English school boards blast Bill 94 as an abuse of government power

Montreal Gazette

24-04-2025

Quebec Politics
By
QUEBEC — A presentation Thursday of Quebec English school boards' view on a new bill reinforcing secularism in Quebec schools slipped into a heated debate over the significance of religious symbols.
In a 15-minute virtual exchange, all in French, between Education Minister Bernard Drainville and the president of the Quebec English School Board Association (QESBA), Joe Ortona, visions clashed on the central pillar of the bill.
'Do you agree with me that wearing a religious symbol is sending a religious message,' Drainville asked Ortona during a presentation to the committee of the legislature examining Bill 94, an act to reinforce laicity in the education network.
'Not at all,' Ortona replied crisply. 'It's a personal choice. Our teachers are evaluated on their competences and their neutrality and not on their clothes. Imposing a ban on symbols would target personal beliefs.'
Adding a second layer to his argument, Ortona told Drainville the Coalition Avenir Québec government itself recognizes it is in violation of such rights itself because it has opted to makes use of the Constitution's notwithstanding clause overriding rights and freedoms to shield Bill 94 from court challenges.
'But people who see a religious symbol you are wearing get a religious message,' Drainville persisted.
'Religion is a personal choice as is wearing certain clothing,' Ortona countered. 'It does not make a classroom into a religious institution. I think even children can make this distinction. And they probably don't even know certain clothing has a religious significance.'
Drainville said some teachers have voluntarily chosen to remove their symbols while working, a sign some employees feel their employment in a school carries responsibilities. He also said it is false to say people have lost jobs over the law.
But Ortona countered that teachers removed religious symbols not by choice, but to follow the law.
'We maintain that a right is a right,' he said. 'We judge our workers on the quality of their teaching. This is how we judge our school personnel. Not on their clothing.'
The clash of visions was inevitable. QESBA is involved in the legal challenge to Bill 21 on state secularism, which imposed the first ban in 2019 on persons in authority, such as teachers, from wearing religious symbols such as a hijab, turban or crucifix while on the job.
Conceived in the wake of incidents of religion creeping into Bedford elementary school in Côte-des-Neiges in 2024 and other institutions, Bill 94 proposes to expand the ban to cover everyone working in a school, from janitors and cafeteria workers to library volunteers and the plumber who enters the school to fix the sink.
In its brief to the committee, QESBA argues the 'wall-to-wall' measures Bill 94 will impose on the entire school network are based on isolated events at Bedford and 'fragmentary findings that are far from a solid evidentiary basis to justify new binding legislative measures.'
'Bill 94 is a sledgehammer solution in search of a problem,' the brief says. 'This bill instrumentalizes the concept of laicity, creating a false problem to justify excessive centralization of powers. It sets a dangerous precedent for the balance between teachers' duties, individual rights and institutional responsibilities.'
The legislation also does not take into account that the English network, which includes nine school boards, is not subject to the same governance regime as the French system, the brief adds. The English boards benefit from the protection of Section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which for now means the new law can't apply.
None of those considerations were discussed by Drainille in his exchange with Ortona. Drainville instead questioned Ortona for his views on clauses in the bill, such as the one that would put an end to teachers booking off for religious holidays.
Ortona responded that the issue is not really a problem in the English boards because collective agreements already include provisions for staff to be absent for personal reasons 'with no justification needed.'
Asked by Drainville if he considers the notwithstanding clause a legitimate tool, Ortona answered it depends on how a government uses it.
As the exchange closed, a flustered Drainville asked Ortona: 'Is there anything good in the law or should it all be tossed in the trash?'
'The short answer is no,' answered Ortona. 'It solves no problems and is of no use.'
Ortona also levelled some criticism at the government for allowing the Bedford situation drag on for seven years before acting.
'If it goes all the way to the minister, it has gone on too long,' Ortona said, adding a situation like this would never have been allowed to drag on in the English school system.
The QESBA presented its brief on the last day of hearings into the legislation, which will now forward to the next step in the adoption process. The government hopes to have the bill adopted before the June recess.
Opinions have been split on the bill. While some pro-secularism groups such as the Mouvement laïque Québécois welcomed the legislation and urged it to go further, others, particularly unions representing thousands of teachers, questioned how the bill can be applied.
On Thursday, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec representing 225,000 teachers, presented a brief calling for a moratorium on the expanded ban on religious symbols so the government and unions can assess the real impact it will have.
CSQ president Éric Gingras told the committee the ban risks aggravating the current personnel shortages in the network, which will only deprive students of quality services.
'It will have a negative impact on a network that does not need any more negative impacts,' Gingras said in an exchange with Drainville.
Éric Pronovost, also with the CSQ, highlighted practical problems enforcing the ban. He mentioned the example of a school employee going to the home of a student to offer help and encountering the student's fully veiled mother.
Under the bill, the employee could not offer a service because he or she has to respect the law, which requires uncovered faces at all times between parties.
'The employee thus becomes an intrusion,' Pronovost said. 'The bill creates a pressure on the employee going to deliver a service. How are we to manage this on the ground?'
Drainville responded the mother would be allowed to wear a hijab that does not cover the face, but had no further answers.
The Association Montréalaise des directions d'établissements scolaire also said the bill will cause still more shortages in the network.
'How will be able to recruit volunteers for our libraries with this?' asked association president Kathleen Legault.