I'd say that "Affirmitive Action" covers any policy aimed at promoting the interests of one ethnic or cultural group over another. For example, apartheid was a pro-white affirmitive action policy. It's NuSpeak, of course, but cheerier than saying that the Government of Ontario discriminates against all non-Catholics

My wife went through French Immersion schooling and now her young brothers are doing the same. Even though we all live in a part of Ontario with fairly few French speakers it definitely appears to be a useful skill to be bilingual when you enter the workforce.

As mentioned we rarely encounter french in our day to day lives but my wife said she'll never "forget" how to speak french because of the quality of the education.

I might be wrong but it appears that French Immersion schools appear to generally have higher standards as a whole.

I dont think its necessarily the schools that have higher standards, its more like natural selection. FI parents are perhaps more likely to support and take an active interest in their kids education which can only have positive effects, and to some extent its the brighter or better motivated kids that sucessfully manage to make the shift to learning in a second language, those that struggle often go back to the other stream. There is definitely a culling effect due to FI.

If I had a kid that was struggling I would definitely think long and hard before subjecting them to the additional strain of starting FI in G4... thats one reason that starting at JK or SK seems a better way to do it.

I'd be surprised if it were true that there a few French speakers in and around Guelph (compared to the rest of Ontario). Guelph and K-W are centres for insurance. The insurance companies were once based in Montreal but moved to Ontario in response to bill 401. They brought many of their staff. I suppose I hear someone speaking French once a week. Most recently, yesterday, an African woman shouting into a phone. Appropriately, she was in the Quebec Street Mall.

For Guelph I believe it's less than 2% speaking French as first language and less than 10% bilingual. Even by Ontario standards it's on the lower end I think.

1% vs. nearly 4% for Ontario as a whole:

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re...B1=All&Custom=

You can't "easily" dismantle the official language policy, but with some constitutional lawyers and political will it could be done. My point was that Chinese continues to grow as a third language (and there's no reason it won't considering vast pool of Chinese speakers who might happen to find Canada as conducive to a new life as their predecessors) there will one day come a point when Chinese speakers outnumber French speakers, and there will be a case for a third official language or a dismantling of second official language provision.

Actually, my question was more about what affirmative action policies exist in Canada (rather than the definition). I can imagine there are policies with respect to aboriginals, but I don't know if I would construe bilingualism as AA, and wonder if there is something else. I am also a bit sceptical of Catholics being included as beneficiaries of AA , but am happy to be enlightened.

The Government of Ontario funds four school systems, Catholic English, Catholic French, Everyone English, Everyone French. Attendance at Catholic schools, membership of the boards of administration, teaching positions are (with some odd exceptions) open only to Catholics. Participation in the Everyone school system is open to, well, everyone, including Catholics. It's as simple a discrimination as anyone could ask. Such arrangements once prevailed in Newfoundland, Quebec, Northern Ireland and, I imagine other places, only Ontario, to my knowledge, maintains this particular AA program.

This is not entirely true. Exactly because it's funded by the government, any child can go to a Catholic school. They do need to fill out an extra form if they are not baptized Catholic, but that's pretty much it. I know many children who come from non-Catholic families and are attending a Catholic school, because their parents happen to believe it's the one that offers the best education. There is some religion left at school, but it's minimal, and I have never heard these kids complain about having to hear about God.

I believe this might be different when it comes to working at a Catholic School though, and I agree that the board hiring policies might be considered discriminatory. However, Catholic religion being part of the school culture, I can see how the board could conclude that a teacher should be familiar with it. It's somewhat similar to requiring that a teacher in a French Immersion school be fluent in French, even though it's part of the English board. Yes, it discriminates against teachers who don't speak French, but they would clearly be unfit. I understand that knowledge of a particular language is a skill, while religion is a personal choice and there is a difference between the two, but I can see how it might be slightly relevant.

The other thing is that one gets to choose which board to support when paying property taxes, and in most cases it comes down to supporting the board where your kids or grandkids go...

AA based on religion is a very slippery slope. Racial equality or language preservation is one thing, but preferring one religion over another (or none) is very divisive. In my opinion, faith schools have no place in modern society.

I'm not sure it's as simple as all that. What would the form say? I foresake my religion for a bowl of soup and a lesson in sums?

In any case, there's no such form at ordinary schools and Catholic chidren don't have to sign one so it's a discriminatory system. It ought not to be funded by the government. (Religious schools ought not to exist but that's another argument).

Agreed. It's doubly iniquitous for the State to fund the schools of one religion and not all the others.

Actually, the problem is best defined as funding schools of any religion, because opening up funding to any faith ("faith equality" as Tony Blair did) creates a completely fractured education system with each faith vying to indoctrinate its young.

In any case, there's never going to be money to fund every possible set of superstitions ao it's not appropriate to fund any of them.