Setting The Stakes: Bill One

Chris Colley 0:12

Welcome back everyone to another episode of Shift Ed Podcast coming to you. We're blowing through this school year 25-26 spring. We can almost feel it, and at times it gets taken away just as quick as we feel it with more snow. But we will survive. Today I have a really important guest coming on again. Joe Artono has been here before. And Joe is the chair of the English Montreal School Board and the president of the Quebec English School Board Association. He's a lawyer by profession, he's become a prominent voice also in issues related to minority language rights in Quebec. And his work focuses on the governance, community engagement, and the protection of constitutionally guaranteed access to English language and public education. Hence why Joe is here, and we're going to talk throughout this episode about Bill One in particular. So, Joe, thanks so much for hopping on here and again sharing your insights with our community on this pretty big bill that's that's being pushed through as we speak.

Joe Ortona 1:24

Well, thanks for having me on. It's a pleasure to be back.

What Bill One Attempts To Do

Chris Colley 1:27

So, Joe, this is a huge bill, right? Bill One. It enacts three new laws, right? So a constitution of Quebec. It also has this act respecting the constitutional autonomy of Quebec, and also the act respecting the Conseil constitutionnel. It also amends the Canadian Constitution Act of 1867, and it also amends 20 provincial laws, some being, for example, Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Civil Code, Code of Civil Procedure, etc. Right? 20 different provincial laws it amends as well. Joe, if we if I were to just ask you right out, like how like how do you put all this in a perspective of a description or an overview in your opinion of what is Bill One, if you had to put it into words after that, you know, kind of intro that I gave of how big this bill is?

Joe Ortona 2:25

I guess the best way to describe it is uh a terrible attempt by a government that is really dwindling in the polls to be able to pass something that they see as something major that could something that would, I guess, give them a raison d'être after they're gone. Like, you know, like this is what we accomplished kind of thing in in the years to come. But they're not popular right now, and so what they're doing is unpopular, and the way they're doing it is even more unpopular because there's absolutely no consultation that has taken place of any kind to get this to get this bill drafted. And so it's really just another example of the CAC imposing its will on the people of Quebec, you know, regardless of what anybody else thinks.

Token Consultations And Real Power

Chris Colley 3:20

Right, right. And you you you recently attended the National Assembly on February 10th, I think it was, where you had an opportunity to address the Assemblée nationale. What was that the purpose of that? Like, if if if Bill One is kind of set, like why are they having all of these community members having the ability to come in and ask questions and kind of like question is this just to kind of save face or like what was the purpose if it wasn't for consultation?

Joe Ortona 3:55

Well, all bills normally go through a parliamentary committee where uh the bill is studied clause by clause, section by section, and part of that process is to have various groups invited to be able to give their feedback and perspective to the National Assembly. We don't really get to ask questions. What happens in that process is that the elected people actually ask us questions. But when you're talking about a constitution, this is supposed to be, you know, a bill that way more important. The constitution is more important than a law. It's supposed to bring Quebecers together, and the only way to do that is to have a vast consultation before you present the bill. So to suggest that this is consultative, because they consulted a few groups during this parliamentary committee is really misleading because there will be very few changes if this bill ever comes to pass. There will be very few changes between the initial bill that was presented and the final product that becomes a law.

Chris Colley 5:09

Interesting.

Can Quebec Outrank Canada’s Constitution

Chris Colley 5:10

So I guess one of the recurring themes, too, that keeps coming up in this bill one is the idea of Quebec's constitutional autonomy. How should listeners understand what the shift means in just political the governance in governance terms with this idea of Quebec's constitutional autonomy? Like, is this the idea that the this new constitution would replace or or sit on top of the Canadian constitution? Could you clarify a little bit of that for us?

Joe Ortona 5:45

Yeah. It's unfortunate that you know this is creating all of this confusion. And so people are asking all of these questions and and rarely getting answers from the people in government who should be the people explaining this to make sure that there is no confusion or or or any misleading ideas that arise from this bill. But first of all, every province has or can have its own constitution. That's not a that's not where the problem lies. Quebec before this still has its own constitution. There is codified written constitutional text, and then there's unwritten constitutional text. So Quebec has had that, you know, and and uh Canada has had that going even before Confederation, it goes all the way back to the to the 18th century. So that's not where the issue lies. The minister has already admitted that this constitution cannot supersede the Canadian Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is the supreme law, and so whatever other constitutional texts exist, even in a provincial context, have to abide by the Canadian Constitution. Otherwise, we would we would have uh an endless limbo of, well, you know, if ever there's uh there's there's a discrepancy or a contradiction, well, who wins out? So there has to be a supreme law, and that's the Canadian Constitution. Everybody has recognized that. The issue here is that this government is falling in this bad habit now of thinking that it can unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution, something that we've maintained through our court challenges,

Rights Versus “Quebec Values”

Joe Ortona 7:47

that the government, no government of Quebec could ever do. There is an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution. And they're trying to bulldoze this constitution through as sort of another means to get a little closer to sovereignty, I believe, which again is not something that can just be done through a constitutional text.

Chris Colley 8:13

Right, right. So interesting. And then there you have this tension, I guess, is I think you're you're alluding to a little bit in the sense that you have this parliamentary parliamentary sovereignty and individual uh and individual over minority rights. Like, where's this like it seems like they're saying, and again, I I want clarity on this, that individual rights are underneath the Quebec identity or underneath the the Quebec Quebec profile? Or can you elaborate like it seems to be this tension now between like what Quebec wants to identify with versus individual rights and and you know minority language as an example of that?

Joe Ortona 9:03

Well, look, this government, there's no way to sugarcoat this. This government just doesn't believe in in rights because this government has decided that they can pick and choose which which rights are higher up in the hierarchy of rights, that they can decide that there even is a hierarchy of rights and that they're gonna establish which rights belong at the top and which ones are less important and belong at the bottom. This government has also, you know, decided that you know your rights are limited to whatever ideas and values that they deem important. And so, you know, that's not really how rights are supposed to work. Rights are supposed to be they're they're they're not absolute, they never are, but uh they're they're supposed to be broad, and they're supposed to be protections from government overreach. And that's not what we're seeing here. What we're seeing here is we're now going to place a limit on your rights, and and the minute, the minute your expression of those rights goes against what we deem to be the values of of Quebecers, which again is being imposed by a government that is unpopular and didn't consult Quebecers. You know, so this idea that if it goes against what we deem as Quebec's values, well, that becomes the limit where your rights are no longer rights. And and you have to contrast that with when the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1975 by the Robert Barassa liberals, it was adopted unanimously in the National Assembly. And historically, whenever it amendments have come to that charter, it came with a broad consensus and almost always unanimously in the National Assembly as well. So across, you know, things that everybody agreed with across all party lines, every single opposition party here is against Bill One. So that really says something. Right.

Chris Colley 11:17

Yeah. And I guess another layer on top of that, too, is that they're making it harder for pushback, right? So if if you want to go do anything legal against, you know, a pr, you know, if you feel like your rights are being infringed upon, they can have a right to override that, or there's less legal challenges that can be made now, or they could decide. Like, is that can you shed some light on that aspect of it as well, this other layer on top?

Blocking Court Challenges With Public Funds Ban

Joe Ortona 11:48

Yeah. So they they put in they put a provision in the bill, it's in section five. Essentially, and I mean, it it's hard to say that it's not because of because of the EMSB or the English school boards. I mean, the the minister Jaré Barret like basically admitted that he put this in because of us. That that bars uh any public money from being used to challenge Quebec laws in the courts. And it's because of the significant wins that we've that we've had through the courts. You know, we we got to continue to be school boards because we went to court and challenged Bill 40 that was going to abolish school boards. We we've gone to court and and we won in in superior court on Bill 21. We were able to obtain a stay on Bill 96 and some of the provisions there regarding the use of French in the English school boards and in the English schools. So essentially, what this government is doing is it's really doing something that I think is is quite shameful. It's it's taking in these, continuously taking in these losses through the court system where judges are telling them, you can't do this. This is this is overreach. This is unconstitutional. And their response is rather than to go back to the drawing board and draft legislation that actually is constitutional, their response is, well, let's make it harder for the people to actually have their day in court. You know, school boards have a constitutional right to exist, it's protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's part of the Canadian Constitution, it's part of the Constitution Act of 1982. The Quebec government cannot ignore it, can cannot ignore it. They cannot override it with the notwithstanding clause. If you want to abolish school boards, if you want to limit their ability to manage and control the English school system, which is something you're not allowed to do, well, what's who is gonna fight the government on that, but the school boards? And and yes, the school boards are funded with public money, but they're really gonna be the only people that have the vested interest and the ability to take on the government. And the government fights the the Quebec government fights the federal government through courts all the time. So they don't have a problem with public money being used for court challenges, they have a problem with with losing. That's the problem. The problem is they keep losing, and now they're trying to figure out a way to make that more difficult.

How Legal Battles Strain School Operations

Chris Colley 14:47

And I guess Joe, I like how do you bring that down to like a school board level? Like, how does it how would it affect the operation of a school board with with Bill One coming in? Like, would would structures have to change? And like I know that there's been that ongoing battle around school boards versus sans de service. Like, can you shed a little bit of light on that? Like, what does it look like in the operational level of an English school board having to deal with these new, you know, this new bill if it ever comes to pass?

Joe Ortona 15:23

Well, it's hard to say for bill one because it it hasn't been implemented yet, but I I I could tell you with I'll I guess I'll speak more generally for all of the court cases. You know, the cases heavily influence our board's operations. You know, for example, the government imposed the $200 million budget cuts to education while we're challenging those budget rules, and that's that's in the courts, it hasn't been heard yet, and it's not decided yet. But we've had to implement hiring freezes. And so, you know, we're also at the same time fighting to access our surpluses that we have, you know, and and we're we're fighting to access them for essential services, like you know, providing extra help for children with special needs. Policy-wise, you know, uh again, we have to tread carefully around language requirements from Bill 96, because you know, we did we did seek exemptions to maintain uh English governments, but but not exemptions from the entire bill. So we there's there's that resource allocation becomes strained because we're you know we have to use our funds to for things like Bill 40's appeal and Bill 21's appeal, which which we do because we we deem it necessary for the survival of the you know minority language education system. And so we know that long term this is going to benefit uh the whole system, but but you know, it all of that has an effect, uh an impact on our operations. And of course, there's always the the idea that you know the government is is is much bigger than the school board, it's more powerful, it has more resources, and there's always that threat of you know, if we don't comply with what the government wants to do, you know, there may be consequences to that. And there's always that there's so there's always that risk that's in the back of everybody's mind when they're when they're making decisions. And so even when we're fighting and we're getting these wins in court about autonomy and us being able to decide things at the local level, that still weighs in in the back of everybody's mind when when decisions need to be made. And so they're still exercising an influence that they shouldn't be exercising when it comes to you know local control.

Chris Colley 18:14

Right, right. And Jeff, even if we we bring this down a little bit like right to

Students’ Rights And Section 23

Chris Colley 18:20

the student. So a student has if his or her parents or you know, family members had attended English school, they have legal right to go to an English school. But the teachers might not necessarily get to have training or resources that are developed for minority language, right? Because I mean, the ministry doesn't, you know, produce these types of things. Like, so in the end, kids who have the right are also kind of being infringed upon because of how how it's kind of you know, top-down structure, how it, you know, pushes through. And it seems like the kid is just like forgotten about, you know, like the kids access to, you know, their rights as as you know, second language as minority language learners. Do you think that that that is a conscious decision that if we can put constraints on every other level level other than the student, that eventually the students, I don't know, stop going to English school? Or like like what is is that like I guess that my question is there an ultimate goal behind all of this to I don't want to say suppress, but to get at that fiber of the basics of you know, an individual's right to access the language that that their parents and and and you know their history, their generations have had. I mean, it's a I'm sorry to ask such a huge question, but I mean I guess it's just like there's so many question marks about that. Like, what about the kids like and their access?

Joe Ortona 20:06

Yeah, so I fully understand why people in the English speaking community really see what's happening in English education and think that it is a deliberate and concerted effort to decrease enrollment, to make schools have no choice but to close, to reduce accessibility, you know, because especially this government has been so hostile towards the English-speaking community in in the last seven and a half years. We've never faced a government that's so hostile toward minorities in general, religious minorities, the English-speaking community, including PQ governments and people who are older than me and have worked in education have confirmed this, that it has never been this bad. I don't know that everything that happens is is deliberate. I certainly can't prove it. So I don't want to say that. But what I will say is, even in the best case scenario, what we see is they just don't care about the English education system. And so it kind of gets tossed on the side. Textbooks, you know, policies, hand uh handbooks, anything that is written, anything that comes from the Ministry of Education is always only in French. It's an ongoing battle to get English versions, you know. And and and again, I I do want to stress because you you started the question with parents having who went to English school, having the right to send their children to English school.

Chris Colley 21:59

It's

Joe Ortona 22:00

Important to know Section 23 goes way beyond that. The courts have recognized this over and over. Our Section 23 rights go beyond accessibility to English school. Section

English System Performance And Resilience

Joe Ortona 22:12

23 rights guarantee the the right to manage and control that education system. And so we have exclusive rights and powers when it comes to English education, which means that it's not the government that gets to decide. And so that's a great thing because there is a counterbalance to the bureaucracy of the Ministry of Education and the government of Quebec who wants to put English education, you know, on the side because it's not important to them, for us to have the ability to counter that with the decisions that we make. And so the whatever the intent is, if their intent is for like the children to fall behind, that's not happening in the English education system because we have remarkable administrators and school principals and teachers and support staff that provide, you know, that go the extra mile, that provide everything that they need so that the students can succeed. And we see that in the success rates when we compare the English school boards and the French service centers, and when we compare the English school boards with the results province wide, uh, the the English public system far outperforms the French system. And in fact, some of the English school boards' success rates are on par with private schools. So that's like quite a remarkable achievement when you have to remember, you know, private schools really they all have entrance exams, so so they get the ones who they get the children who perform best and score highest from day one. The public system takes takes in everybody. And and so, you know, we're graduating the students at the at the same rate. That's you know, that's a remarkable achievement.

Chris Colley 24:08

Yeah, absolutely. I echo that too. I I mean, I think that our our minority Anglo system is full of amazing people, educators, administrators, and it it shows in the data, right? I mean, the data doesn't lie, it tells a great story that perhaps some don't want to listen to. Joe, again, thanks so much for that. Like every time I talk with you, I just feel like I'm learning a bazillion different

Election Scenarios And What’s Next

Chris Colley 24:35

new things. I guess my last question to kind of wrap this up is we have a new government coming in in the fall, November elections are coming. I mean, the CAC is on the way out. It looks like the PQ is next in line. Does what the CAC setting up is the PQ uh in a line with this? Because you had said at the start of this that everyone, all the minority parties are are against this Bill One. What's this? What what do you see, in your opinion, happening in this transition phase? Because it looks like Bill One is gonna get thrown through over the summertime, so it might be there come election time. Like, how does all that work? It just seems like this confusing cluster of who knows what's gonna happen and how the PQ might react to having, you know, is like referendum still gonna be in the picture here, too. Or like, I don't know. Like just in your opinion, Joe.

Joe Ortona 25:38

I mean, because it's hard to know read the future, but I I mean yeah, yeah, I can give you my opinion far from my area of expertise to to to to know what the PQ intends to do. First of all, my hope is that they don't win. You know, I I'm I'm only one voter and I and I and I mark one ballot, so that's the limit, that's the limit of my influence. But I hear you. I but I I hope they don't win. That being said, I I don't know what they're well, even before we get to the election, I I I hope that Bill One doesn't come to pass. I hope that you know they they go through this clause by clause. I I hope that they, you know, invoke whatever measures that they're allowed to invoke in the House, in the in the National Assembly, in order to block this from going through. They could filibuster this bill if they wanted to. The only way that the government could really force Bill One from being passed is if they invoke closure, and which means they decide they're ending all debate and and they're forcing a vote. And to do that, they've done it before, but to do that on a constitutional bill, you know, I I don't know that anybody could be silly enough to think that they could politically get away with that. But if but if they did and it passed and the PQ came in, I don't know what they would do with this constitutional bill. I know that any other party would make very, very significant changes to to the bill, but but but the PQ opposes it for a very different reason, right? Like this doesn't go far enough for them because it's it's never gonna be enough until until Quebec is a is a sovereign country. So, you know, I only see the PQ as wanting to hold a referendum. And that's like their big promise is that they're gonna hold one in the first in the first mandate, which would be another colossal waste of time because Quebecers are nowhere near having the the appetite to even want to discuss that issue right now, and I don't see them I don't see that changing within the next four years. And and it would be very unwise. I mean, I I saw an interview recently with Lucien Bouchard on in in French, and he brought up something really, really interesting. Of course, it's from a it's from a nationalist perspective, which which I don't always think about, but it it, you know, he says every time Quebec lost a referendum, they they they lost more than just a referendum. So, you know, he he he mentioned Rene Levesque lost the the referendum in 1980. Well, we got the uh the new Constitution Act of 1982 with the Canadian Charter of Rights, which was negotiated without Quebec and the constitutional amendment procedure, which which excludes you know Quebec from having a veto power, which which Quebec and Ontario almost always had before because of the size of their population. You know, Jacques Parizeau lost the referendum in 1995, and then we had the Clarity Act, where the federal government now says, well, we get to determine what a clear majority is, and we get to determine what a clear question is, and we can determine that if if one or either or both of those conditions are not met, we're not gonna recognize the the result of your referendum. And so, you know, if if if Pont Saint-Pierre Plan and the PQ win a majority and and they decide to hold a referendum and they lose out again, they're probably gonna lose more than just a third referendum. And so, you know, uh at his own risk is what I would tell them.

Chris Colley 29:49

Right, right. Well, this has been great, Joe. Thanks so much for this part two. I'm sure there's gonna be a part three at some point. Your insights and clarity are really, really valuable for our community to start to understand the gist of this. And I think you put it in really understandable language that makes a lot of sense and connects us to this really closely. So we will definitely be following along. And I really appreciate your time with us today. And uh we'll see. I guess that's where we'll leave this at for now. Sure. Yeah, my pleasure.

Joe Ortona 30:30

Thanks a lot. Thank you.