Consultation on Canada Labour Code could bring changes for over a million workers in federally regulated industries
Ottawa’s new review of federal labour laws could usher in significant changes to workplace safety rules for more than one million workers in high‑risk, federally regulated sectors – but the pace of change, and the way artificial intelligence (AI) is used, could create new risks of its own, an occupational health and safety lawyer warns.
On April 17, the federal government launched consultations on ways to “modernize the federal labour relations framework” for employers and workers in industries such as air, rail, road and marine transportation, banks, and postal and courier services. The consultation document, Building Canada Strong for All – Powered by Canada’s Workers, lays out 13 areas where Ottawa is considering changes to the Canada Labour Code, including a major section on strengthening workplace health and safety protections.
Health and safety rules on the table
The Labour Program is explicitly asking whether Part II of the Canada Labour Code – the occupational health and safety (OHS) part – should be updated to better address hazards such as fatigue, substance‑related impairment, the use of AI, psychological health and safety, and climate‑related risks. It is also considering integrating “psychological safety into regulations,” expanding proactive inspections, and improving access to specialized expertise for “complex and emerging hazards.”
“As the world of work is changing and bringing new challenges, workers and businesses are key to the success of Canada’s ambition,” said the Honourable Patty Hajdu, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario, when the consultations were launched. “These consultations are about listening to unions, workers, employers and partners across the country to ensure that federally regulated workplaces remain fair, modern and supportive while empowering workers to thrive.”
Revisiting OHS provisions could affect core risk factors on the front lines, from fatigue management in trucking and rail to violence and harassment protections in postal, courier and telecom workplaces. New rules around psychological safety and climate‑related risks could also set clearer expectations for mental health protections and extreme‑weather exposure for workers who keep critical infrastructure running.
AI, job loss and safety: “overly optimistic” on retraining
One of the headline measures under consultation is “strengthening training supports for workers impacted by artificial intelligence and automation.” The Labour Program is asking how displaced workers currently access training, what barriers they face, and whether retraining and upskilling can help them adapt as tasks are automated across federally regulated sectors.
Vancouver-based lawyer and principal at Hooper Law, Graeme Hooper, thinks that section marks a notable shift.
“This is an acknowledgment from the Canadian federal government of what a lot of people have been worried about: workers will lose their jobs through AI and automation,” Hooper says.
He calls the idea of retraining “not a bad one,” but questions whether it can keep up with the pace of technological change.
“To think that we can match retraining to the pace of change AI and automation will bring may be overly optimistic,” he says.
That gap between the speed of disruption and the speed of retraining carries direct safety implications, Hooper argues. In sectors like ports, trucking and aviation, rapid deployment of new technology can change job design, supervision and workload in ways that increase the risk of errors, fatigue and injury for workers who remain on the job.
“People tend to think of AI as a jobs issue,” he says. “But when roles are restructured quickly, you can also end up with workers in safety‑critical positions who haven’t had time to properly adapt.”
AI inside the regulator itself
The consultation document also signals that the Labour Program wants to use automation and AI in its own OHS functions. Among the measures being considered: “modernizing processes through automation and AI to deliver faster responses and quicker resolutions for workers,” and expanding proactive outreach and inspections.
Hooper says that juxtaposition is striking.
“I am surprised to see that, in the same document where the Labour Program recognizes the need to address job losses arising from the use of AI, they also propose the adoption of AI to modernize their own processes,” he says.
“That may appear to simply exacerbate the very problem they are trying to solve but the reality is, AI is not going anywhere. It seems the Labour Program is aware that they too must get on board.”
For safety, he says, the key will be how transparent and accountable those AI‑enhanced regulatory tools are – for example, if they are used to prioritize inspections, triage complaints or analyze incident data.
“If AI is deciding which workplaces get inspected first, or which complaints look ‘high‑risk,’ workers and employers will need to understand the criteria,” Hooper says. “Otherwise, you risk embedding blind spots into the enforcement system itself.”
Harmonizing safety standards – and the politics behind it
Another major safety pillar in the backgrounder is a push to “work on labour mobility to harmonize training standards and regulations” across federal, provincial and territorial OHS systems. The Labour Program says it is focusing on expanding harmonization of “specific OHS topics that hinder mobility” and developing an inter‑jurisdictional training framework that aligns curricula across Canada.
The goal is to reduce variability, support compliance and “foster a safer and more mobile workforce,” but Hooper notes that efforts to harmonize standards are not new, with deals and agreements between provinces going back decades.
“What’s changed is obviously the pressure to find new markets, including within Canada, for Canadian goods and workers,” he continues. “But even with that added pressure, the same obstacles remain. While the Labour Program can certainly play a role in supporting harmonization of safety standards and labour mobility, it is the provinces who are really in the legislative driver’s seat.”
“Getting 10 provinces to agree to change their laws is not easy,” Hooper says. “That said, if ever there were a time, it is now.”
Other safety levers: misclassification and contract retendering
Beyond OHS regulations, there are several measures with indirect but powerful safety consequences. Ottawa is asking how to strengthen its five‑year crackdown on misclassification in the trucking sector and expand tools against wage theft, noting that misclassification “makes it harder for workers to get ahead and undermines fair competition.”
The government is also exploring whether to extend “successor rights” to contract retendering, which would allow union representation and collective agreements to survive when service contracts change hands – an issue in airport ground handling, security and other contracted operations where safety systems can be disrupted by frequent contractor turnover.
For workers, those changes could mean more stable access to formal OHS systems, clearer procedures and better protection against corners being cut during transitions.
What happens next
The consultation document lays out detailed questions for stakeholders on 13 proposed areas of change, from bargaining timelines and conciliation periods to a new “special mediator” role, expedited grievance arbitration and sustaining the federal Wage Earner Protection Program. Written submissions are requested by May 18, 2026, with engagement planned through virtual roundtables, existing advisory committees, and other forums.
“Today’s economy demands action,” said the Honourable John Zerucelli, Secretary of State (Labour), when the consultations were announced. “Workers need the tools to adapt, and strong, modern labour policies will support a competitive workforce and a strong Canadian economy.”
For safety advocates – and for lawyers like Hooper – the central question is whether those modern policies will translate into concrete, enforceable improvements in how hazards are managed, or whether the process will lean more heavily toward labour stability and economic competitiveness.
“Recognizing the issues is a good first step,” Hooper says. “The challenge will be turning that recognition into rules and practices that actually make work safer in the places where the risks are highest.”
