QUEBEC — Sparks flew on Wednesday as the province’s largest English language school board refused to back down on threats to use “all possible recourses” to fight the charter of secular values.

Despite a harsh scolding from Democratic Institutions Minister Bernard Drainville, who accused the English Montreal School Board of being “completely irresponsible” in the language it uses opposing the bill, the board was unyielding.

“Do you exclude or not civil disobedience?” Drainville snapped repeatedly at the three female board representatives appearing before the committee studying Bill 60.

“I think you went too far in suggesting you won’t respect the law. I want to give you the occasion to tell us once the law is adopted you will respect it as all good citizens respect laws of a society.”

Although the board’s brief makes no direct use of the words, it does say it will use “all possible resources at our disposal so that this legislation can never apply.”

Drainville started the day telling reporters that appears to mean the English Montreal School Board would resort to civil disobedience.

By the time the committee resumed hearings later in the day, Drainville was so aggressive with board chairperson Angela Mancini and associates that a Liberal member of the committee, Laurent Lessard, called a point of order, telling the chairperson that the hearings are not a trial and Drainville is not a judge.

But Mancini responded to Drainville by turning around his questions, asking whether he is aware that Article 37 of the Education Act stipulates schools must respect the freedom of conscience and religion of students.

And the spirit of the act makes it the duty of schools to teach students to respect religious diversity and pluralism.

The government’s Bill 60 proposes to ban the wearing of all religious symbols in the public sector, including the education sector, in the belief the symbols advertise faiths and young minds will be influenced.

It’s the first time in weeks of hearings that the committee has heard this argument.cn domain

“This is what we are asking you,” Mancini said. “Which laws must we disobey?”

“We are before a contradictory situation,” added board education committee member Patricia Lattanzio.

“We don’t want to disobey one or the other, but you are putting us in a position where we don’t know what to do.”

Drainville also objected to the board’s line that the bill effectively gives the government’s blessing to bullying and intimidation, a violation of the fundamental rights in any non-totalitarian society.

“Are you saying Bill 60 is totalitarian or inspired by a form of totalitarianism?” Drainville asked.

Mancini responded saying any bill that “stigmatizes differences will encourage intimidation.”

But Drainville got no further when he tangled with the powerful president of the Quebec Federation of Labour, Daniel Boyer, earlier.

Boyer said his union is split on the issue of religious symbols and called on the government to withdraw Article 5, which proposes to ban them, so a wider society debate can take place.

The whole issue would be up for review in five years.

While the union believes in a neutral state, the ban on attire is “not an absolute necessity and no guarantee cn domainof neutrality” at this time, Boyer said.

The union, which represents 600,000 workers — 40 per cent of whom are in the public sector — warned it is bound, without discrimination, to defend any worker fired for wearing a symbol all the way to the Supreme Court.