You’d think the province of Saskatchewan would be almost out of time to figure out how to deal with a judge’s ruling last year that non-Catholic students may not receive public funding if they attend separate schools.
After all, the bombshell decision by Mr. Justice Donald Layh of the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench back in April 2017 gave the Saskatchewan government only until June 30, 2018, to solve the problem his decision handed them. That’s now less than two weeks away.
But while no court has overturned the Justice Layh’s ruling, the CBC reported Saturday the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal has approved an application by the defendant in the original case, the Yorkton-area Catholic school board that is now one of the appellants, to extend the deadline.
The case has been grinding its way through the courts since 2005, when the public the Good Spirit School Division sued the Christ the Teacher Roman Catholic Separate School Division for opening an elementary school two years earlier in the Village of Theodore, putting the future of a small public elementary school at risk when some non-Catholic students transferred.
The public school division argued that the protection of Catholic schools in Saskatchewan (and Alberta and some other provinces) that was grandfathered into the Canadian Constitution in 1982 didn’t include the right for Catholic schools to receive public funding for non-Catholic students.
When Mr. Justice Layh agreed a dozen years later, well, the stuff kind of hit the fan! This should come as no surprise, as Catholic schools in Saskatchewan and several other provinces, most certainly including Alberta, depend on non-Catholic students and the funding that comes with them to stay in business.
Justice Layh’s 2017 ruling has been followed by several developments.
In May 2017, the Saskatchewan government sought leave to appeal the ruling.
Later that month, the provincial government introduced legislation invoking the Notwithstanding Clause of the Canadian Constitution in an effort to wipe out the court’s decision. The so-called School Choice Protection Act was passed by the end of the month and given Royal Assent. However, it has not yet been enacted, pending the outcome of appeals.
Using Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override an inconvenient court ruling – long a go-to solution for Saskatchewan politicians – may not be 100-per-cent effective in this situation, however, despite the way the story has been reported.
As noted in this space in May last year, using the Notwithstanding Clause may not be a definitive solution to the governing Saskatchewan Party’s political problem because Mr. Justice Layh’s decision rests on more than just the fundamental rights set out in the Charter.
As prominent Edmonton lawyer Simon Renouf observed at the time, “I very much doubt that the Saskatchewan government can use the Notwithstanding Clause to save its scheme of public funding for non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools as the court also found that this funding offends section 17(2) of the Saskatchewan Act, which amends s. 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to allow for funded Catholic schools, for Catholics.”
“The Notwithstanding Clause could not affect this finding, as it applies only to certain sections of the Charter, and not to the Saskatchewan Act,” Mr. Renouf explained. The Notwithstanding Clause is powerless against provisions in the 1905 Saskatchewan Act, which since 1982 has been entrenched in Canada’s Constitution and subject to its more complicated amendment mechanisms.
Mr. Renouf observed that the Saskatchewan Party government of then premier Brad Wall had already argued in court that it was forced to provide per-student funding under the terms set out in the Saskatchewan Act and the judge ruled the opposite. So, he asked, is it possible in those circumstances for either the Saskatchewan government or the Parliament of Canada turn around and pass a law requiring a province to fund non-Catholic students attending a Catholic school?
In January this year, Justice Layh ordered the Catholic School Division to pay close to a million dollars in legal fees and costs to the public school division. The Saskatchewan government was also ordered to make a payment.
In February, Christ the Teacher Catholic School Division and the Saskatchewan government also sought leave to appeal that ruling.
That seems to be where things stand at the moment. No one should expect this situation to be resolved by June 30, or for that matter when classes resume in September.
Given the political clout of the Catholic Church, many politicians of all stripes throughout the Prairies and in Ontario doubtless wish this could just go away. Alas for them, it’s not going to.
Ministers in cabinet shuffle to be sworn in this morning
There will be a cabinet shuffle in Alberta today. According to a notice to media yesterday from the premier’s office, a swearing-in ceremony will take place at Government House in Edmonton at 9:30 a.m. This could signal a mere shuffling of deck chairs, as they say, or a full blown change-up.
Knowing Premier Rachel Notley, who is nothing if not confident about her cabinet choices, it seems unlikely the changes will be all that dramatic. The lady’s not for turning, as was said of another politician, of similar style if not ideology, whose name escapes me at the moment. Still, some changes are likely as Alberta moves into the pre-election zone.
Two Calgary-based Cabinet members – Associate Health Minister Brandy Payne, the MLA for Calgary Acadia, and Status of Women Minister Stephanie McLean, MLA for Calgary-Varsity, have both announced they will not be seeking re-election in 2019.
Ms. McLean was the first Alberta MLA to give birth while in office; Ms. Payne did the same thing soon after. Despite the efforts of the Notley Government, the challenges of being a new mother and a cabinet member are very real.
The Status of Women portfolio, while not taken very seriously by past Conservative governments, is an important and high profile ministry in Premier Notley’s government, especially as we enter an election campaign that promises to be challenging for the NDP.
Meanwhile, Alberta Seniors and Housing Minister Lori Sigurdson, the MLA for Edmonton-Riverview, was recently diagnosed with acute promyelocytic leukemia. She is on leave from her cabinet duties.
One of the awkward things Premier Moe has inherited from his predecessor Wall is several quixotic court challenges, like the Catholic school issue and of course the carbon tax. I suspect the easiest thing to do politically is for him not to say to much about them and let them quietly wind on to resolution. If in the end Saskatchewan voters are not too happy about wasted money, he can probably blame his predecessor if necessary. In reality, governments seldom get punished by voters for silly court challenges, which is why parties of all stripes use them as stalling tactics to put off dealing with issues they don’t want to deal with. I suppose it worked well for Mr. Wall, he is gone now and now the school issue is a problem for his successor.
It is interesting how Premier Notley hasn’t made big changes to her cabinet over the last few years. Often governments shuffle things around too much and ministers never really figure out their departments. I think she might have the better approach. When things were not going well for the PC’s they often seemed to shuffle things around – often it was just a game of musical chairs with the same participants, but in different chairs. I don’t think it was very convincing to voters when done by the previous government. Of course, one of their other go to tactics was to reorganize and rename departments, often done in conjunction with the musical shuffle. I wonder if the former PC’s now part of the UCP still hold to that approach.
It seems to me the best argument for cabinet shuffles is necessity – someone new comes into the government, someone retires, etc.. Given an election is coming up in about a year, it makes sense that those MLA’s that decide not to run again (ie. retire) might not stay in cabinet and this would be a good time to bring in someone new and promising. It is easier for the government to deal with one or two new ministers, rather than a whole bunch of ministers unfamiliar with their departments, so it is best not to shuffle too much or two often.
Your blog on Catholic school challenge in Saskatchewan didn’t provoke response, I note. That probably reflects political realities there and in Alberta. As you probably know, former PC Education Minister Dave King spearheaded an effort in Alberta to defund separate Catholic education. He’s now living in Victoria, and nobody here has filled his leadership role. It is clear neither the NDs nor the UCPs see any advantage in taking up the cause. As a non-Catholic, I say the reluctance is probably a good thing. The Catholics would fight defunding tooth and nail. Do we need that kind of social unrest in Alberta? Also, why destroy a system that works reasonably well — especially in the larger urban centres. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Maybe there’s no interest in the topic. Maybe it’s the dog days of summer and nobody’s reading the news. Whatever … DJC
I’m reading the news. I’m interested in the topic.
btw- I too am frightened by the resistance a defunding of the Catholc system would surely arouse, and assume bith political parties are avoiding that kind of controversy one year out from the election.
Too bad too. I had hoped the NDP would do even more on things like this. Evidently the blow back they got from efforts like the farm bill/carbon tax means they have to pick and choose their battles.
I hope we see some more true progressive legislation from them as they position themselves for the election.