Latest news with #Bill94
CTV News
01-06-2025
- Business
- CTV News
Quebec's new language rules officially in effect as of Sunday
Companies must now comply with new rules on commercial signage in French in Quebec. A woman takes advantage of Black Friday deals in Montreal on Friday, 29 November 2024. (Christinne Muschi/The Canadian Press) Businesses must now comply with new rules on commercial signage in French in Quebec, as provisions of Bill 94 come into force Sunday. These new measures apply to outdoor commercial signage, trademarks on products and the use of French within businesses. To comply with the new regulations, the space devoted to French text on a sign visible outside a business must be at least twice as large as that devoted to text in another language. The Ministry of the French Language hopes to promote the 'clear predominance of French,' according to a news release issued last Friday. With regard to product labels, 'the ingredients, colour, fragrance or other characteristics of the product must now appear in French on the product or on a permanently attached medium,' the ministry said. The new regulations state that only the name under which the product is marketed and the name of the company may remain in another language. 'Products that do not comply with the new rules may be marketed until June 1, 2027 if, among other things, they were manufactured before June 1, 2025 and no French version of the trademark has been registered as of June 26, 2024,' the release states. Recent measures require companies that employ between 25 and 49 people for a period of six months to register with the Office québécois de la langue française and commit to a francization process. Formerly Bill 96, the Act respecting the official and common language of Quebec, French, was passed in June 2022, amending the Charter of the French Language. These amendments established French as the sole official language of the province. This report by The Canadian Press was first published in French June 1, 2025.
Montreal Gazette
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Montreal Gazette
Libman: Court's rebuke of tuition hikes a wider indictment of divisive CAQ tactics
'We observe an absence of data on which the minister claims to base her decision.' 'The evidence shows that the minister had no data on the matter, beyond tenuous information.' Two very telling extracts from last week's Quebec Superior Court judgment rendered by Justice Éric Dufour, in overturning the Coalition Avenir Québec government decision to sharply increase university tuition for out‑of‑province students attending McGill and Concordia. The judge criticized Higher Education Minister Pascale Dery's contentions regarding the retention rate of students from outside Quebec and their ability of integrating into Quebec society, posing threats to the survival of French. This is not just a slap-down of the minister, but a wider indictment exposing how the CAQ often seems to be improvising, particularly on matters of identity and language. Whether by design or incompetence, instead of working from hard data and facts, this government has adopted legislation and implemented important measures — with significant impact on Quebec society — based on anecdotes, hearsay and questionable perceptions. Bill 94 is another recent example. Prompted by a few alleged incidents in 17 (out of Quebec's 3,000) public schools, Education Minister Bernard Drainville is expanding the ban on wearing religious symbols in schools to now include almost all workers, including janitors. When it comes to language measures, forget hard data. Everything seems driven by the accepted orthodoxy that French is in serious 'decline' — thus the need to protect the language at all costs. If someone dares question just the means or the methodology, it's invariably seen as an attack on Quebec and unleashes relentless intimidation. When federal Liberal MP Emmanuella Lambropoulos cautiously asked at a language-committee hearing for more information or proof of the supposed decline, she was attacked from all sides, and subsequently quickly retreated. Measures to promote and protect French and maintaining Quebec's uniqueness are important. But flimsy evidence or fearmongering about the intensity of a decline, to justify measures that unnecessarily go too far, rightfully deserve to be challenged. The court's scolding on tuition is a welcome reminder that governments should be basing major decisions on facts, not exaggeration or phantom menaces. The French language is deeply rooted throughout Quebec as the dominant language at all levels of government and in public health care institutions and all professional corporations. According to the Office québécois de la langue française, even in neighbourhoods most heavily concentrated with anglophones, customers in businesses can be served in French 94 per cent of the time. According to Statistics Canada, never in the history of Quebec have so many non-francophones and newcomers been able to speak French. It's not the French language itself in decline, therefore, but the percentage of native-born mother-tongue francophones. That misleading statistic is often used to justify tougher French language measures, many of which go too far (Allez Canadiens Allez? Really?) Provisions of language Bill 96 — such as search and seizure, snitching and others — do little to protect French, yet clearly violate charter rights. Otherwise, the government wouldn't have used the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively to pass it. Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet recently called Canada an 'artificial country.' In Monday's federal election, his party was reduced to only about half the number of seats won in Quebec by the Liberals led by Mark Carney. Blanchet, in a display of exaggerated self-importance, offered collaboration but warned it was conditional on Carney not opposing Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause when Bill 96 reaches the Supreme Court. Hopefully when the time comes, Carney will show leadership and prove that Canada is a very real country that values rights — and, as judge Dufour did, expose the distinction between laws buttressed by reality as opposed to 'artificial' arguments and tired notions that divide and weaken our society.
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Ohio bill would ban exclusive streaming contracts for college sports
Ohio State Buckeyes football helmet.(Photo by) A bill proposed in the Ohio Senate would ban exclusive streaming contracts for college sports, stopping fans from needing to pay for numerous services to watch their favorite teams. The national championship-winning Ohio State University football team played Michigan State University last season. But it was a game you could only watch on Peacock, NBC's streaming service — something that OSU fan and state Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, was angry about. 'I don't have streaming services because, again, I can't afford to spend all that on the streaming service,' he said. 'The fact that I wasn't able to watch an Ohio State game about killed me.' In recent years, streaming services have been getting exclusive contracts to broadcast college athletics. If you don't pay for the services, you don't get to watch. DeMora said this adds up, since the Big 10 has a deal with Peacock and the Middle Atlantic Conference (MAC) has one with ESPN subsidiaries ESPN+ and ESPNU. This could be especially difficult for people who can't access or don't have high-speed internet, he said. 'They can't watch streaming TV even if they wanted to pay the extra money for it,' he continued. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Since DeMora is not only a fan, but also a state senator, he introduced Senate Bill 94, which would prohibit public universities from giving exclusive broadcasting rights to a streaming service. 'The streams were lagging, pixelated, out of sync and plagued by poor audio quality,' DeMora said during recent testimony on the bill. 'People were paying for something that was horrible quality to start.' WEWS/OCJ reached out to both the BIG 10 and MAC conferences, the different streaming services and their owners — as well as OSU, Kent State and the University of Akron. Akron said they didn't have a comment yet, and Kent declined to comment. But Ohio State did chime in. 'Media rights agreements are negotiated by the Big Ten on behalf of all conference members, and broadcast rights for specific athletic events are controlled by the designated media partner in accordance with the larger media rights agreement,' OSU spokesperson Ben Johnson said. State Rep. Josh Williams (R-Sylvania) said this was a 'kind of stupid' bill. 'Imagine the Buckeyes not being part of the Big 10 anymore because a simple piece of legislation said you can't sign up to a streaming deal,' Williams said. 'I think it's ill-advised, ill-conceived and it won't get any support.' This bill could hurt the schools, he added. 'You're going to stop universities from a revenue stream that they can generate off of their athletic programs that they use to reinvest into their athletic facilities,' the Republican said. The legislation would also allow students to watch broadcasts for free. The legislation would require state universities to provide enrolled students access, but it is up to the school's discretion how that is implemented. Johnson explained that Peacock does give a student discount. Right now, the premium subscription for students is $2.99 per month for a year, down from $7.99. Once a year passes, students will have to pay $7.99 per month. 'Having to pay extra to watch their teammates and classmates' sporting events isn't fair to them,' DeMora argued. Williams disagreed with this argument and the Democrat's frustration with the cost in general. 'That's like saying someone can't afford the purchase of a television, so therefore games shouldn't be televised,' Williams said. The general public is with him on what he calls the streaming epidemic, DeMora said. 'It's not fair to the everyday fan,' he said. The bill will be subject to more hearings in the coming weeks. Both DeMora and Williams have proposed football-related legislation. The Democrat proposed a bill that would prevent state money from going towards professional sports teams that have losing records. Williams, in the last General Assembly, introduced a bill that would make planting a flag in the center of the Ohio Stadium football field illegal. He proposed this after a brawl broke out when University of Michigan players tried to plant a flagpole after they beat OSU. Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Montreal Gazette
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Montreal Gazette
English school boards blast Bill 94 as an abuse of government power
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.
CTV News
24-04-2025
- Sport
- CTV News
No more ‘Go Habs Go': STM changes messaging after OQLF complaint
It may be playoff season for the Montreal Canadiens, but don't expect to see any 'Go Habs Go!' signs on the city's buses any time soon. The Société de transport de Montréal (STM) says it had to change its messaging to the French, 'Allez, Canadiens Allez!' following a complaint that was filed with the Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF). 'The anglicism 'Go' was replaced by 'Allez Montréal'' explains Isabelle Tremblay, a spokesperson with the public transit agency. 'The new wording also retains the team spirit, while complying with Law 14 [also known as Bill 94].' The law, An Act Respecting French, the Official and Common Language of Quebec, is considered to be a significant piece of legislation that strengthens the protection and promotion of the French language. The STM says it made the decision to change the wording after it received a complaint last year about the message 'Go! CF MTL Go!' 'The Office québécois de la langue française (OQLF) asked the STM to modify its message,' Tremblay said. 'Given that the word 'Go' is considered an anglicism, the STM has decided to remove this word from its bus weathervanes.' The STM notes it had to manually change the messaging on each vehicle, starting at the end of last summer. It took several months for the modifications to be complete. The public transit agency notes that writing messages on its weathervanes is a way of 'saluting national sports teams, supporting STM's official partners and establishing STM as a player in its community.' The STM refused to comment further on the situation.
