Latest news with #Bill40
Hamilton Spectator
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
School trustee takes colleagues to court over singing of God Save the King
A trustee on Dauphin's beleaguered school board is taking his colleagues to court over their refusal to support a return to students singing God Save the King on a daily basis. Manitoba children and youth are — at least on paper — required to recite an ode to the reigning constitutional monarch on all regular school days, either during morning announcements or before dismissal. The Kinew government is in the process of scrapping the dusty clause in the Public Schools Act that has not been enforced for more than 25 years. (The opposition Progressive Conservatives have delayed Bill 40, which would repeal the Schools Patriotic Observances Regulation, until the fall.) Despite its impending demise, Ethelbert-based trustee Paul Coffey wants to revive Canada's royal anthem in the Mountain View School Division in the name of following the law. 'The law is not optional. No board has the authority to suspend provincial statutes or regulations,' he wrote in an affidavit that was recently submitted to the Court of King's Bench in Dauphin. 'If the board disagrees with a regulation, the proper response is to advocate for lawful change.' Coffey filed an ex-parte application — a proceeding that is only permitted when the complainant is seeking urgent relief — on June 2. He is accusing six fellow board members of purposefully breaching their respective oaths of office by voting on Jan. 27 to pause a sudden, mid-year reintroduction of God Save the King across the division amid public outcry. The defendants include trustees Scott Lynxleg, Floyd Martens, Gabe Mercier, Conrad Nabess, John Taylor and Jarri Thompson. Chairperson Jason Gryba and vice-chairperson Kerri Wieler are the only elected officials on the nine-seat board not directly involved in the legal action. 'On its face, the lawsuit does appear frivolous,' said Cameron Hauseman, an associate professor of educational administration at the University of Manitoba. 'I'd argue it's nothing more than a waste of judicial resources in an effort to score some cheap political points.' An effective school board weighs its legislative responsibilities against other goals in the education system, such as fostering student well-being and belonging, Hauseman said. Manitoba is the only province that, in 1964 — a decade into the late Queen Elizabeth's reign — legislated the royal anthem into everyday proceedings at kindergarten-to-Grade 12 schools. Asked about why Mountain View's 16 schools were given marching orders to honour King Charles on a daily basis, starting Jan. 16, Gryba provided little explanation. The chair of the board issued a generic statement in the winter that stressed the importance of following rules. The directive was overturned after community members raised concerns that subjecting Indigenous students and staff members to a daily musical salute to the Crown and, by extension, the fallout of colonialism, would cause unnecessary harm. Coffey's affidavit called that resolution 'part of a broader pattern of governance failures and jurisdictional overreach by the MVSD board.' The board has faced significant scrutiny dating back to a public presentation he made in April 2024 during which he decried anti-racism initiatives and spoke positively about residential schools. 'Manitoba teachers know the ugliness of colonization and we know what these antiquated exercises in Manitoba do to students and to members,' said Lillian Klausen, president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. The union, which represents 16,600 public school teachers in the province, is both in support of trustees who want to create safe spaces and the province dismantling the outdated regulation, Klausen said. One of the defendants told the Free Press the group has been advised by counsel not to speak about the matter publicly. Alan Campbell, president of the Manitoba School Boards Association, refused to weigh in on a case that is in front of the courts. The office of Education Minister Tracy Schmidt — who has indicated she has no interest in enforcing the Schools Patriotic Observances Regulation — declined comment for the same reason. Coffey said in an email Monday that his court application was made in his capacity as a voting member of the division, in accordance with provisions under the Public Schools Act. As far as Hauseman is concerned, all six of the trustees who are named in his case should be applauded 'for their moral courage' in lieu of kowtowing to an archaic policy. 'That's the last thing we want to see in our elected officials,' said the U of M researcher who studies school governance. 'We want to see them stand up for what's right.' A hearing is scheduled for June 23 at the Dauphin courthouse. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Winnipeg Free Press
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trustee takes colleagues to court over singing of God Save the King
A trustee on Dauphin's beleaguered school board is taking his colleagues to court over their refusal to support a return to students singing God Save the King on a daily basis. Manitoba children and youth are — at least on paper — required to recite an ode to the reigning constitutional monarch on all regular school days, either during morning announcements or before dismissal. The Kinew government is in the process of scrapping the dusty clause in the Public Schools Act that has not been enforced for more than 25 years. (The opposition Progressive Conservatives have delayed Bill 40, which would repeal the Schools Patriotic Observances Regulation, until the fall.) Despite its impending demise, Ethelbert-based trustee Paul Coffey wants to revive Canada's royal anthem in the Mountain View School Division in the name of following the law. 'The law is not optional. No board has the authority to suspend provincial statutes or regulations,' he wrote in an affidavit that was recently submitted to the Court of King's Bench in Dauphin. 'If the board disagrees with a regulation, the proper response is to advocate for lawful change.' Coffey filed an ex-parte application — a proceeding that is only permitted when the complainant is seeking urgent relief — on June 2. He is accusing six fellow board members of purposefully breaching their respective oaths of office by voting on Jan. 27 to pause a sudden, mid-year reintroduction of God Save the King across the division amid public outcry. The defendants include trustees Scott Lynxleg, Floyd Martens, Gabe Mercier, Conrad Nabess, John Taylor and Jarri Thompson. Chairperson Jason Gryba and vice-chairperson Kerri Wieler are the only elected officials on the nine-seat board not directly involved in the legal action. 'On its face, the lawsuit does appear frivolous,' said Cameron Hauseman, an associate professor of educational administration at the University of Manitoba. 'I'd argue it's nothing more than a waste of judicial resources in an effort to score some cheap political points.' An effective school board weighs its legislative responsibilities against other goals in the education system, such as fostering student well-being and belonging, Hauseman said. Manitoba is the only province that, in 1964 — a decade into the late Queen Elizabeth's reign — legislated the royal anthem into everyday proceedings at kindergarten-to-Grade 12 schools. Asked about why Mountain View's 16 schools were given marching orders to honour King Charles on a daily basis, starting Jan. 16, Gryba provided little explanation. The chair of the board issued a generic statement in the winter that stressed the importance of following rules. The directive was overturned after community members raised concerns that subjecting Indigenous students and staff members to a daily musical salute to the Crown and, by extension, the fallout of colonialism, would cause unnecessary harm. Coffey's affidavit called that resolution 'part of a broader pattern of governance failures and jurisdictional overreach by the MVSD board.' The board has faced significant scrutiny dating back to a public presentation he made in April 2024 during which he decried anti-racism initiatives and spoke positively about residential schools. 'Manitoba teachers know the ugliness of colonization and we know what these antiquated exercises in Manitoba do to students and to members,' said Lillian Klausen, president of the Manitoba Teachers' Society. The union, which represents 16,600 public school teachers in the province, is both in support of trustees who want to create safe spaces and the province dismantling the outdated regulation, Klausen said. One of the defendants told the Free Press the group has been advised by counsel not to speak about the matter publicly. Alan Campbell, president of the Manitoba School Boards Association, refused to weigh in on a case that is in front of the courts. The office of Education Minister Tracy Schmidt — who has indicated she has no interest in enforcing the Schools Patriotic Observances Regulation — declined comment for the same reason. Coffey said in an email Monday that his court application was made in his capacity as a voting member of the division, in accordance with provisions under the Public Schools Act. As far as Hauseman is concerned, all six of the trustees who are named in his case should be applauded 'for their moral courage' in lieu of kowtowing to an archaic policy. 'That's the last thing we want to see in our elected officials,' said the U of M researcher who studies school governance. 'We want to see them stand up for what's right.' A hearing is scheduled for June 23 at the Dauphin courthouse. Maggie MacintoshEducation reporter Maggie Macintosh reports on education for the Free Press. Originally from Hamilton, Ont., she first reported for the Free Press in 2017. Read more about Maggie. Funding for the Free Press education reporter comes from the Government of Canada through the Local Journalism Initiative. Every piece of reporting Maggie produces is reviewed by an editing team before it is posted online or published in print — part of the Free Press's tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free Press's history and mandate, and learn how our newsroom operates. Our newsroom depends on a growing audience of readers to power our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber. Our newsroom depends on its audience of readers to power our journalism. Thank you for your support.
Montreal Gazette
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Montreal Gazette
Letters: As feds seek unity, Quebec digs heels on divisive tuition hikes
In today's challenging political and economic climate, our newly elected federal government is making a commendable effort to unite Canadians by breaking down provincial barriers and promoting national prosperity. Unfortunately, the latest stance from the Coalition Avenir Québec government — sticking to its contentious tuition hikes for out-of-province students despite a court order — runs counter to this vision. Premier François Legault's claims that the French language is being eroded appear unfounded and risk deepening divisions at a time when unity is more critical than ever. Canada is facing serious external pressures, particularly from our southern neighbour. Now is the time to set aside narrow political interests and focus on strengthening and preserving our country — together. Robert Tellier, Westmount Bill 40 belongs in Supreme Court Re: ' On death, taxes and the fate of minority rights ' (Robert Libman, June 7) Columnist Robert Libman asserts that the Supreme Court should decline to hear the Quebec government's appeal concerning education reform Bill 40. He highlights that two Quebec courts have unanimously ruled on what appears to be a straightforward matter. I respectfully disagree, as this issue extends beyond the jurisdiction of Quebec's interests. In Quebec, our public school system has two governance systems — one for the English-speaking community and the other for the French-speaking community. No other province in Canada has a system of school governance where language determines the rules, resulting in different standards for democracy, accountability and transparency. I feel this situation is unacceptable in any context. The issue requires additional scrutiny. Chris Eustace, Pierrefonds Asylum seekers face more hurdles Re: ' Group holds protest against proposed federal security bill ' (The Gazette, June 10) and ' Critic calls out border security bill provision ' (NP Montreal, June 6) It's perhaps surprising that one of the first pieces of legislation proposed by the Mark Carney government, Bill C-2, will make it far more difficult for refugees to apply for asylum in Canada. Under the bill's provisions, people who have been in Canada for more than a year will not be permitted to go through the refugee determination process. Those who cross by land from the U.S., with some exceptions, will not be permitted to stay, and the post-14-day period through which they can currently apply will be nullified. Bill C-2 would also give the government the power to cancel anyone's pre-citizenship or residency status. It's as though huge 'refugees need not apply' banners were placed at the Canadian border — a throwback to the Mackenzie King era. Shloime Perel, Côte-St-Luc Finding right fit for Bay building Re: ' 'A Trophy Asset' ' (The Gazette, June 10) The recent closing of Hudson's Bay stores has raised the question of the future vocation for the flagship store in downtown Montreal. My preference would be to repurpose it as another department store, at least for its older part fronting Ste-Catherine St. W., to maintain the street's character as a major commercial artery of Montreal. I suggest inviting Galeries Lafayette — a major department store chain in Europe with roots in Paris — to open a branch in the former Bay location. Given Montreal's French character, establishing a store in Montreal would be a natural fit. Robert Hajaly, Montreal Submitting a letter to the editor Letters should be sent by email to letters@ We prioritize letters that respond to, or are inspired by, articles published by The Gazette. If you are responding to a specific article, let us know which one. Letters should be sent uniquely to us. The shorter they are — ideally, fewer than 200 words — the greater the chance of publication. Timing, clarity, factual accuracy and tone are all important, as is whether the writer has something new to add to the conversation. We reserve the right to edit and condense all letters. Care is taken to preserve the core of the writer's argument. Our policy is not to publish anonymous letters, those with pseudonyms or 'open letters' addressed to third parties. Letters are published with the author's full name and city or neighbourhood/borough of residence. Include a phone number and address to help verify identity; these will not be published. We will not indicate to you whether your letter will be published. If it has not been published within 10 days or so, it is not likely to be.
Montreal Gazette
07-06-2025
- Politics
- Montreal Gazette
Libman: On death, taxes and the future of minority rights in Quebec
Benjamin Franklin famously wrote: 'In this world nothing can be certain, except death and taxes.' Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, comes pretty close. It is the ironclad constitutional protection of minority-language education rights in this country. It has consistently been interpreted by Quebec courts to uphold the right of the English-speaking minority to control and manage its school system. And it's exempt from the application of the notwithstanding clause. After the Coalition Avenir Québec government adopted Bill 40 in 2020, abolishing and replacing school boards with service centres under greater government control, the province's English boards challenged the law as unconstitutional. In 2023 Quebec Superior Court Judge Sylvain Lussier agreed, ruling in no uncertain terms that much of Bill 40 infringes on the English-speaking community's constitutional rights to govern and control its educational institutions. The CAQ government, however, appealed the judgment. In April of this year, Quebec Court of Appeal judges Robert Mainville, Christine Baudouin and Judith Harvie handed down their ruling. They also concluded that parts of Bill 40 infringe on the section of the Charter of Rights that guarantees minority-language education rights and couldn't be demonstrably justified as a reasonable limit on charter rights in a free and democratic society. Another slam dunk for minority education rights. Yet this week, the Legault government went ahead anyways to request leave to appeal this judgment by Quebec's highest court to the Supreme Court of Canada. The irony here shouldn't be lost: Quebec's nationalist government is asking Canada's highest court to overturn rulings from the two Quebec courts. I have little doubt Quebec's lawyers have advised the government they cannot possibly win this case at the Supreme Court. This appeal seems purely political. No one would expect the CAQ to dare show any surrender in assailing minority language rights at the risk of giving a drumstick to their more nationalist rivals, the separatist Parti Québécois. The Supreme Court should refuse to hear the appeal considering how categorically the two Quebec courts unanimously ruled in what seems an open-and-shut case. For several reasons, the ideal scenario would be for the Supreme Court to say the Quebec courts composed of Lussier, Mainville, Baudouin and Harvie have already made an irreproachable decision. Case closed. This, in fact, could even benefit the CAQ (which they might be secretly hoping for) because if the Supreme Court does take the case and inevitably invalidates sections of the law sometime next year, around Quebec election time, it would help provide ripe fodder for the PQ to condemn Canada for 'again' crushing Quebec's aspirations and ignoring its 'distinctiveness' — while conveniently glossing over the fact that Quebec francophone judges had also unanimously struck it down. But watch out for another concern. Within days of the appeal court's ruling, coincidentally or not, Quebec Justice Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette announced his intention to launch negotiations with Ottawa about amending the Constitution so that Quebec judges are chosen from among members of the Quebec Bar, recommended by the Quebec government. Currently, superior and appeal court judges are appointed by the federal government. Judges in this country act as a check and balance for government legislation, if challenged. They are impartial arbiters, interpreting the charters of rights to balance individual or minority rights against political objectives. In Quebec, where an important linguistic minority relies on constitutional protections, the courts are their only redress at times, often against the backdrop of a highly charged language environment. We need only look across the border at the U.S. to see what can happen when the court system becomes politicized. If certain Quebec governments started to exert influence on the courts by appointing judges known for favouring collective rights over individual rights, or harbouring secessionist sympathies, for example, the last vestiges of protection for minority communities, including the certainty of Section 23, could vanish.
Montreal Gazette
03-06-2025
- General
- Montreal Gazette
Hanes: Bill 40 appeal shows the Legault government has learned nothing
By Whenever a new fracas erupts between the government of Premier François Legault and the anglophone community, Eric Girard, the minister responsible for relations with English-speaking Quebecers, is dispatched to try to patch things up. Recently, he admitted that new directives issued last summer that suggested eligibility certificates for education in English could be used to access health care in English were ' not our finest moment' and that he was 'disappointed' at how the whole saga played out. Previously, Girard acknowledged that tuition hikes for out-of-province students that disproportionately harmed Quebec's English universities had ruffled feathers, and he vowed to smooth things over. When he was appointed to the portfolio in 2022 after the angst surrounding the adoption of Bill 96, Quebec's update of protections for the French language, Girard promised to allay fears and 'do better.' 'When I say we need to do better, I mean we need to improve relations,' he told The Gazette back in the early days of his tenure. But time and again, these prove to be empty promises. Because actions speak louder than words. And even though it was less than a month ago that Girard called for the latest reset, the Legault government has demonstrated the depth of its contempt for the rights of English-speaking Quebecers anew by announcing its intention to appeal the latest ruling on Bill 40 all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada (if the top court agrees to hear it, that is). The attempt to abolish English school boards and replace them with service centres was one of the first bones of contention between the anglophone community and the Legault government after it was first elected in 2018. The Quebec English School Boards Association launched a constitutional challenge of the law immediately after its passage and has since won two resounding victories. Both Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeals have agreed that Bill 40 is a violation of Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and affirmed the rights of the English-speaking minority to manage and control its own schools. Both courts have categorically said that transforming school boards into service centres like their francophone counterparts, centralizing many of their decision-making powers in the ministry of education, and axing the elected councils of commissioners run counter to those constitutional guarantees. But the Legault government is forging ahead trying to defend the discredited law. At this point, there is no principled reason to drag this out — and no pragmatic imperative, either. Quebec's English school boards obtained an injunction in 2020, keeping them intact for the duration of the legal proceedings. For five years they have continued to operate as they always have, overseen by elected representatives from the community, alongside French service centres. At this point the government's argument that it can't have two different systems for running French and English schools doesn't really hold water. In fact, there is growing concern that francophone service centres, administered by parents drawn from local school governing boards, lack transparency and accountability. And since Bill 40 was adopted five years ago, Education Minister Bernard Drainville has grabbed even more authority from service centres, like the power to appoint their directors general and overturn their decisions. The English school boards have already proven their management and control rights — twice. But the Legault government just won't let it go. Are they gluttons for punishment? Or is this merely a continuation of the pattern of antagonizing the English-speaking community? So often over two mandates in office, the premier or his ministers say one thing and do another. Legault claimed nothing would change for anglophones under Bill 96, yet there has been major upheaval. English colleges now have quotas for francophone and allophone students and new French course requirements, which has left them destabilized. English versions of government and public websites now have warnings about who is allowed to consult the content, which is an insult to intelligence. English court documents and decisions must be accompanied by French translations, which are costly and time-consuming, impeding access to justice. And these are just a few examples. The rights of anglophones are either complete afterthought or collateral damage. A year ago, when new rules on simultaneous translation of court judgments came into effect, a Quebec Court judge on the verge of presiding over an English criminal trial had to convene representatives of the prosecution service and attorney general's office to get basic information on how this was supposed to work. He was essentially told there was no plan and things were still being figured out. For his efforts, he was the subject of a complaint to the judicial council for overstepping his authority. He was later totally exonerated. His decision declaring the new regulations inoperable for English criminal trials is being appealed, however. The list of slights goes on and on. Yet concerns are frequently dismissed as the rantings of 'angryphones' acting like the world's most spoiled minority — until the government gets egg on its face over something truly ludicrous. Whether it's having to intervene on the Go Habs Go fiasco, override a library's decision not to allow an English book club to meet without simultaneous translation or rewriting the confusing health directives, each incident erodes trust. If Girard was at all serious about wanting to rebuild confidence with English-speaking Quebecers, there was one, simple, concrete gesture the government could have made that would have gone a long way and meant a lot in laying the groundwork for a truce: not appealing the Bill 40 ruling to the Supreme Court. Instead, the Legault government couldn't resist fighting a losing battle to the bitter end.
