Bill 89, officially titled “An Act to give greater consideration to the needs of the population in the event of a strike or a lock-out,” was passed May 30 into Quebec law with a majority vote. 94 out of 111 members of the National Assembly of Quebec (MNA) – around 85 per cent – voted in favour of its assent. The bill was introduced to the MNA on February 19, by the Minister of Labour and CAQ member, Jean Boulet. The report from the MNA’s 43rd Legislature defines the bill as an act, as it will be signed into law this fall on November 30, amending sections from the Labour Code “and other provisions…to maintain services ensuring the well-being of the population” during strikes and lock-downs.
These services are those deemed essential for the public, defined in s.111.22.3 of the bill as “minimally required to prevent the population’s social, economic or environmental security from being disproportionally affected.” According to the bill, in section 111.22.4-6, the government determines the essentiality and maintenance of the services by submitting an order to the Administrative Labor Tribunal. If deemed essential, services will be maintained for the public during the negotiation stage of strikes and lockdowns unless determined otherwise by the Tribunal, which has the power to “warrant suspension of the exercise of the right to strike or to a lock-out,” according to s.111.22.11.
McGill professor Barry Eidlin, the vice president of the Association of McGill Professors of the Faculty of Arts (AMPFA) and an expert in political sociology and labour, views this legal power as unilaterally forcing workers “to work against their will under conditions that are not of their choosing” – the very conditions they are protesting, he told the Montreal Gazette.
Moreover, the Labour Code was amended to include “Chapter V.3.1 Special Power of the Minister,” where the Minister of Labour has the power to end a lockdown or strike if he believes that the union still poses a threat to public well-being after mediation. This intervention in labour disputes manifests the minister’s ability to unilaterally send the bargaining unit to arbitration – whose decision, like a court, is legally binding, meaning there will be penal consequences for non-compliance. However, it is important to note that while the provincial government can unilaterally send parties to the Tribunal, it does not unanimously make these decisions.
In contrast, Richard Janda, Associate Professor and chief negotiator in the Association of McGill Professors of Law (AMPL/AMPD), interprets the Minister’s power to send both parties to arbitration as the bureaucratization of the negotiation process, where arbitration is used as a tool for the government to avoid the legal and political backlash of back-to-work legislation. Eidlin shares Janda’s views, regarding the government’s imposition of service requirements and settlements as materialising a power imbalance between employees and employers. In an interview with the CBC, he said “[f]or meaningful bargaining to exist, the parties need to be on a level playing field,” particularly because “workers have only one tool…the power to collectively withhold their labour.”
According to the Montreal Gazette, Minister Boulet justifies the government’s intervention to “limit the length of labour disruptions.” This is particularly the Minister’s response to the province’s increasing labour strikes in Quebec. In May, Boulet cited Statistics Canada data claiming there were 759 strikes in 2024, an increase of 64 strikes compared to 2023. However, in July, CityNews reported that the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, or the Federation of National Trade Unions (CSN), “found that data published by Statistics Canada concerning labour disputes in Quebec were false” and that there actually were 208 strikes in 2024. According to CBC, the CSN is not the only labour union with criticism. The Quebec Central Union of Trade Unions (CSQ), the Quebec Federation of Labour (FTQ), and the Central Democratic Trade Union (CSD) are also planning legal action against the new bill.
Labour groups are not the only associations entering legal action, as four certified faculty unions at McGill have formed the Confederation of Faculty Associations of McGill (COFAM). This coalition is composed of the AMPL/AMPD, the Association of McGill Professors of Education (AMPE), the AMPFA, and the Association of McGill Academic Staff of the School of Continuing Studies (AMASCS/AMPEEP). In their August 5th press release, COFAM announced their application for the judicial review of Bill 89’s constitutionality in Quebec Superior Court under the grounds that the bill violates employees’ freedom of association. The matter particularly affects McGill, as the bill expanded the definition of essential services from health and social services, per the Essential Services Act, to include manufacturing and education sectors and “any worker in Quebec”, including post-secondary faculty.
“As university faculty, we have a particular responsibility to defend constitutional rights and the rule of law,” said Professor Eidlin in COFAM’s release. “This legislation could subject universities to government-imposed service requirements during labour disputes, potentially compromising academic independence,” he continued. This directly affects students in terms of pursuing academic knowledge and freedom of speech without institutional intervention. While the bill does not directly target student protestors with arbitration, they may be legally vulnerable if the Minister deems “that a strike or a lock-out causes or threatens to cause serious or irreparable injury to the population,” as cited in s.111.32.2 of the bill.
In other words, freedom of speech and association are the reasons that COFAM is legally challenging Bill 98. This goes beyond McGill, as COFAM reiterated in their press release. The organization expressed that the provincial bill attempts to overturn the Supreme Court of Canada’s 2015 verdict in Saskatchewan Federation of Labor v. Saskatchewan, stating that s.2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom protects the “irreducible minimum” of the freedom of association. In contrast, Minister Boulet justified Quebec’s actions in an interview with the CBC as wanting for “Quebec to have similar powers to the federal government when it forced a return to work for striking Canada Post workers” last December.
Ultimately, it will come down to a balance of powers whether or not strikes and lockdowns can be bureaucratized and settled faster with mutual consent – without infringing on employees’ Charter rights and freedoms as Canadian citizens.