Bill 94 revises Québec’s Education Act and the Act respecting private education to reinforce State laicity across the school system. It creates operative duties for students, staff, contractors and parents to have faces uncovered in school premises and when services are provided, extends prohibitions on wearing religious symbols to many categories of personnel and service providers, bans the use of school premises for religious practices, and requires rules of conduct that emphasize equality of women and men and bans bullying and targeted violence.
Beyond laicity measures, the bill reorganizes administrative obligations: it requires teachers to submit instructional planning to principals, obliges annual principal evaluations of teachers, mandates a new educational services quality committee, adds codes of ethics for governing boards with investigatory and penalty powers, grants the Minister additional compliance powers, and includes explicit clauses that certain provisions operate notwithstanding the provincial Charter of human rights and specified provisions of the Constitution Act, 1982. The package creates immediate compliance tasks for school service centres and alters the legal landscape for employees, contractors and institutions offering educational services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires students, homeschooled children receiving services, and any person who provides services or is in contact with students on school premises to have their face uncovered (with limited health and task exceptions). It extends a ban on wearing religious symbols to many employees and contractors when on school premises or providing services, mandates school codes of conduct and ethics, and vests new oversight powers in principals, school service centres and the Minister.
Who It Affects
Public and private schools, school service centres, teachers, principals, governing board members, third‑party contractors (including bus drivers subject to exceptions), homeschooled children and their parents, and unions and employers where collective‑agreement terms conflict with the new prohibitions.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces discretionary norms with prescriptive operational duties that require contractual changes, new compliance systems, and potentially rapid operational adjustments. Its explicit "despite" clauses and transitional carve‑outs create novel interactions with human‑rights and constitutional protections, raising litigation risk and major labour‑relations and administrative‑law questions for institutions and the province.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill makes State laicity and Québec values express statutory purposes for the public school system and adds operational rules to align everyday school life with those purposes. It prescribes that students (including homeschooled students when receiving services) must have their faces uncovered while on premises placed at a school or centre’s disposal or when receiving services from the school service centre, subject only to narrow exceptions for health, handicaps or task‑specific requirements.
The same face‑uncovered requirement applies to personnel, contractors and any person required to be in contact with students when on school premises or providing services. Schools and centres must weave these obligations into rules of conduct, educational service contracts and service agreements.
The bill supplements behavioural rules: every school’s rules of conduct must require respectful behaviour toward gender equality and prohibit all forms of bullying and violence (including those motivated by racism, homophobia, sexual or gender identity, disability or physical characteristic). It creates a mandatory code of ethics and professional conduct for members of governing boards and grants school service centres investigatory powers and a menu of sanctions for governing board members — from reprimand and mandatory training to suspension or term revocation.
The Minister has new administrative powers, including establishing exam calendars and ordering school service centres to comply with applicable Acts and regulations; certain ministerial decisions (e.g., licensing actions) are not automatically stayed by an administrative tribunal proceeding.On staffing and language, the bill requires teachers to submit instructional planning to principals and requires principals to evaluate teachers annually, with a Ministerial good‑practice guide to assist. For French‑language school service centres, personnel and many contracted service providers must use French exclusively in communications with students and other personnel, with narrow safety and public‑health exceptions and no effect on Indigenous language use.
Contractual mechanics are central: the bill mandates that service contracts and agreements include requirements about face‑uncovering, conduct free of religious considerations, and compliance with codes of ethics; it also declares incompatible collective‑agreement or employment‑condition provisions absolutely null.Finally, the bill includes several strong legal tools: transitional exemptions for personnel and existing contracts, explicit "despite" clauses stating that many provisions apply notwithstanding the provincial Charter of human rights and freedoms and specified sections of the Constitution Act, 1982, and a provision forbidding anyone motivated by religious conviction from influencing the exercise of powers or duties under the Education Act. Those choices will shape litigation risk and administrative interpretation as institutions implement the new regime.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Students, homeschooled children receiving services and any person required to be in contact with students must have their face uncovered on school premises or when services are provided, except for health, disability, or task‑related requirements.
The bill extends the ban on wearing religious symbols to many school service‑centre personnel, the director general and assistant director general in their functions, contractors who regularly provide services on premises, and anyone providing services to students; conflicting collective‑agreement provisions are declared absolutely null.
No accommodation on religious grounds may be granted for specific provisions (including face‑uncovering and the prohibition on religious symbols), although the bill grandfathered personnel in functions on a specified pre‑introduction date and existing non‑employment contracts in force at assent.
School service centres must adopt codes of ethics for governing boards, may investigate alleged breaches, report findings to the Minister, and impose penalties ranging from training and reprimands to suspension or revocation of a member’s term.
French‑language school service centres must require personnel and many contractors to use French exclusively when communicating orally or in writing with students or personnel on school premises, subject only to public‑health, safety, or Indigenous‑language exceptions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Statutory statement of laicity and Québec values
The bill inserts an explicit purpose clause tying the public school system to State laicity, democratic values and the equality of women and men, and elevates promotion of French as the common language. This is not merely rhetorical: it creates an interpretive lens for all downstream obligations and gives administrators a statutory mandate to prioritize laicity and language in policy choices and disciplinary decisions.
Operational rule requiring faces uncovered (students, staff, contractors, parents)
Multiple sections create overlapping obligations that require faces to be uncovered whenever a person is on premises placed at a school or when services are provided. The structure places duties on different actors (students, homeschooled children during services, staff, contractors and parents receiving service) and forces institutions to bake the rule into service contracts and internal codes. Practical questions follow: how schools verify compliance, how exceptions for health/handicap or task requirements will be adjudicated, and whether enforcement will be disciplinary, contractual or both.
Expanded ban on religious symbols and contractual nullity
This provision broadens the circle of people prohibited from wearing religious symbols to include many school service‑centre personnel, senior officers during functions, regular on‑site contractors and any person providing services to students. The text makes incompatible collective‑agreement clauses absolutely null, which directly alters labour‑relations terrain and can trigger grievances and bargaining disputes. The bill contains temporal carve‑outs for personnel and contracts in place on specific dates, which will create a transitional, two‑tier workforce.
Mandatory ethics code and investigatory/penalty process for governing board members
School service centres must adopt codes of ethics for governing boards that include disclosure and conflict‑of‑interest rules. The centre can investigate alleged breaches, inform the Minister, and forward findings; the Minister may review and issue a decision within 15 days. Sanctions the centre may impose include reprimand, mandatory training, disgorgement of benefits, suspension up to 90 days and revocation of term — a mix of administrative and reputational remedies that gives centres substantial leverage over local governance.
Classroom oversight: planning, annual evaluations and a quality committee
The bill requires teachers to submit instructional planning to principals in a form/timing set by the principal and obliges principals to evaluate teachers annually with reference to a Ministerial guide. It also requires each school service centre to establish an educational services quality committee composed of executive staff and two outside experts to assist, verify and recommend corrective measures on educational quality. These provisions centralize curriculum oversight and build formal review channels that can be used to enforce conformity with the bill’s values and laicity mandate.
Exclusive use of French in communications at French‑language centres
A new subdivision requires personnel and many contracted providers engaged by French‑language school service centres to use French exclusively in oral and written communications with students and personnel when on premises or performing contracts. The clause carves out public‑health and safety exceptions and preserves Indigenous‑language use, but operationally it requires contract clauses, training and monitoring to ensure compliance.
Limits on accommodations, legal overrides and restrictions on religious influence
The Act bars accommodations for many named provisions and contains two forms of legal override: it declares that several sections apply despite provincial Charter provisions and states they have effect notwithstanding certain sections of the Constitution Act, 1982. It also criminalizes (in administrative terms) attempts to influence powers under the Education Act when motivated by religious conviction. These choices shift the burden to administrative implementation and invite constitutional and Charter litigation, while also creating blunt tools for administrators to deny religious accommodations.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- School administrators and school service centres — they receive clear statutory authority to enforce laicity, impose consistent rules of conduct and ethics, investigate governing‑board misconduct and require instructional conformity.
- Students seeking protection from proselytism or religiously motivated bullying — the bill bans religious practices on school premises, requires conduct free of religious considerations, and expands anti‑bullying language to specified protected characteristics.
- Francophone educational authorities — mandatory French‑only communications at French‑language centres and an explicit statutory goal to promote French reinforce language policy objectives and reduce ambiguity in service contracts.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employees and contractors who wear religious symbols — the expanded prohibition and the nullification of conflicting employment terms will force some staff to choose between garments of religious expression and their jobs or contracts.
- School service centres and principals — they must draft new codes, modify contracts, set up committees, run investigations, evaluate teachers annually, and monitor compliance, creating administrative and financial burdens.
- Unions and employers — declarations that collective‑agreement provisions are absolutely null and narrow no‑accommodation rules will provoke grievances, renegotiation pressure and potential litigation over labour‑relations rights.
- Homeschooled families and parents receiving services — they become subject to face‑uncovering rules and contractual obligations when interacting with school service centres, altering privacy and family‑choice dynamics.
- The provincial government — by inserting explicit overrides and accelerating implementation tasks, the Crown faces litigation and defence costs and operational responsibility for contentious enforcement decisions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill frames a direct trade‑off between the State’s goal of a secular, unified public‑school environment and individual rights to religious expression and conscience: it solves institutional ambiguity by imposing prescriptive duties and administrative enforcement, but in doing so it heightens conflict with protected freedoms, labour rights and logistical realities — a policy choice that privileges collective laicity over individual accommodation and will force courts, schools and communities to arbitrate where the statute leaves matters indeterminate.
The bill erects a detailed administrative architecture to operationalize laicity, but it leaves several implementation questions unresolved. Key exceptions rely on vague standards — "requirements tied to the performance of certain tasks" or health and handicap exceptions — which will demand administrative guidance and dispute resolution.
The transitional exemptions for personnel and pre‑existing contracts create a two‑tier system that may complicate staffing, assignment and bargaining. Contract nullity language (rendering incompatible collective‑agreement clauses absolutely null) is a blunt instrument that will accelerate labour disputes and could force retroactive negotiations.
On the legal front, the bill explicitly states that many provisions apply "despite" the provincial Charter of human rights and certain parts of the Constitution Act, 1982. That drafting choice does not eliminate the possibility of constitutional litigation: it alters which legal routes challengers will pursue and raises doctrinal issues about the scope and application of notwithstanding clauses and federal constitutional guarantees.
The Minister’s enhanced enforcement powers, coupled with provisions that prevent automatic stays of certain ministerial decisions, tilt the balance toward immediate administrative enforcement but increase the risk of protracted court challenges and interim relief requests. Finally, operationalizing French‑only communication rules alongside the face‑uncovering and symbol bans will require complex contractual, training and privacy solutions — creating compliance costs and likely contested interpretations in diverse school settings.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.