Bill 190 requires employers in categories set by the government with at least 50 employees to establish a parity committee to advise on a ‘‘just transition’’ toward an environmentally sustainable economy. The committee must include employer and non‑managerial employee representatives, with at least half the seats held by employees; its mission is to make recommendations on environmental performance, green jobs, equitable requalification and social dialogue.
The bill gives committees consultative and information‑access rights: employers must consult the committee on relevant workplace decisions, supply requested information (including financing, investments, gender statistics and environmental impacts), pay for training and reasonable expert fees, and produce a biennial report on matters set by regulation. Committees meet at least quarterly, members have a fixed allotment of paid time for committee work, recommendations require both a general majority and an employee majority, and employers must report back on actions taken within three months.
The Minister of Labour administers the Act and it comes into force when the first regulation is made.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill mandates employer‑level parity committees in workplaces covered by government regulation and having 50 or more employees. Committees advise on environmental performance, creation of green jobs, reskilling and social dialogue; employers must consult the committee, provide information, fund training and reasonable expert services, and publish a regulated biennial report.
Who It Affects
Covered employers (sectors and employer categories to be set by regulation) with 50+ employees, non‑managerial employees and their certified associations, workplace representatives who will sit on committees, and the Ministère du Travail which will draft and enforce implementing regulations.
Why It Matters
This law creates a formal, workplace‑level mechanism linking labour voice to environmental transition planning, potentially shifting how employers plan workforce retraining, green job creation and corporate environmental disclosure. For compliance teams it introduces new consultation, reporting and record‑keeping obligations and a predictable forum where labour can influence transition measures.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Coverage begins by reference to employer categories that the government will define by regulation and a size threshold: any employer in a covered category with at least 50 employees must set up a parity committee. The bill defines how to count employees (the average number on the paylist per pay period in a calendar year) rather than headcount on a single date; the regulations can later adjust which employers fall into scope.
The committee’s stated mission is advisory: to ‘‘facilitate the collective expression of employees and employers’’ about workplace measures that address economic, social and environmental imperatives of the transition. That mission explicitly includes recommending actions on the employer’s environmental performance (carbon footprint, waste, GHGs and other pollutants), promoting and creating green jobs, developing equitable requalification and training plans, and advancing social dialogue and climate justice.
The bill gives committees the right to examine proposals on their own initiative or at the employer’s request.On process the bill gives the committee concrete tools: employers must consult the committee on all decisions within its remit, provide requested information (examples listed include financing, investments, gender‑equality statistics, social/cultural activities and environmental impacts), and send the committee a regulated biennial report on items identified by the government. Committees can retain experts whose wages, if reasonable, are paid by the employer.
Members are entitled to training on transition challenges and the employer must pay those costs; training expenses are explicitly identified as eligible under Québec’s workforce skills legislation.Composition and daily operation are tightly specified. Committees must include both employer and non‑managerial employee representatives and at least half the seats must be employee representatives.
Where certified associations represent employees they designate the employee members; the bill provides fallback procedures for multi‑union or unrepresented workplaces to be set by regulation. The employer and unions can agree on the committee’s size; absent agreement the bill prescribes a scale of employee member numbers tied to establishment size.
Committees must meet at least quarterly, members receive a minimum number of paid hours per year to carry out committee work, and employee representatives are deemed to be at work while participating (with a notification requirement to immediate supervisors).Decision rules and follow‑up aim to convert recommendations into accountable action: any recommendation must pass both an overall majority and a majority of the employee representatives, each member has one vote, and the employer must report within three months after receiving recommendations on what it has done and why. The Act allows collective agreements to provide more favorable terms and preserves employees’ right to speak directly to the employer.
The Minister of Labour will administer the Act and it only comes into force once the first implementing regulation is promulgated, leaving significant detail to delegated regulation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The coverage threshold is 50 employees, calculated as the average number of employees on the employer’s paylist for each pay period in a calendar year.
If unions cannot agree on representation, the bill sets a fallback scale for employee representatives: 3 (50–150 employees), 5 (151–500), 7 (501–1,000), 9 (1,001–1,500) and 11 (more than 1,500), subject to later regulation.
The committee must meet at least once every three months and each member is allocated 28 hours per year for committee work unless employer and committee agree on more.
Any committee recommendation needs both a majority of all members and a majority of employee‑member votes; each member has one vote.
Employers must pay for committee member training and for reasonable expert fees, and must produce a biennial report on matters the government identifies and send it to the committee.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Who must create a parity committee
Section 1 makes creation of a parity committee mandatory for employers who both belong to a category defined by regulation and have at least 50 employees. The bill defines the 50‑employee test as an average over pay periods in a calendar year rather than a snapshot count; the regulation power lets government target particular sectors (for example, high‑emitting industries) but also leaves the scope open to political and policy choices during implementation.
Mission, consultation, information and follow‑up
These sections set the committee’s advisory mission — environmental performance, green jobs, retraining and social dialogue — and create procedural rights: the employer must consult the committee on relevant decisions, provide requested information (including financing, investments, gender statistics and environmental impact), and permit retention of experts paid by the employer if reasonable. The employer must also produce a biennial report on items identified by regulation and send it to the committee. The practical implication is that employers will need information flows and processes for timely consultation and for assembling regulated reports.
Training and expert services funded by employer
Sections 5 and 6 require the employer to pay for training for committee members and to cover reasonable fees for retained experts. Training costs are explicitly deemed eligible expenditures under the provincial Act to promote workforce skills development and recognition. That creates a direct cost line for employers but also channels committee capacity‑building toward formal training regimes and recognized programs.
Composition and designation of employee representatives
These provisions require employer and non‑managerial employee representation with at least half the seats held by employees. Where certified associations exist they designate representatives; where multiple associations exist they may agree on designation, otherwise a regulatory procedure will apply. The bill prescribes default numbers of employee members tied to establishment size (3,5,7,9,11 across size bands) if parties do not agree, but leaves the government power to amend those figures by regulation — an important lever for tailoring committee scale.
Operation and decision rules
The bill mandates quarterly meetings, grants each committee member a baseline of 28 paid hours per year for committee work, deems participation to be working time, and requires members to notify supervisors. If the committee fails to adopt rules of procedure, those set by regulation apply. On decisions, any recommendation must be approved by a majority of members and by a majority of employee representatives; each member has one vote. Those dual‑majority rules are intended to ensure employee buy‑in but create the potential for stalemate in evenly split committees.
Interaction with collective bargaining, administration and commencement
The Act permits collective agreements or decrees to provide more favorable terms for employees, preserves employees’ independent right to speak directly to employers, designates the Minister of Labour as administrator, and delays commencement until the first regulation is made. Practically, that means bargaining parties can supersede minimums in the Act, while many operational details (scope, fallback designation rules, procedural defaults) will be resolved in delegated regulations rather than in the statute itself.
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
- Non‑managerial employees in covered workplaces — gain a formal, funded forum to influence workplace transition plans, access to employer‑paid training and a stronger voice on redeployment and retraining.
- Certified associations and unions — receive statutory roles in designating representatives and shaping workplace transition recommendations, strengthening their position in workforce requalification negotiations.
- Local communities and workers at risk of displacement — benefit from employer planning for green jobs and equitable requalification that the committee is charged to recommend.
- Training providers and reskilling programs — stand to gain demand as employers fund committee member training and develop requalification plans tied to the transition.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers in regulated categories with 50+ employees — must set up and operate committees, pay training costs, fund reasonable expert fees, prepare biennial reports and allocate staff time for consultation.
- Human resources and compliance teams — will face new administrative duties (scheduling quarterly meetings, producing reports, tracking committee hours and data requests) and potential legal work drafting procedures and privacy safeguards.
- The Ministère du Travail and government regulators — must draft and administer detailed regulations, create fallback designation procedures and monitor compliance without new enforcement resources identified in the bill.
- Certified associations in non‑standard workplaces — may bear coordination burdens where representation rules require agreement among multiple unions or where the fallback regulatory process produces contested designations.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill’s central dilemma is how to give employees meaningful, funded voice over workplace transition decisions without turning the parity committee into a parallel bargaining body or imposing disclosure and cost requirements that constrain employers’ operational flexibility and competitiveness; achieving meaningful participation requires trade‑offs between employee influence, managerial prerogative and the practical costs of consultation and disclosure.
The Act delegates significant detail to regulation: which employer categories are covered, fallback rules for designation where unions disagree or are absent, and possible amendments to committee size. That delegation lets government tailor scope to policy priorities but also creates uncertainty for employers and unions during the regulatory drafting window and opens scope for uneven application across sectors.
Several implementation tensions could generate disputes. The employer’s duty to provide information (including financing and investments) collides with confidentiality and competitive concerns; the bill does not specify confidentiality protections or limits on disclosure, so employers may resist broad documentary requests or seek protective regimes.
The dual‑majority voting rule promotes employee buy‑in but risks deadlock if employer and employee blocs are evenly matched or if employee representatives split internally; the statute supplies no tie‑breaking mechanism. Finally, although the employer must ‘‘consult’’ and report back within three months, the Act does not convert committee recommendations into binding obligations or detail penalty mechanisms for non‑compliance, leaving the committee’s practical leverage dependent on persuasion, collective agreements, or political pressure rather than statutory enforcement.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.