student and – what else – networking. All that in the interests of a good start on the thesis for my Tyndale Seminary doctor of ministries studies.

*  *  *

Lloyd Mackey is a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa and author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006), More Faithful Than We Think: Stories and Insights on Canadian Leaders Doing Politics Christianly (BayRidge Books, 2005) and Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Manning and Preston Manning (ECW Press, 1997). Lloyd can be reached at lmackey@rogers.com.

Peter was a business person par excellence, family person and deeply committed Christian.

As one who played a role in the founding of BC Christian News, which served a large segment of the Christian community for 28 years, until January 2011, I had the opportunity of working with Peter. He was a member and sometime board chair of Christian Info Society, publishers of BCCN. I was editor twice, during his tenure.

We worked closely during a period in the early and middle 1990s, when the state of the newspaper was somewhat precarious, financially. Peter wanted to find out if it could reach sustainability. To that end, he became the volunteer publisher, putting in hundreds of hours selling advertising, monitoring the cash flow and encouraging staff and church leaders to appreciate the newspaper.

During that time, I was the part time editor, while Edna and I were publishing periodicals in the agribusiness field.

Peter and I had an understanding: I almost never “interfered” in the business side of the newspaper and he almost never “interfered” in its editorial side. The arrangement worked well, because we – and other board and staff members – could collaborate to bring our own particular strengths to the endeavour.

The contribution of his time and talent enabled the newspaper to move into a stable era of service which was to last almost two more decades, under the publishing leadership of such as Bill Kent, Al Stanchi, Steve Almond and Flyn Ritchie.

Today, Christian Info has morphed into Converge magazine and CanadianChrisianity.com. The first serves a younger demographic and is published bi-monthly. The editor and manger respectively are Shara Lee and Jeremy Mills.

Our condolences go to Peter’s wife of 62 years, Lena, who was always a loving and loyal supporter of his various business and ministry activities, and to his six children (one deceased) and their families.   

My friend Isadore’s voice was strained with frustration. After phone calls to the dealership, and various failed attempts to dislodge the seized ignition tumbler, he was giving up. The fact that he had also just lost his full-time job days earlier did not help his mood.

“I can’t afford to fix it. I might as well just give it back”, he moaned.

We agreed that it was worth one more trip to the dealership. Driving from the pot-holed gravel road of the First Nations reserve to the fresh blacktop by the gleaming new powder-coated aluminum and glass auto dealership was like passing from one world to another.

“It is the big building,” he said quietly.

We parked in a customer service slot, and he mustered up enough courage to enter through the full-length glass door directly ahead of us. He seemed even shorter in the high-ceilinged reception area adjacent to the vast, spotless service centre. Did he realize he was now in a temple of auto technology and he would need just the right approach? It took conscious effort for me to be quiet and let him start.

The young attendant said, “How can I help you, sir?” and then quickly pecked at his keyboard behind the high counter, entering all the pertinent information while squinting into the hidden computer screen.

“My car won’t start,” Isadore said meekly. “I bought it here, and you have maintained it. I even bought an expensive warranty, but I don’t know if that will help. I thought that since we have a relationship, maybe you could do something for me.”

I could hardly contain my composure. Relationship? What was he thinking? That approach would not get him anywhere in this place!

The manager of the department arrived. She started pecking at her keyboard. She did not sound promising. The car would have to be towed at the hapless customer’s expense, and warranty coverage was not assured. He was given an 800 number to call and register his complaint. Isadore started to head for the door, conceding defeat.

I could not stand it any longer. “Wait a minute,” I blurted out, confident anger rising in my chest. “Does my friend not have an extended warranty that is still good for another 40,000 kilometres and one more year?”

“Yes, it looks that way,” came the meek response from the service manager.

“Then who should pay for the towing and the repair?”

“Well, I think we will,” came the equally meek response.

We burst out through the glass door and breathed in the fresh air.

“Wow, this is a really good day!” Isadore said, his face gleaming with optimism and renewed confidence. He called the tow truck driver and insisted that his car be towed to the dealership that day.

“Just follow me,” Isadore said.

I drove behind him as he guided his newly repaired, warranty-covered import to the longhouse on the reserve. He entered the longhouse with sure steps, leading me through the cluttered kitchen, along a long hall and down a ramp onto a dirt floor. The chill and dampness of a B.C. winter day were held in check by two huge iron barrel stoves at either end of the low, open-raftered structure. At a rectangular table in the middle of the room sat 15 or so individuals of all ages, reporting on the activities of the previous month.

I was offered a seat at the table, and I awkwardly sat down. After more reports, a simple meal was served. I hung back and waited till the end of the line before serving myself, not wanting to break some protocol that might be lurking in the shadows.

After eating, the elders, including Isadore, were seated at the table, and the real meeting began. He was recognized by name and looked so at home. I sat on the outskirts on the lowest level of the rough plank bleachers that surrounded the building and stared at the black, earthen floor. That earth must have witnessed many ceremonies that would seem very strange to me. Being in this centre of Indigenous culture, tradition and religion made me uneasy.

As the meeting progressed, I was amazed. Age was respected, first names were used, participants deferred to one another, and decisions were made based on consensus. Congregational churches could learn a thing or two from this!

During one of the intermissions, when participants were serenaded by drums and chanting, I ducked out into the cold drizzle outside. I slid past a group of grinning youth in the parking lot and climbed into my familiar minivan, resisting the temptation to lock the doors.

Isadore stayed behind to present his idea of carving a residential school healing pole, with indigenous and non-indigenous people working together. The concept now seemed more relevant than ever.

How can my world and Isadore’s world ever intersect in such a way that meaningful trust and relationship can be built? We had seen it start to happen at Missions Fest Vancouver the previous month, where the pole carving was featured in the main exhibition hall. Hundreds of people saw indigenous and non-indigenous carvers working together on a yellow cedar pole that will tell the story of how pain and separation are giving way to truth, healing and trust. Just the process of shaping this tree that grew strong during the residential school era is powerful. Many stopped to help and to listen to stories of redemption.

The pole will now travel to churches and communities in British Columbia and perhaps beyond. Isadore and I will tell our stories of our journey and our faith in Christ and how our lives are being enriched by one another. We hope many more will join us on this path of reconciliation. The pole is only a small token, but it can become a rallying point and a beacon of hope. That is our prayer.

Don Klaassen is a church mission coach with Outreach Canada (outreach.ca).

Charters is talking about a unique project that grew out of a local church Sunday school class and may have important implications for cross-cultural relations in Canada.

In studying various contemporary issues, the Journeys class at Sardis Community Church in Chilliwack, B.C., became aware of the harmful effect of Aboriginal residential schools. Charters, an Aboriginal artist and member of the Coqualeetza elders group, is a regular participant in the class; he shared with the group his vision of carving a Residential School Healing Pole.

With the encouragement of Don Klaassen, another participant in the class and a church mission coach with Outreach Canada (outreach.ca), a 200-year-old, eight-foot, yellow cedar pole was donated by a local businessman, and a way to transport it was designed. The pole will be designed and carved by former residential school students or their family members as a means of gaining healing.

However, the pole will not remain within the Aboriginal community but will also be carried to various churches and public venues where non-Aboriginals will be invited to assist in the carving. This will help non-Aboriginals understand the impact residential schools have had on Aboriginals, make them more aware of the issues facing First Nations people generally, and build positive relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities. The organizers point out that residential schools have also had an impact on non-Aboriginals.

“The Residential School program was an expression of our cultural arrogance. As a

result, we have wounds of injustice embedded deep in our society. We need healing,” says Darryl Klassen, Director of the Aboriginal Neighbours Program of the Christian relief and development organization Mennonite Central Committee. “Finally there is someone brave enough to say, ‘Let’s do this together!’ Working together on this pole could increase our understanding of our cultural differences and similarities.”

Various groups and churches are now being offered the opportunity to have the pole come to them. For instance, the pole was prominently displayed in the Exhibition Hall at Missions Fest Vancouver January 27-29 (missionsfestvancouver.ca), and attenders were invited to help carve. The pole may also become a feature of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (trc.ca) events to be held in B.C. in 2012 and 2013. Upon completion of the carving, the pole will be put on permanent display in a place accessible to the public.

Some Christians have raised questions about Christians endorsing use of a totem pole, says Missions Fest director Dwayne Buhler, fearing that it is either an idol or an object that depicts evil spirits. However, he points out that this understanding was a misperception of early missionaries and explorers. In fact, it was missionaries who gave the name “totem poles.” It is now understood that the poles were never objects of worship. The Native word for them means “story pole” or “kinship pole.” They generally recount important events in clan history. While some were used to celebrate cultural beliefs, that does mean that the medium is inherently evil—that would be akin to suggesting books are inherently evil because some books celebrate the occult.

In the Vancouver Missions Fest magazine, B.C. pastor and author Mark Buchanan recounted the visit to his congregation of six First Nations people: “I was unprepared for the emotional weight of their stories. Most of them were tales of loss and abuse. Some of the suffering our friends have endured is almost beyond imagining, and especially so since much of it was delivered at the hands of Christian leaders. I was even more unprepared, though, for the real story that emerged: the power of forgiveness. Each of the story-tellers, including the two who are as yet not Christ-followers, talked openly about forgiveness. One of the non-Christians admitted that he’s still not ready to forgive everyone who hurt him, but knows one day he must. One man recounted the abuse he went through from early childhood on, and how bitter and angry and cold he became. Then he talked about how Jesus led him to truly forgive, from his heart.”

Buchanan added, “Many white people, many of them Christians, have said to me, ‘I know that Native people have suffered. But when will they get over it?’ My answer now: ‘Most have. When will you?’”

Don Klaassen is challenging Christians and churches to get involved in the pole carving and in Aboriginal issues generally. “Aboriginal people in Canada are sometimes referred to as the most evangelized and least reached people. Their forced attendance at ‘Christian’ residential schools contributed to widespread misunderstanding of the gospel and suspicion of Christians and churches by First Nations people. Although not all students at these schools were physically or sexually abused, the legacy of these institutions is seen as overwhelmingly negative and viewed as a stark example of what can happen when one culture uses power or privilege to force its values on another culture. Even though most Christians alive today, and many denominations, did not participate in the residential school program, it is still an issue that needs to be sensitively addressed and understood by all of us before honest relationships can be built between indigenous and non-indigenous people.”

Klaassen explains, “Cross cultural ministry in and out of the local church is challenging these days. It seems that we face so many barriers in our own backyards that it is often easier to go far away to practice following Jesus. However, our effectiveness globally may depend on our willingness to practice discipleship and overcome barriers much closer to home.…If Christians acknowledge and address this issue, they will be better equipped to live out their faith and will be blessed in their efforts to overcome barriers of suspicion and misunderstanding wherever those barriers exist.”

Brander McDonald, Indigenous Relations Coordinator for Mennonite Church B.C., adds, “As a First Nations Christian, I want to be an equal partner in walking the healing Jesus Walk with non-Aboriginal believers. The process of carving this pole together is more important than the pole itself. Attitudes change and healing happens when we work together.”

It is quite an honour, and a good way to make use of the experience he gained in the almost two decades he spent in the House of Commons.

Strahl was one of the original “class of ’93” Reformers and, in Stephen Harper’s minority government, held three of the most challenging cabinet portfolios. It was under his watch as Indian Affairs (now Aboriginal Affairs) minister that the historic parliamentary apology to residential school victims was carried out.

Now being a Trudeau mentor might be seen as ironic for Strahl. After all, he was part of a political movement that has been committed, one way or another, to doing things a little differently to what Pierre Elliot Trudeau was reputed to have done.

Toward the end of this piece, I will provide a link to some of Strahl’s thoughts – comments that will demonstrate, I believe, that he is well qualified to be a mentor – personally, politically and spiritually.

*  *  *

As a Trudeau Mentor, Strahl will be one of a dozen people intended to provide personal and professional guidance to Trudeau Scholars – Canadian doctoral students who have been identified as future leaders.

The Trudeau Scholars program is one of the functions of the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation. The Foundation was set up in 2001 by friends, colleagues and family of the late prime minister, not long after his death at age 80. In 2002, the federal government endowed PETF with $125 million with – it should be noted – the unanimous support of the House of Commons.

Trudeau Scholars are chosen, in part, because of their interest and educational pursuits in four theme areas:

• Human rights and dignity.
• Responsible citizenship.
• Canada in the world.
• People in their natural environment.

Usually, the current “crop” of scholars number around 15 or so. That means the mentors have almost a one-to-one relationship to the people they are mentoring.

The mentors receive modest stipends for their work and are reimbursed for travel expenses required for that activity. The first meeting between the 12 new mentors and their scholar protégés took place in Victoria on February 7-9.

More information about the Foundation, its various activities, the Scholars program and the new mentors can be found at www.trudeaufoundation.ca.

*  *  *

Now, we move to the link to which I referred earlier – at http://archives.twu.ca:8080/Mel%20Smith%20Lectures.htm.

There, you can find the Mel Smith Lectures, delivered each winter (or spring, as they prefer to call it in balmy British Columbia) at Trinity Western University. The late Mel Smith was long time legal and constitutional advisor to several British Columbia premiers. His papers are in the Trinity Western archives.

Strahl delivered the 2007 Mel Smith Lecture. It was entitled Logging, Politics and Life. And it reveals much of what will make this man a down-to-earth, common sense mentor to the Trudeau Scholars.

*  *  *

The other Mel Smith Lectures are available at the same link – from such as Rafe Mair, Preston Manning, Ralph Klein, Deb Grey and your humble scribe. If I may put in a small self-interested plug, my lecture (from 2011) contains an interesting story about the mentoring of a former BC NDP premier who ran into a tad of trouble in the 90s. That mentor, to this day, is industrialist (and Christian) Jim Pattison, now 84.

*  *  *

To put a wrap on today’s OttawaWatch, I would like to quote from the Trudeau Foundation announcement about Strahl’s mentorship:

During Chuck’s involvement in the federal scene, he advocated the unification of the conservative movement and eventually served as minister of agriculture, of Indian and northern affairs, and of transport and infrastructure in the Conservative government. He remains interested in policy development and current affairs, and continues to write and comment on political issues. When he’s not entertaining grandchildren on his Chilliwack hobby farm, Chuck is working as a consultant on political, governmental, and business strategies.

*  *  *

And, last but not least, a Happy Valentine’s day, to Edna, my beloved spouse and OttawaWatch proof reader.

*  *  *

Lloyd Mackey is a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa and author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006), More Faithful Than We Think: Stories and Insights on Canadian Leaders Doing Politics Christianly (BayRidge Books, 2005) and Like Father, Like Son: Ernest Manning and Preston Manning (ECW Press, 1997). Lloyd can be reached at lmackey@rogers.com.