Bernard Drainville is directing education back to the 20th century if not the 19th, with a complete ban on phones and other devices and a return to formal interactions in class: “Il est ainsi prévu que les élèves devront dire « merci », vouvoyer leurs enseignants et les appeler « Monsieur » et « Madame ».
I hope he’s got enough slates and chalk for everyone to get by.
Afterthought: Will anglo kids have to say “sir” and “miss” again? Or “ma’am”? Or does Drainville care about that?
The STM’s decision mid-March to strictly ban loitering in the metro was temporary, and came to an end on Wednesday. Has anything changed? TVA found that it may have been an effective crackdown for the first while, but it gradually wore off. That it’s more tolerable to be outdoors now will probably make more difference.
A celebration Thursday of the 77th anniversary of the state of Israel also brought out a small number of protesters. No fracas ensued.
There was also a May Day march against austerity. The big unions are gearing up for an almighty battle against the Legault government over its Bill 89 that would limit the power of organized labour in Quebec.
Traces of human burials have been found on the old Royal Vic hospital site, but nothing that indicates how many individuals nor their age or ethnicity. Further investigation is being called for.
CultMTL’s Best of Montreal 2025 is out (PDF format). This blog didn’t make the “best blog” list – sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t – but Pornhub did.
There is no “best blog” list, only “best website.”
Pleased to see my favourite park is not included, it’s already busy enough. Fascinated that ramen and gnocchi are considered new food trends.
…and smashburgers.
True, Blork. Moral victory. Sort of.
jeather: of course now we want to know.
I’ve always found it to be less of a “best” list, and more of a “what’s something I know in this category”. Most people are only savvy enough to contribute to a few “best” categories – and the rest of their ballot gets filled out by what they can name-drop. And that results in 80%+ of all contributions being hardly a “best of”.
I feel that way, but then I realize I seldom go out and live it up on the town, and if I did I might have some real opinions about who the hottest Montrealer is and what the best new trend in resto cuisine is likely to be. I have to assume there are younger people with bigger budgets who have valid opinions on this stuff.
Parc des rapides.
It’s such a great vehicle unfortunately the results end up being basically a stupid popularity contest dominated by McGill students who don’t leave the ghetto.
Edit I just skimmed through this years and perhaps I should amend my above comment to say “it was” because this year’s results do look somewhat more varied and potentially interesting.
I think I voted for you for best website. I’m bummed that MtlBlog got a spot on that list.
I’m kinda bummed that my favourite drug (caffeine) isn’t on the list of Best Drugs. Maybe I’m a square. Though caffeine has been on the list in previous years.
Nice that Chalet BBQ has the top spot for best rotisserie chicken. They’ve gotten first place for that before.
On the subject of institutions, yeah, Chalet B all the way.
Transcontinental is abandoning its case against the city over the ban on distribution of the Publisac.
The city says the ban has blocked the production of 17,000 tons of trash a year.
Daniel Renaud recounts some of the ways the police anti‑gang squad tricks suspects into talking.
Winter problems with the REM are on their way to court. The theme is that the engineering specs underestimated the actual requirements of a system like that in a climate like this.
STM maintenance staff plans to strike on May 25 and hold a demonstration on Dorchester Square that day. Money is not the focus of their dissatisfaction – it’s work-life balance, staff relocations and the use of subcontractors.
The Canadiens were defeated Wednesday evening by the Washington Capitals, meaning their season is at an end. Hopeful words about the future grace the headlines, but for now, it’s over.
Go Habs Go – they went ☹️
Ian 20:02 on 2025-05-01 Permalink
I’m perplexed how not having cell phones at school will reduce online bullying.
For that matter, what about, for instance, all the schools that use iPads as pedagogical technology? I know my kid was able to pick up the teacher’s lounge wifi on a school computer, and it didn’t take long for one of them to figure out how to set it up as a hot spot for the rest of the class.
Unles they plan to ban all computers and electronic devices altogether, which given current school budgets may not be that far off.
steph 20:26 on 2025-05-01 Permalink
Had calling teachers by their first names become a thing in anglo schools like it had been for years in french schools?
Cell phone bans are a great for children of that age. I assume School ipads come pre-loaded with the necessary apps, like a work computer. So no snapchat or tiktok. I presume.
Nicholas 20:53 on 2025-05-01 Permalink
My French teachers in elementary school were first name, English and all high school were last name.
I ran into my grade 10 English teacher the other day, and she said when she learned kids were listening to books on audio while playing video games, and weren’t reading (if they even could), that was the time to retire.
Kevin 23:28 on 2025-05-01 Permalink
Drainville really does have a thing for worshipping teachers, doesn’t he?
He should be aware that teachers aren’t going to enforce his new rules any more than they enforce the current rules.
Jeff 05:55 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
It’s easy to mock the tone, but banning phones in schools is actually a forward-thinking move grounded in serious global research. Phone use among youth is increasingly linked to issues with attention, learning, and mental health. Making schools places of presence—not digital distraction—isn’t a step backward. It’s a necessary correction to a growing problem. Too bad it got bundled with less essential rules that risk distracting from the real priority
walkerp 07:38 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
100% Jeff. The removal of cellphones from the school environment is a crucial policy decision that will prevent major harm and encourage development for children. Management of online time and mobile device usage cannot be left in the hands of parents because they are already making terrible decisions. Kids getting phones in 4th and 5th grade. You might as well give them a pack of cigarettes.
Kevin 08:31 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
I wasn’t mocking the tone, I was mocking Drainville’s need for another distraction, since he banned phones from classrooms last year.
Ian 08:43 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
Could allowing the schools to continue to educate students on how to navigate being online and the dangers of being perpetually online be seen as a pedagogical opportunity? This is in fact what most school administration would like. An outright ban not only does not mitigate potential harms, but actually prevents any kind of learning opportunity. It also creates a layer of secrecy that makes open discussion that much harder.
Worth noting they were contemplating an electronic device ban at several cegeps until faculty pointed out that we actually use them in a wide variety of academic situations and the schools don’t have budget to give everyone a laptop or tablet. Regardless, there isn’t some magic switch that makes a 17 year old mature and capable after summer break between high school and cegep – if they have never had the opportunity to explore responsible use of electronic devices in an academic setting it just makes 1st year harder for them.
Also worth noting, much like their latchkey children parents, a lot of modern kids are given phones so that they can be more safe while out and about by themselves. Many parents give their kids phones primarily so that if they are in trouble in any way they can call for help. My kid started taking transit to school when her school was no longer within walking distance. I gave her a phone at age 11 – she called me a few times because she was lost, the metro was down, or the bus got rerouted. Several of her friends called home because they were being catcalled & tailed by adult men. Especially for girls, there are othr reasons that it is a good idea to have a mobile phone during the day.
All this to say this should not be for M. Drainville to decide. This, like many other things, is best dealt with in school or at home, not by legislation. Remember this is the same government that doesn’t want teachers wearing hijabs for fear students might ask about Islam. They have banned generative AI across the cegep network, not considering that their definition includes grammar and spelling check in Word. They are paternalistic, blinkered mononcles who would like to see kids sit down, shut up, and do as they are told. Oh, and to be white, French, catholic, and from the early 60s.
walkerp 09:08 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
How can you educate the students when they are not paying attention because they are all on their cellphones?
A ban does not preclude education nor does it restrict any of the so-called concerns about “safety” (which is really code for obsessively following your kids and trying to prevent any risk whatsoever; latchkey kids did not have phones back in the day because they didn’t exist). They can still take their devices while commuting, just have to put them away when they get to school.
You might want to check your ideology if you are defending big tech against government regulation. Drainville sucks obviously but this is good legislation, empowering schools and parents where they were helpless before.
jeather 09:31 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
The kids I know at bilingual/immersion EMSB schools call their teachers Mme Julie or whatever appropriate title + first name.
Though I agree that there’s a lot to be said for giving kids cell phones during high school — I always had quarters for pay phones, so I could in fact reach my family if I got lost or whatever, but pay phones no longer exist — as walkerp points out, “phones banned during class” is not the same as “phones not allowed on school property”. And I’ve heard a number of studies saying that teenagers like these rules and appreciate that their parents can’t text them during class and expect them to answer. (Obviously they will also complain, because they are human.)
azrhey 09:35 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
For the vouvoyement vs tutoyement , when I was in high school in the mid 90s, some teachers required one and some teachers required the other and we had to remember which one was which. Anyhow, in Sec V we asked our economics teacher which one he wanted and I will always remember his answer :
-Si vous ne pouvez pas differencier entre “Bonjour Gerard, comment vas-tu?” et “Monsieur Goûlt allez vous faire fou*** “vous n’avez rien à faire dans ma classe!
( If you can’t figure the different between a polite tutoyement and an insulting vouvoyement, you shouldn’t be in my class! )
So… that!
As for phones in class… my friend who is an elementary school teacher has 3 kids in his classes that are diabetic and use their cell phone to scan/track their sugar levels… so make an exception for those? and then what? that’s gonna cause other problems…
Ian 09:43 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
“just have to put them away when they get to school.”
Uh, no. It is a full ban not only in classes but also on school grounds at all times. While I’m checking my ideology, maybe you shoudl read the article.
Nobody was helpless before, that is hyperbole at best. Or are we trying to be funny again?
Kevin 10:21 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
@walkerp
I’m saying it again: Phones were banned in the classroom last year.
So what does a new ban do? Nothing except distract people from the 25% high school dropout rate in the regular curriculum.
jeather 10:27 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
I read other articles about it, and the exact implementation is going to be done by schools, but it’s phone usage on school grounds — ie, recess, lunch — with presumed exceptions for medical device usage (as there should be) and for educational purposes. The wording is unclear in that article — and the actual report will only come out the end of this month.
Joey 10:31 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
@Ian – from the government’s press release (you may consider it BS, but it seems plausible to me):
“Le constat est clair : les écrans sont trop souvent l’élément déclencheur de situations d’intimidation dans les écoles et, selon le SPVM, plusieurs gestes de violence prennent naissance durant les heures de classe. Par ailleurs, la majorité des jeunes rencontrés par la Commission ont indiqué « apprécier l’interdiction d’utiliser son cellulaire à l’école. Ils mentionnent que cette mesure favorise la socialisation.”
As a proponent of the use of technology in educational settings and the parent of a tween who commutes by city bus, I have no problem with phones being completely banned from school property. If I need to reach my kid during school hours, or vice versa, I am confident that a message can be delivered via the school office.
Anyway, I think your post is disingenuous – nobody is banning or preventing kids from using phones during their commute. Why would you imply otherwise?
Joey 10:33 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
@Kevin the issue isn’t so much what happens in the classroom (though it’s plausible that a complete ban on all school grounds would be easier to enforce/deal with loopholes than a classroom-only ban, given how lawyerly kids can be), it’s what happens at recess, at lunchtime, etc.
walkerp 10:56 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
I chaperoned a school field trip earlier this week with a sixth grade class and several of the students had cellphones. At every possible break and even while walking, they took the cellphones out and their gang gathered around and stared into it. That’s all they did. While the groups without cellphones talked with each other, looked around, explored the location, etc. This is what cellphones are robbing from children in their free time: interactions with their peers and the world around them. It is replaced by canned, external content that only feeds and does not demand anything from their developing brains. It also creates social hierarchies and a powerful method of social exclusion.
This is what is happening now at lunch and recess and in between classes. They aren’t living, they are just consuming.
Banning them from school ground altogether, frees them up to face life’s various challenges, even boredom for that part of their day. This has no impact on their security going to and from school. How schools handle it will vary, but I imagine some procedure where when you get to school, you put your phone in some secure box in the principal’s office and get it when you leave at the end of the day.
Kids who have special needs, can be allowed exceptions for those needs. This is manageable on a per-case basis by the teacher.
There is no downside.
This is the power of consumer capitalism to turn something that is a useless luxury into a need. A much simpler parallel is bottled water, where now people think they need bottled water and if it were banned due to its collective damage, they would see this as some kind of attack on their personal liberty.
Meezly 12:42 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
Finally, a ban from the QC govt I can get on board with.
Ian 17:29 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
@Joey I’m being disingenuous? Inteeresting. Explain to me how the students are supposed to bring their phones to the principal’s office for a not-as-yet implemented phone lockbox system that presumably gets paid for by a mysterious benefactor and supervised and staffed by an as-yet-undetermined person who obviously has nothing else to do all day. All this without bringing said phone onto school grounds, which is explicitly forbidden.
Banning them from class is one thing but seriously, nobody is thinking this through beyond “cellphones bad”. You must realize the intent here is simply for kids not to bring their phones to school at all.
And yeah, if there’s an issue, then what? It’s not like there are payphones on every corner anymore. And yeah yeah I know, kids didn’t used to have phones, blah blah blah. My aunt got raped on her way home from high school one afternoon. My daughters have been catcalled since they grew breasts. I do think it’s a safety issue and frankly think it never even crossed Drainville’s mind. In that sense alone it is nothing like water bottles, thank you very much.
walkerp 20:23 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
We already did explain it to you. You’ve decided because you want to win the argument or your hatred of the CAQ is so great that nothing they do can be beneficial that not allowing phones in school means that phones can’t be transported to and from school. That is obviously not what is being said and there are so many ways for reasonable people and administrators to plan for students to come to school with their phones, deposit them in a secure place until the end of the day. They do it now in classrooms so I’m fairly confident the school can figure out a way to do it.
Kevin 21:01 on 2025-05-02 Permalink
My kid’s high school already has a day-long phone lockout. It is easily defeated by the children and is up to the teacher to enforce.
Said kid also went on an out-of-country trip and used the phone repeatedly for pictures, payments, and more. The kid also lets us know when they are staying late at school.
Parents now need to take extra steps to raise their kids. Such is life.
Tim S. 08:44 on 2025-05-03 Permalink
“Ordering teenagers to respect them” is always a great sign that a government is in full control of the situation.
Ian 11:29 on 2025-05-07 Permalink
Well regardless of how we feel about the legislation, at least it’s motivating youth to become more politically active.
https://montreal.citynews.ca/2025/05/07/strike-quebec-schools-cell-phone-ban/