Canadian academic discusses uncertainty for HR around AI and privacy laws, red tape reduction and EI appeals
The resignation of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau earlier this month left parliament prorogued and several important bills on the senate floor, including some that would have brought reform to employment practices such as employment benefit appeals and government compliance.
It’s a crucial moment of uncertainty that calls for transparency now on the part of employers and HR leaders, according to Moshe Lander, senior lecturer of economics at Concordia University.
“I often find that people don't have to like what you're telling them – it's just, at least tell them,” says Lander, adding that U.S. president Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Canadian imports is another reason for transparency, as employees will be anticipating troubled waters ahead anyway.
“’If these tariffs come in, I'm going to have to lay off 50% of you’ – nobody wants to hear that. But much better that you're upfront with them, that this is going to happen, then wait for the tariffs to come and then blindside them.”
Bill C-37, which aimed to streamline and update Canada’s Employment Insurance (EI) appeals process, is now in limbo. The current system has been criticized for burdening employers with administrative inefficiencies, and Bill C-37 proposed a tripartite EI Board of Appeal to simplify that process.
However, Lander doubts the potential effectiveness of such a bill, as the nature of EI is very case specific.
“The problem is that when you're dealing with people who are on EI, every single case is different. There are no two cases alike,” he says.
“Even the 1,700 workers in Quebec who just lost their jobs at the Amazon distribution centres … those 1,700 workers are all going to be 1,700 different cases. They have different family backgrounds, different savings levels, different levels of education, skill sets needed for the next job.”
Streamlining the process of appeals could lower administrative costs but still risks failing to meet individual needs; however, depending on which party is in power next, this bill could be revived in any manner of iterations, Lander explains.
Bill S-6, the Regulatory Modernization Act, also fell victim to prorogation this month.
This bill sought to remove outdated regulations and reduce red tape across various industries, enabling businesses to operate more efficiently by reducing administrative compliance burdens, allowing businesses to focus on growth and innovation.
High-growth sectors, like technology and green energy in particular, were poised to benefit, with increased opportunities for expansion and job creation in a more modernized regulatory environment.
“You constantly need to review laws to see: Do they fit the 21st-century economy? It’s not reasonable to expect that the economy will stand still,” says Lander.
Modernization could include digitization, reducing regulatory barriers, and reevaluating outdated standards for industries – without these changes, he says, businesses will continue to face unnecessary compliance costs, slowing growth and innovation.
Bill C-27, which proposed updates to privacy laws, including the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (AIDA), remains unresolved. This bill was intended to address gaps in data protection and align regulations with a digital economy. Particularly relevant to employers was the establishment of “high risk” uses of AI and data collection, including in hiring and other internal HR decisions.
“A lot of the regulatory environment that we have right now is built around 20th-century production of goods, and not so much around 21st-century production of services, especially digital services,” says Lander.
The complexity of balancing individual privacy rights with data collection needs has left gaps that employers must address independently until legislation is revisited; in the meantime, such controls will likely be decided by market demands.
“If the consumer says, ‘No, I believe in these and I'm prepared to put my money where my mouth is,’ then in that case, I don't even think a right-wing government would object to it, because it's not harming business interests, and the consumers said we want it and we're prepared to pay for it,” Lander says.
In the face of legislative uncertainty, Lander stresses that transparency with employees is more important than ever. Employers must communicate openly about how stalled reforms and unstable politics south of the border may affect their operations and workforce.
Sharing best- and worst-case scenarios can foster trust and loyalty, even when difficult decisions are necessary; clear communication about challenges and potential outcomes builds goodwill, positioning organizations for resilience in uncertain times.
That message does come with a caveat, however, says Lander.
“Transparency doesn’t mean you tell them everything. There are some things employees don’t need to know,” he says.
“Where's the line between what you do need to know and what you don't need to know? That's part of the delicate balance … but in general, yes, transparency helps make better decisions.”
