Montreal’s largest school service centre loses more than 100 support staff due to new secularism law

by Rachel Morgan News Editor

Montreal’s largest school service centre, the Centre de services scolaire de Montréal (CSSDM), has parted ways with approximately 150 support staff members. These employees were removed or resigned after refusing to remove religious symbols to comply with the province’s new secularism legislation.

The Expansion of Bill 94

The departures are a direct result of Bill 94, a law passed in October 2025. This legislation expanded the existing ban on wearing religious symbols—such as hijabs and crosses—beyond teachers and principals.

The ban now applies to nearly all school employees who interact directly with students. This includes roles such as special education technicians and lunchroom monitors.

Did You Know? A limited grandfathering clause exists for employees already in the system, but it does not protect those who were hired or changed positions between the bill’s tabling on March 19, 2025, and its adoption on October 30, 2025.

Union Concerns and Student Impact

Union representatives argue that the law forces workers into an impossible situation. Annie Charland, president of the school support section of the FEESP union, described the ultimatum as a “false choice” between an individual’s religion and their livelihood.

Union Concerns and Student Impact
Bill Quebec Union

The impact is already being felt within the classrooms. Michel Picard, head of the APPA CSN, stated that the loss of support staff has caused distress among students, some of whom have reacted with tears to the sudden departures.

Expert Insight: The tension here lies in the collision between state-mandated secularism and individual identity. While the government views this as a matter of legal compliance, the loss of experienced support staff during an existing labor shortage could create operational vulnerabilities in the school system.

Government Stance and Staffing Realities

The Quebec government maintains that the law must be respected. Bernard Drainville, who tabled the bill, stated that affected employees made a personal choice not to respect the law and must bear the consequences.

There is significant disagreement regarding the impact on school operations. While the CSSDM asserts it has enough staff to continue providing services, unions warn that these cuts risk exacerbating existing shortages.

According to the Education Ministry’s online database, We find currently 1,135 unfilled support staff positions across the province, representing roughly three per cent of total positions.

Broader Legal Context

Bill 94 is part of a wider legislative trend toward secularism in Quebec. The government has also passed Bill 9, which extends the ban on religious symbols to daycare workers and places limits on praying in public.

Solicitation for donations by school service centre raises concerns

Given the current enforcement, further staffing fluctuations could occur if more employees refuse to comply with the regulations. The province may face continued pressure to fill the thousands of remaining vacancies while adhering to these strict secularism requirements.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Bill 94?

Bill 94 is a Quebec law passed in October 2025 that expands the ban on wearing religious symbols to include all school staff who interact with students, such as teaching assistants and lunchroom monitors.

How many staff members were affected at the CSSDM?

The Centre de services scolaire de Montréal (CSSDM) reported that approximately 150 support staff members did not comply with the law, leading to resignations, suspensions, or terminations.

Are there any exemptions to the religious symbol ban?

Yes, there is a limited exemption for employees who were already working in school service centres before the bill was tabled on March 19, 2025. However, this does not apply to those hired or moved into new positions between March 19 and October 30, 2025.

Do you believe workplace secularism laws should prioritize state neutrality or individual religious expression?

You may also like

Leave a Comment