Key Takeaways
- Ubisoft’s Halifax studio was shut down just days after employees voted to unionize, leading to an abrupt layoff of 71 workers despite claims the closure was part of a pre‑existing cost‑saving plan.
- The union filed an unfair‑labour‑practice complaint, later reaching a confidential settlement, while critics argue the move was a clear case of union busting.
- Ubisoft has benefited from roughly $2 billion in Canadian tax incentives since the 1990s, a figure that dwarfs the modest public returns cited by the company.
- The “Montreal Model” of tax credits attracted major gaming firms but contains no safeguards to prevent layoffs or claw back public money when companies downsize or exit.
- Similar patterns have played out at other subsidized studios (Eidos Montreal, Crystal Dynamics, Square Enix Montreal), contributing to a boom‑bust cycle that leaves Canadian workers vulnerable.
- Government focus on AI and “efficiency” continues to funnel billions into tech sectors without enforceable worker‑rights protections, repeating the same subsidy‑without‑accountability problem.
Chris Returns to a Changed Workplace
Chris came back from winter break feeling energized after learning that Ubisoft’s Halifax studio had recently unionized with 74 percent support, joining CWA Canada. Employees returned from vacation eager to demonstrate that collective bargaining would make them stronger workers. The optimism, however, was short‑lived.
Sudden Closure of the Halifax Studio
Two days later, Jean‑Michel Detoc, Ubisoft’s chief mobile officer from France, arrived unannounced at the Halifax office. By 10 a.m., all seventy‑one employees were laid off. Some staff members cried; others expressed fury. Chris described the experience as traumatic, noting the abrupt loss of livelihood felt dramatic but real.
Company Justification and Worker Reaction
A company‑wide announcement later that afternoon cited a “shortage of viable work both immediately and in the forecasted future,” claiming the Halifax office no longer had a “justifiable mandate.” Chris found the reasoning confusing, given that teams were still busy. Fear of professional retaliation kept most workers from speaking publicly; only a handful agreed to comment anonymously.
Union Response and Settlement
The Halifax employees had not been consulted before the layoffs, prompting the union to file an unfair‑labour‑practice complaint with the Nova Scotia Labour Board. Nasr Ahmed of CWA Canada observed that tech firms across the region resist unionization. Three months later, in April, the employees voted overwhelmingly in favor of a settlement with Ubisoft; the terms, including compensation, remain confidential. Ubisoft maintains the closure stemmed from a broader cost‑saving effort begun well before unionization.
Nation‑wide Layoffs at Ubisoft
Ubisoft’s global workforce shrank from 21,000 to 17,000 between 2022 and 2026. In 2024/25 the company cut as many as 500 jobs in Montreal and the seventy‑one in Halifax. Prior to the Halifax closure, Ubisoft employed about 5,000 people in Canada, concentrated mainly in Montreal with smaller hubs in Quebec City, Winnipeg, Toronto, Chicoutimi, and Sherbrooke. The company signaled plans to lay off another 200‑400 staff internationally later in 2026, though a spokesperson declined to comment on specifics.
Return‑to‑Office Push and Subsequent Dismissal
Early in 2026 Ubisoft mandated a company‑wide return to five days in the office. David Michaud‑Cromp, a former Montreal employee, publicly criticized the order on LinkedIn, suggesting it was a tactic to push staff to resign. He was fired days later for allegedly breaching Ubisoft’s Code of Conduct, which the company says outlines expectations for safe, respectful work and triggers established procedures when violated.
Scale of Public Subsidies to Ubisoft
Taxpayers have effectively financed Ubisoft to the tune of roughly $980 million since 2020, according to French senate documents obtained by CWA Canada. When tracing the company’s history, the total value of tax breaks and other incentives received since Ubisoft’s establishment in Montreal in 1997 reaches as much as $2 billion. These incentives include Quebec’s generous tax credits, the Ontario Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit, and the Manitoba Interactive Digital Media Tax Credit.
Origins of the Montreal Model
The “Montreal Model” emerged in the mid‑1990s as a strategy to attract global investors and boost local employment through massive tax breaks and subsidies. Ubisoft, a French firm, was an early beneficiary, using the incentives to grow from a mid‑sized studio into one of the world’s largest publishers. Jonathan Lessard of Concordia University notes that while foreign expertise was initially needed, the system now largely subsidizes multinational corporations rather than fostering home‑grown talent.
Critique of the Incentive Structure
Lessard argues that Quebec should rethink its tax incentives: new, Montreal‑based studios or local developers ought to be the primary beneficiaries, while multinational giants like Ubisoft should receive reduced support. Yves Guillemot, Ubisoft’s CEO, has testified that the company saves about 8 percent of each employee’s salary in France and more than three times that in Canada thanks to these incentives. The Ubisoft spokesperson did not confirm the $2 billion figure but highlighted that the video game sector contributed $5.1 billion to Canada’s economy in 2023‑24, arguing that such returns depend on competitive economic‑development programs.
Other Studios Suffering Similar Fate
The Montreal Model also lured other major players. Eidos Montreal, Crystal Dynamics, and Square Enix Montreal received comparable tax breaks. In 2022 Embracer Group acquired Eidos and Crystal Dynamics; less than six months later it shut down Square Enix Montreal (renamed Onoma), eliminating 200 jobs. Eidos itself endured layoffs, with over 200 positions lost over two years. These studios produced acclaimed titles such as Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Mankind Divided before being relegated to support roles or closed entirely.
Absence of Safeguards and the Boom‑Bust Cycle
Quebec’s tax legislation contains no provisions to prevent layoffs or recoup public funds when subsidized companies downsize or exit. The government could amend the laws to introduce such safeguards, but has not done so despite the sector’s maturation. The Nova Scotia experience mirrors the Quebec pattern: advantageous tax systems with no downside for firms that abruptly terminate workers. This hiring‑firing, boom‑bust dynamic is common across the broader tech industry, which has seen an estimated 150,000+ jobs cut worldwide in the past year.
Government Focus on AI and Continuing Risks
Canadian governments, from federal to municipal, are increasingly fixated on “efficiency” and are pouring billions into AI infrastructure. Prime Minister Mark Carney campaigned on scaling AI deployment; Montreal allocated $835 million for AI‑ready data centres and $96 million for AI innovation, while Mila received a $250 million funding boost. Yet many AI firms remain years from profitability, and the investments create relatively few jobs. Critics argue that financing these ventures without enforceable worker‑rights protections leaves Canadian employees exposed to the same precarious cycles that have plagued the video‑game sector.
Policy Failures and the Need for Accountability
Recent Liberal‑government attempts to rein in tech power—such as the Online News Act and the Digital Services Tax (later withdrawn to appease the United States)—have faltered. The pattern of attracting multinational corporations with generous subsidies, then failing to ensure those firms uphold public‑interest obligations, persists. As CWA Canada’s Nasr Ahmed puts it, “What are we saying if we’re going to bend over backwards for these multinational corporations when they use and abuse Canadian workers?” Without meaningful reforms that tie public money to job security, wage standards, and claw‑back mechanisms, Canada risks repeating a cycle of subsidized growth followed by abrupt, painful contractions.