Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Labour Code: SOR/2026-10

Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 3

Registration
SOR/2026-10 January 30, 2026

CANADA LABOUR CODE

P.C. 2026-49 January 30, 2026

Whereas the Canadian Energy Regulator has not made any recommendation under subparagraph 157(3)(b)(ii)footnote a of the Canada Labour Codefootnote b in relation to the annexed regulations;

Therefore, Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Employment and Social Development, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Indigenous Services and the Minister of Natural Resources, makes the annexed Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Labour Code under subsection 125(3)footnote c and sections 157footnote d and 270footnote e of the Canada Labour Code footnote b.

Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Labour Code

Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

1 The definition National Fire Code in section 1.2 of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulationsfootnote 1 is replaced by the following:

National Fire Code means the National Fire Code of Canada 2020, issued by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada; (Code national de prévention des incendies du Canada)

2 Section 6.2 of the Regulations and the heading before it are repealed.

3 Subsection 6.10(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) If a generator is used for emergency lighting, the inspection, testing and maintenance of the emergency power system for lighting must be in accordance with the requirements referred to in section 6.5 of the National Fire Code.

4 Section 10.1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

engineered nanomaterials
means materials that are designed for a specific purpose or function and that have at least one external dimension in the nanoscale or an internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale; (nanomatériaux d’ingénierie)
thermal stress
means all of the adverse health effects experienced by an employee as a result of their exposure to hot or cold working conditions; (stress thermique)

5 Section 10.3 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

10.3 (1) Every employer must keep a record of each hazardous substance that is used, produced or handled in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors or that is stored in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors for use in the work place.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the employer may keep the record in the work place or may keep a centralized record in one work place in respect of several work places where the hazardous substance is used, produced, handled or stored.

(3) The employer must keep each record referred to in subsection (1) for a period of 30 years after the day on which the substance that is the subject of the record is last used, produced, handled or stored.

6 Section 10.12 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

10.12 If a hazardous substance is present in a work place and there is a possibility that a fire or explosion may occur due to static electricity, the employer must implement the practices set out in the United States National Fire Protection Association publication NFPA 77, entitled Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, as amended from time to time.

7 Section 10.16 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

10.16 (1) A hazardous substance must not be used in a work place if a non-hazardous substance can be used instead.

(2) If a non-hazardous substance cannot be used in place of a hazardous substance, the substance that is the least hazardous that can be used must be used.

8 (1) The portion of subsection 10.17(1) of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

10.17 (1) Every ventilation system that is installed, on or after the date on which this section comes into force, to control the concentration of an airborne hazardous substance must be designed, constructed, installed, operated and maintained so that

(2) The portion of paragraph 10.17(1)(b) of the Regulations before subparagraph (i) is replaced by the following:

(3) Subparagraphs 10.17(1)(b)(ii) and (iii) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

9 (1) The portion of subsection 10.19(1) of the English version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

10.19 (1) An employee must be kept free from exposure to

(2) Paragraph 10.19(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraphs 10.19(1)(b) and (c) of the English version of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(4) Subsection 10.19(1.1) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(1.1) An employer must ensure that an employee’s exposure to a concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is as close to zero as possible, but in any event the employer must ensure that the concentration does not exceed the value for airborne asbestos fibres adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

(5) Subsections 10.19(2) to (4) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) If the concentration of an airborne chemical agent is likely to exceed the value referred to in subsection (1) for that chemical agent or the concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is likely to exceed zero, an employer must ensure that a qualified person measures the concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in the breathing zone of the employees who are most likely to be exposed to the highest concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in accordance with

(4) An employer must keep a paper or electronic record of each measurement taken under subsection (3) at their place of business that is nearest to the work place where the samples to effect the measurement were taken for a period of 30 years after the day on which the last sample to effect that measurement was taken.

(6) Paragraphs 10.19(5)(a) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

10 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 10.19:

10.19.1 The employer must ensure that the concentration in the air of a chemical agent, other than airborne grain dust, airborne flour dust and airborne asbestos fibres, to which employees are exposed and for which the value has not been established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time, is maintained at levels that are as low as feasible.

10.19.2 If engineered nanomaterials are present in the work place, the employer must ensure that, in accordance with CSA Standard Z12885, entitled Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings, as amended from time to time, a qualified person

10.19.3 (1) The employer must, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, develop procedures to reduce the risk of thermal stress that include

(2) The employer must implement the procedures developed to reduce the risk of thermal stress if an employee is exposed to conditions that reach

11 Subsection 10.20(3) of the Regulations is repealed.

12 (1) Subsections 10.26(1) and (2) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

10.26 (1) If one of the following devices that is capable of producing and emitting energy in the form of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation is used in the work place, the employer must apply the following:

(2) Subsection 10.26(4) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) The employer must ensure that no employee, other than a nuclear energy worker as defined in section 2 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, is exposed in any year to a concentration of radon that on average, over the year, is higher than 200 Bq/m3.

(5) The employer must ensure that every employee is kept free from exposure to ultraviolet radiation, other than solar radiation, that is in the wavelength range of 180 nm up to and including 400 nm and that exceeds the value for ultraviolet radiation listed in the table entitled “Ultraviolet Radiation TLV and Relative Spectral Effectiveness” in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

13 Section 10.47 of the Regulations is repealed.

14 Paragraphs 10.48(a) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

15 (1) Paragraph 10.49(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) Paragraphs 10.49(e) and (f) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraphs 10.49(i) to (k) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

16 Subsections 15.2(1) and (2) of the Regulations are repealed.

On Board Trains Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

17 Section 7.1 of the On Board Trains Occupational Health and Safety Regulationsfootnote 2 is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

engineered nanomaterials
means materials that are designed for a specific purpose or function and that have at least one external dimension in the nanoscale or an internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale; (nanomatériaux d’ingénierie)
thermal stress
means all of the adverse health effects experienced by an employee as a result of their exposure to hot or cold working conditions; (stress thermique)

18 Section 7.2.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

7.2.1 (1) Every employer must keep a record of each hazardous substance that is used, produced or handled in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors or that is stored in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors for use in the work place.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the employer may keep the record in the work place or may keep a centralized record in one work place in respect of several work places where the hazardous substance is used, produced, handled or stored.

(3) The employer must keep each record referred to in subsection (1) for a period of 30 years after the day on which the substance that is the subject of the record is last used, produced, handled or stored.

19 Paragraph 7.3(2)(h) of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

20 Section 7.6 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

7.6 (1) A hazardous substance must not be used in a work place if a non-hazardous substance can be used instead.

(2) If a non-hazardous substance cannot be used in place of a hazardous substance, the substance that is the least hazardous that can be used must be used.

21 Section 7.11 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

7.11 If a hazardous substance is present in a work place and there is a possibility that a fire or explosion may occur due to static electricity, the employer must implement the practices set out in the United States National Fire Protection Association publication NFPA 77, entitled Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, as amended from time to time.

22 (1) Subsections 7.20(1) and (1.1) of the English version of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

7.20 (1) An employee must be kept free from exposure to

(1.1) An employer must ensure that an employee’s exposure to a concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is as close to zero as possible, but in any event the employer must ensure that the concentration does not exceed the value for airborne asbestos fibres adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

(2) Subsections 7.20(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) If the concentration of an airborne chemical agent is likely to exceed the value referred to in paragraph (1)(a) for that chemical agent or the concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is likely to exceed zero, an employer must ensure that a qualified person measures the concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in the breathing zone of the employees who are most likely to be exposed to the highest concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in accordance with

(3) An employer must keep a paper or electronic record of each measurement taken under subsection (2) at their place of business that is nearest to the work place where the samples to effect the measurement were taken for a period of 30 years after the day on which the last sample to effect that measurement was taken.

(3) Paragraphs 7.20(4)(a) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

23 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 7.20:

7.20.1 The employer must ensure that the concentration in the air of a chemical agent, other than airborne asbestos fibres, to which employees are exposed and for which the value has not been established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time, is maintained at levels that are as low as feasible.

7.20.2 If engineered nanomaterials are present in the work place, the employer must ensure that, in accordance with CSA Standard Z12885, entitled Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings, as amended from time to time, a qualified person

7.20.3 (1) The employer must, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, develop procedures to reduce the risk of thermal stress that include

(2) The employer must implement the procedures developed to reduce the risk of thermal stress if an employee is exposed to conditions that reach

24 (1) Subsection 7.23(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

7.23 (1) If a device that is capable of producing and emitting energy in the form of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation is used in a work place, the employer must apply the limits set out in Safety Code 6, published by the Department of Health, as amended from time to time.

(2) Subsection 7.23(3) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) The employer must ensure that every employee is kept free from exposure to ultraviolet radiation, other than solar radiation, that is in the wavelength range of 180 nm up to and including 400 nm and that exceeds the value for ultraviolet radiation listed in the table entitled “Ultraviolet Radiation TLV and Relative Spectral Effectiveness” in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

Regulations Made Under Part II of the Canada Labour Code Respecting Occupational Safety and Health of Employees Employed on or in Connection with Exploration or Drilling for, or the Production, Conservation, Processing or Transportation of, Oil or Gas in Canada Lands, as Defined in the Canada Oil and Gas Act

25 The title of the Regulations Made Under Part II of the Canada Labour Code Respecting Occupational Safety and Health of Employees Employed on or in Connection with Exploration or Drilling for, or the Production, Conservation, Processing or Transportation of, Oil or Gas in Canada Lands, as Defined in the Canada Oil and Gas Actfootnote 3 is replaced by the following:

Oil and Gas Occupational Safety and Health Regulations

26 The definition National Fire Code in section 1.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

National Fire Code
means the National Fire Code of Canada 2020, issued by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada; (Code national de prévention des incendies)

27 Section 1.6 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

1.6 Except as otherwise provided in these Regulations and despite any provision in any standard incorporated by reference in them, a reference to another publication in that standard is a reference to the publication as it read on October 30, 1987.

28 The heading before section 11.1 of the French version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Définitions et interprétation

29 Section 11.1 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

engineered nanomaterials
means materials that are designed for a specific purpose or function and that have at least one external dimension in the nanoscale or an internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale; (nanomatériaux d’ingénierie)
thermal stress
means all of the adverse health effects experienced by an employee as a result of their exposure to hot or cold working conditions; (stress thermique)

30 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 11.1:

11.1.1 Section 1.6 does not apply in respect of any publication that is referred to in a standard that is incorporated by reference in this Part.

31 The Regulations are amended by adding the following before the heading “Hazard Investigation” before section 11.3:

Records of Hazardous Substances

11.2.1 (1) Every employer must keep a record of each hazardous substance that is used, produced or handled in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors or that is stored in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors for use in the work place.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the employer may keep the record in the work place or may keep a centralized record in one work place in respect of several work places where the hazardous substance is used, produced, handled or stored.

(3) The employer must keep each record referred to in subsection (1) for a period of 30 years after the day on which the substance that is the subject of the record is last used, produced, handled or stored.

32 Section 11.5 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

11.5 The report referred to in section 11.4 must be kept by the employer at the work place to which it applies for a period of 30 years after the date on which the qualified person signed the report.

33 Section 11.6 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

11.6 (1) A hazardous substance must not be used in a work place if a non-hazardous substance can be used instead.

(2) If a non-hazardous substance cannot be used in place of a hazardous substance, the substance that is the least hazardous that can be used must be used.

34 Section 11.11 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

11.11 If a hazardous substance is stored, handled or used in a work place, any hazard resulting from that storage, handling or use must be confined to as small an area as feasible.

35 Section 11.14 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

11.14 If a hazardous substance is present in a work place and there is a possibility that a fire or explosion may occur due to static electricity, the employer must implement the practices set out in the United States National Fire Protection Association publication NFPA 77, entitled Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, as amended from time to time.

36 (1) The portion of subsection 11.23(1) of the English version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

11.23 (1) An employee must be kept free from exposure to

(2) Paragraphs 11.23(1)(a) and (b) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraph 11.23(1)(c) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(4) Subsections 11.23(1.1) to (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(1.1) An employer must ensure that an employee’s exposure to a concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is as close to zero as possible, but in any event the employer must ensure that the concentration does not exceed the value for airborne asbestos fibres adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

(2) If the concentration of an airborne chemical agent is likely to exceed the value referred to in paragraph (1)(a) or (b) for that chemical agent or the concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is likely to exceed zero, an employer must ensure that a qualified person measures the concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in the breathing zone of the employees most likely to be exposed to the highest concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in accordance with

(3) An employer must keep a paper or electronic record of each measurement taken under subsection (2) at their place of business that is nearest to the work place where the samples to effect the measurement were taken for a period of 30 years after the day on which the last sample to effect that measurement was taken.

(5) Paragraphs 11.23(4)(a) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

37 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 11.23:

11.23.1 The employer must ensure that the concentration in the air of a chemical agent, other than airborne grain dust and airborne asbestos fibres, to which employees are exposed and for which the value has not been established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time, is maintained at levels that are as low as feasible.

11.23.2 If engineered nanomaterials are present in the work place, the employer must ensure that, in accordance with CSA Standard Z12885, entitled Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings, as amended from time to time, a qualified person

11.23.3 (1) The employer must, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, develop procedures to reduce the risk of thermal stress that include

(2) The employer must implement the procedures developed to reduce the risk of thermal stress if an employee is exposed to conditions that reach

38 Section 11.28 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

11.28 (1) If one of the following devices that is capable of producing and emitting energy in the form of electromagnetic waves or acoustical waves is used in a work place, the employer must apply the following:

(2) The employer must ensure that no employee, other than a nuclear energy worker as defined in section 2 of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, is exposed in any year to a concentration of radon that on average, over the year, is higher than 200 Bq/m3.

(3) The employer must ensure that every employee is kept free from exposure to ultraviolet radiation, other than solar radiation, that is in the wavelength range of 180 nm up to and including 400 nm and that exceeds the value for ultraviolet radiation listed in the table entitled “Ultraviolet Radiation TLV and Relative Spectral Effectiveness” in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

39 Subsection 11.45(2) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(2) The employer must provide education and training to employees regarding the safe storage and handling of hazardous waste that is found in the work place.

40 Section 13.7 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (5):

(6) Section 1.6 does not apply in respect of any publication that is referred to in a standard that is incorporated by reference in this section.

41 The Regulations are amended by replacing “safety and health committee” with “work place committee” in the following provisions:

42 The English version of the Regulations is amended by replacing “safety and health committee” with “work place committee” in the following provisions:

Maritime Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

43 The definition National Fire Code in section 209 of the Maritime Occupational Health and Safety Regulationsfootnote 4 is replaced by the following:

National Fire Code
means the National Fire Code of Canada 2020, issued by the Canadian Commission on Building and Fire Codes, National Research Council of Canada. (Code national de prĂ©vention des incendies)

44 Subsection 238(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

238 (1) Every enclosed working area in which materials handling equipment powered by an internal combustion engine is used must be ventilated in a manner such that the carbon monoxide concentration in the atmosphere is not in excess of the value established for carbon monoxide by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

45 Section 243 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

engineered nanomaterials
means materials that are designed for a specific purpose or function and that have at least one external dimension in the nanoscale or an internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale. (nanomatériaux d’ingénierie)
thermal stress
means all of the adverse health effects experienced by an employee as a result of their exposure to hot or cold working conditions. (stress thermique)

46 Section 244.1 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

Record of Hazardous Substances

244.1 (1) Every employer must keep a record of each hazardous substance that is used, produced or handled in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors or that is stored in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors for use in the work place.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the employer may keep the record in the work place or may keep a centralized record in one work place in respect of several work places where the hazardous substance is used, produced, handled or stored.

(3) The employer must keep each record referred to in subsection (1) for a period of 30 years after the day on which the substance that is the subject of the record is last used, produced, handled or stored.

47 Section 246 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

246 (1) A hazardous substance must not be used in a work place if a non-hazardous substance can be used instead.

(2) If a non-hazardous substance cannot be used in place of a hazardous substance, the substance that is the least hazardous that can be used must be used.

48 Subsection 250(5) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(5) If a hazardous substance is present in a work place and there is a possibility that a fire or explosion may occur due to static electricity, the employer must implement the practices set out in the United States National Fire Protection Association publication NFPA 77, entitled Recommended Practice on Static Electricity, as amended from time to time.

49 (1) The portion of subsection 255(1) of the English version of the Regulations before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following:

255 (1) An employee must be kept free from exposure to

(2) Paragraph 255(1)(a) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(3) Paragraphs 255(1)(b) to (d) of the English version of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(4) Subsection 255(1.1) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(1.1) An employer must ensure that an employee’s exposure to a concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is as close to zero as possible, but in any event the employer must ensure that the concentration does not exceed the value for airborne asbestos fibres adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

(5) Subsections 255(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) If the concentration of an airborne chemical agent is likely to exceed the value referred to in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) for that chemical agent or the concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is likely to exceed zero, an employer must ensure that a qualified person measures the concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in the breathing zone of the employees who are most likely to be exposed to the highest concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in accordance with

(3) An employer must keep a paper or electronic record of each measurement taken under subsection (2) on board the vessel on which the samples to effect the measurement were taken for a period of 30 years after the day on which the last sample to effect that measurement was taken.

(6) Paragraphs 255(4)(a) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

50 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 255:

255.1 The employer must ensure that the concentration in the air of a chemical agent, other than airborne grain dust, airborne flour dust and airborne asbestos fibres, to which employees are exposed and for which the value has not been established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time, is maintained at levels that are as low as feasible.

255.2 If engineered nanomaterials are present in the work place, the employer must ensure that, in accordance with CSA Standard Z12885, entitled Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings, a qualified person

255.3 (1) The employer must, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, develop procedures to reduce the risk of thermal stress that include

(2) The employer must implement the procedures developed to reduce the risk of thermal stress if an employee is exposed to conditions that reach

Aviation Occupational Health and Safety Regulations

51 Section 5.1 of the Aviation Occupational Health and Safety Regulationsfootnote 5 is amended by adding the following in alphabetical order:

engineered nanomaterials
means materials that are designed for a specific purpose or function and that have at least one external dimension in the nanoscale or an internal structure or surface structure in the nanoscale. (nanomatériaux d’ingénierie)
thermal stress
means all of the adverse health effects experienced by an employee as a result of their exposure to hot or cold working conditions. (stress thermique)

52 Section 5.3 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5.3 (1) Every employer must keep a record of each hazardous substance that is used, produced or handled in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors or that is stored in the work place by the employer, employees or contractors for use in the work place.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the employer may keep the record in the work place or may keep a centralized record in one work place in respect of several work places where the hazardous substance is used, produced, handled or stored.

(3) The employer must keep each record referred to in subsection (1) for a period of 30 years after the day on which the substance that is the subject of the record is last used, produced, handled or stored.

53 Section 5.15 of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5.15 (1) A hazardous substance must not be used in a work place if a non-hazardous substance can be used instead.

(2) If a non-hazardous substance cannot be used in place of a hazardous substance, the substance that is the least hazardous that can be used must be used.

54 (1) Subsection 5.16(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5.16 (1) An employee must be kept free from exposure to a concentration of an airborne chemical agent, other than airborne asbestos fibres, in excess of the value established for that chemical agent by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

(2) Subsection 5.16(1.1) of the English version of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

(1.1) An employer must ensure that an employee’s exposure to a concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is as close to zero as possible, but in any event the employer must ensure that the concentration does not exceed the value for airborne asbestos fibres adopted by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

(3) Subsections 5.16(2) and (3) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

(2) If the concentration of an airborne chemical agent is likely to exceed the value referred to in subsection (1) for that chemical agent or the concentration of airborne asbestos fibres is likely to exceed zero, an employer must ensure that a qualified person measures the concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in the breathing zone of the employees who are most likely to be exposed to the highest concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres in accordance with

(3) An employer must keep a paper or electronic record of each measurement taken under subsection (2) at a location accessible to affected employees for a period of 30 years after the day on which the last sample to effect that measurement was taken.

(4) Paragraphs 5.16(4)(a) to (e) of the Regulations are replaced by the following:

55 The Regulations are amended by adding the following after section 5.16:

5.16.1 The employer must ensure that the concentration in the air of a chemical agent, other than airborne asbestos fibres, to which employees are exposed and for which the value has not been established by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time, is maintained at levels that are as low as feasible.

5.16.2 If engineered nanomaterials are present in the work place, the employer must ensure that, in accordance with CSA Standard Z12885, entitled Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings, a qualified person

5.16.3 (1) The employer must, in consultation with the policy committee or, if there is no policy committee, the work place committee or the health and safety representative, develop procedures to reduce the risk of thermal stress that include

(2) The employer must implement the procedures developed to reduce the risk of thermal stress if an employee is exposed to conditions that reach

56 (1) Subsection 5.19(1) of the Regulations is replaced by the following:

5.19 (1) If a device that is capable of producing and emitting energy in the form of electromagnetic waves or acoustical waves is used on board an aircraft, the radiation to which an employee is exposed must not exceed the limits set out in section 2 of Safety Code 6, published by the Department of Health, as amended from time to time.

(2) Section 5.19 of the Regulations is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The employer must ensure that every employee is kept free from exposure to ultraviolet radiation, other than solar radiation, that is in the wavelength range of 180 nm up to and including 400 nm and that exceeds the value for ultraviolet radiation listed in the table entitled “Ultraviolet Radiation TLV and Relative Spectral Effectiveness” in the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time.

Administrative Monetary Penalties (Canada Labour Code) Regulations

57 Item 463 of Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Administrative Monetary Penalties (Canada Labour Code) Regulationsfootnote 9 is replaced by the following:
Item Column 1

Provision		 Column 2

Violation Type
463 10.3(1) A
463.1 10.3(3) A
58 Item 488 of Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
488 10.12 D
59 Item 509 of Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
509 10.16(1) C
509.1 10.16(2) C
60 Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 534:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
534.01 10.19.1 D
534.02 10.19.2(a) D
534.03 10.19.2(b) D
534.04 10.19.3(1)(a) D
534.05 10.19.3(1)(b) D
534.06 10.19.3(1)(c) D
534.07 10.19.3(1)(d) D
534.08 10.19.3(1)(e) D
534.09 10.19.3(1)(f) A
534.1 10.19.3(2) D
61 Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 550:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
550.1 10.26(5) D

62 Item 628 of Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is repealed.

63 Item 633 of Division 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is repealed.

64 Item 80 of Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
80 5.3(1) A
80.1 5.3(3) A
65 Item 121 of Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
121 5.15(1) C
121.1 5.15(2) C
66 Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 130:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
130.01 5.16.1 D
130.02 5.16.2(a) D
130.03 5.16.2(b) D
130.04 5.16.3(1)(a) D
130.05 5.16.3(1)(b) D
130.06 5.16.3(1)(c) D
130.07 5.16.3(1)(d) D
130.08 5.16.3(1)(e) D
130.09 5.16.3(1)(f) A
130.1 5.16.3(2) D
67 Division 2 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 135:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
135.1 5.19(3) D
68 Item 734.1 of Division 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
734.1 244.1(1) A
734.2 244.1(3) A
69 Item 749 of Division 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
749 246(1) C
749.1 246(2) C
70 Division 4 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 796:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
796.01 255.1 D
796.02 255.2(a) D
796.03 255.2(b) D
796.04 255.3(1)(a) D
796.05 255.3(1)(b) D
796.06 255.3(1)(c) D
796.07 255.3(1)(d) D
796.08 255.3(1)(e) D
796.09 255.3(1)(f) A
796.1 255.3(2) D
71 Division 5 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 279:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
279.1 11.2.1(1) A
279.2 11.2.1(3) A
72 Division 5 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 345:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
345.01 11.23.1 D
345.02 11.23.2(a) D
345.03 11.23.2(b) D
345.04 11.23.3(1)(a) D
345.05 11.23.3(1)(b) D
345.06 11.23.3(1)(c) D
345.07 11.23.3(1)(d) D
345.08 11.23.3(1)(e) D
345.09 11.23.3(1)(f) A
345.1 11.23.3(2) D
73 Division 5 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 360:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
360.1 11.28(2) D
360.2 11.28(3) D
74 Item 109 of Division 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
109 7.2.1(1) A
109.1 7.2.1(3) A
75 Item 125 of Division 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is replaced by the following:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
125 7.6(1) C
125.1 7.6(2) C
76 Division 6 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations is amended by adding the following after item 166:
Item

Column 1

Provision

Column 2

Violation Type
166.01 7.20.1 D
166.02 7.20.2(a) D
166.03 7.20.2(b) D
166.04 7.20.3(1)(a) D
166.05 7.20.3(1)(b) D
166.06 7.20.3(1)(c) D
166.07 7.20.3(1)(d) D
166.08 7.20.3(1)(e) D
166.09 7.20.3(1)(f) A
166.1 7.20.3(2) D

Coming into Force

77 (1) Subject to subsection (2), these Regulations come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which they are registered.

(2) Section 25 comes into force on the day on which these Regulations are registered.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT

(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)

Executive summary

Issues: Five occupational health and safety regulations (OHS regulations) under the Canada Labour Code (the Code) required updating. The Hazardous Substances sections of the following OHS regulations were outdated and contained unclear language which may have led to misinterpretation and contributed to a reduction in the health and safety protection provided to employees within federally regulated work places:

  • Part X of the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (COHSR);
  • Part 5 of the Aviation Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (AOHSR);
  • Part 20 of the Maritime Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (MOHSR);
  • Part VII of the On-Board Trains Occupational Health and Safety Regulations (OTOHSR); and
  • Part XI of the Regulations Made Under Part II of the Canada Labour Code Respecting Occupational Safety and Health of Employees Employed on or in Connection with Exploration or Drilling for, or the Production, Conservation, Processing or Transportation of, Oil or Gas in Canada Lands, as Defined in the Canada Oil and Gas Act (OGOSHR).

Description: The Regulations Amending Certain Regulations Made Under the Canada Labour Code (the Regulations) establish new regulatory requirements for exposure to engineered nanomaterials, thermal stress, non-solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation and radon, and provide an approach for situations where exposure threshold limits have not been established. Additionally, the Regulations update references to incorporated standards, harmonize record keeping requirements, and clarify air sampling requirements. Consequential amendments to the Administrative Monetary Penalties (Canada Labour Code) Regulations (AMPs Regulations) are also made to ensure enforcement of health and safety provisions under Part IV of the Code.

Rationale: The Regulations protect the health and safety of employees exposed to hazardous substances in federally regulated work places by addressing gaps in five OHS regulations under the Code.

In October 2023, the Regulations were prepublished in the Canada Gazette, Part I, for stakeholder and public feedback. Overall, stakeholders were supportive of the proposed Regulations; however, more clarity was sought on specific provisions given the breadth of topics covered by the initiative, for example, on the definition of “nanomaterials” and “thermal stress,” and a transition period to allow employers to adapt to the new requirements was suggested.

The total estimated costs of this regulatory initiative are $71.9M in present value (PV) over the next 20 years (2025–2044), with total benefits estimated at $91.5M (PV). The net impact is positive, estimated at $19.6M (PV).

The Regulations support regulatory cooperation and alignment across Canada and with the United States (U.S.). Federal, provincial, and territorial governments have identified exposure limits to hazardous substances as an area where regulatory reconciliation can be achieved, as occupational exposure limits vary across Canada. This work is ongoing.

The United States has regulations at both state and federal levels, and the Regulations align Canada’s regulations and U.S. policiesfootnote 6 regarding exposure limits to nanomaterials, thermal stress and UV radiation, and the retention time for records of employee exposure to hazardous substances.

Issues

Part II of the Canada Labour Code (the Code), and the regulations made under that Part, specify the occupational health and safety (OHS) requirements for hazardous substances. The hazardous substances sections of five OHS regulations were outdated and did not contain requirements for protection from engineered nanomaterials, thermal stress, and non-solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation. Radon requirements and methodologies used to reduce exposure in situations where exposure threshold limits had not been established were either outdated or absent from the OHS regulations. Some regulations contained static references to standards that are out of date or obsolete, contained inconsistent record keeping provisions and had unclear air sampling requirements. Compliance with obsolete standards or unclear provisions on the part of employers may have presented risks to the health and safety of employees. The Regulations improve health and safety standards related to hazardous substances in work places under federal jurisdiction.

Background

The Labour Program of Employment and Social Development Canada (Labour Program) seeks to promote and sustain stable industrial relations and safe, healthy, equitable and productive work places under federal jurisdiction. This is accomplished by administering the Code, which establishes the regulatory framework for OHS in federally regulated work places. Part II of the Code applies to all federally regulated work places, which employ approximately 1.3 million employees, or about 8% of the Canadian workforce. These work places include air, rail, road, and marine transportation, pipelines, banks, telecommunications and broadcasting, postal and courier services, grain elevators and feed and seed mills, uranium mining, Crown corporations, First Nations band councils, Parliament, and the federal public administration. The Regulations amend the Hazardous Substances sections in five OHS regulations.

Employers under federal jurisdiction have a general obligation to ensure that the health and safety of every person they employ is protected while they are working. Employers have specific duties regarding each work place they control and every work activity under their authority. In addition, employers are required to provide employees with the information, education, training, and supervision necessary to ensure their health and safety at work.

The term “hazardous substance” is defined in the Code as “[…] a hazardous product and a chemical, biological or physical agent that, by reason of a property that the agent possesses, is hazardous to the safety or health of a person exposed to it.”

The Hazardous Substances sections in the five OHS regulations specify requirements for hazardous substances used, produced, handled, or stored in the work place to prevent incidents of death, injury or occupational disease related to them.

The Labour Program began reviewing Part X (Hazardous Substances) of the COHSR in 2009 after the Regulatory Review Committee (RRC), comprised of external employers (60% representing the transportation and communications sector), employee representatives and Labour Program representatives identified several aspects of the regulation that were outdated. The scope of this initiative expanded in 2021 to include the four other OHS regulations under the Code that have provisions for hazardous substances to ensure consistency and harmonization.

Engineered nanomaterials, thermal stress and non-solar UV radiation are all considered hazardous substances that exist in federally regulated work places. However, safety requirements for these products did not exist in the OHS regulations under the Code.

Engineered nanomaterials

Engineered nanomaterials, such as those identified in CSA Standard Z12885, entitled Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings (CSA Standard Z12885), are hazardous chemical substances, which are smaller versions of existing particles and can have dimensions in the nanoscale. In the nanometre range, particles exhibit different chemical and physical properties from their larger counterparts and tend to exhibit unique electromagnetic behaviours. These and other characteristics of nanomaterials cause them to interact with living systems differently from larger particles.

Employees risk exposure to nanomaterials via inhalation, skin absorption, or ingestion because of their extremely small size. In occupational settings, inhalation is the most likely route of exposure. Nanomaterials have the potential to cause negative health impacts, for example, by inducing inflammatory pathways. The small size of nanomaterials allows them to invade immunological defences that other contaminants may not.

Some federally regulated industries which are currently known to handle nanotechnologies include, but are not limited to, aircraft servicing, pipeline manufacturers, research laboratories, and communication industries, as well as the road and rail transportation industry.

Thermal stress

Thermal stress is the effect of adverse temperature conditions on the body. This can refer to exposure to both extreme hot and cold temperatures. The severity of adverse temperature conditions on the body depends on the degree to which core body temperature deviates from normal body temperatures of 36–37 Â°C.

Workers exposed to hot working environments are at risk of heat-related illnesses from an increased bodily temperature. If a worker’s body temperature exceeds normal body temperature and reaches critical levels, they can experience heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat exhaustion, fainting, rashes, heat stroke, and potentially death.

Workers exposed to cold working conditions are at risk of cold-related illnesses as a result of decreased bodily temperatures. As a worker’s body temperature drops below normal, hypothermia can start to set in, leading to confusion, poor coordination, loss of consciousness and potentially death. Frostbite can occur when the skin is exposed to cold temperatures or contact with cold objects and can cause irreversible tissue damage.

Non-solar UV radiation

UV radiation is electromagnetic and is transmitted in the form of waves (similar to visible light, radar signals and radio broadcast signals) and can come from many sources. The sun is the main source of UV radiation and regulations to protect worker health and safety from solar UV exposure already exist under personal protective equipment provisions in the OHS regulations.

Non-solar sources of UV radiation that pose occupational health and safety issues include several types of UV lamps, arc welding, and mercury vapour lamps, which are utilized in a variety of industrial work places. Prior to these regulatory amendments, there were no requirements in the OHS regulations to protect federally regulated workers from non-solar UV radiation.

Repeated exposure to UV radiation without adequate protection may lead to acute health effects. UV radiation is a known cause of skin cancer, skin aging, and eye damage, and may affect the immune system. The most serious long-term effect of UV radiation is the development of skin cancer. Overexposure of UV radiation to the human eye may lead to inflammation of the cornea and the conjunctiva; these conditions are more commonly known as “snow blindness” or “welder’s flash.” Symptoms range from mild irritation to severe pain and possibly irreversible damage.

The damaging effects of UV radiation are well documented as health and safety hazards in occupational settings, some of which may be federally regulated work places. Welders in transport garages and vehicle maintenance shops who engage with arc welding techniques are at the highest risk of non-solar UV radiation exposure.footnote 7 This is because arc welding generates enough heat that intense UV light is emitted.

Non-solar UV radiation is also widely used in medical and dental practices for a variety of purposes, such as killing bacteria, creating fluorescent effects, curing inks and resins, and phototherapy.

Radon

Radon is a radioactive gas produced by the decay of uranium found in soil, rock, or water. It is invisible, odourless, and tasteless, emits ionizing radiation, and moves freely through the soil, allowing it to escape to the atmosphere or seep into dwellings. When radon is confined to enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces, it can accumulate to high levels.

Radon enters the body through inhalation and fixates in the lungs, where it can damage the cells lining the respiratory system. The radioactive decay products of the radon emit alpha particles that are damaging to these tissues. Exposure to radon is linked to an increased risk of developing lung cancer. In Canada, it is the second-leading cause of lung cancer after smoking and the primary cause of lung cancer in non-smokers. The risk of developing lung cancer from radon depends on the concentration of radon and the length of exposure time.

The radon exposure limit set out in the OHS regulations was not consistent with Health Canada’s guidelines. Part X of the COHSR and Part VII of the OTOHSR required that federally regulated employees not be exposed to more than 800 becquerels per cubic metre (Bq/m3) of radon on average over a given year in the work place. In 2007, Health Canada, in consultation with the Federal Provincial Territorial Radiation Protection Committee, modified the guidelines to lower the threshold for acceptable levels of radon in a dwelling from 800 Bq/m3 to 200 Bq/m3 due to scientific studies that conclusively linked the risk of developing lung cancer to levels of radon. Health Canada also recognized that other jurisdictions in the world, including Australia, China, Germany, and the United Kingdom, set radon exposure levels at 200 Bq/m3. The new requirements for radon testing and mitigation will affect all work places covered by the Code where radon is present.

Maximum exposure limits

Exposure limits indicate the maximum level of exposure to a hazardous substance for a length of time (usually eight hours), which is not likely to affect the health of an employee. The five OHS regulations establish exposure limits for airborne chemical agents, including limits of exposure to airborne asbestos fibres and, as applicable, limits of exposure to airborne grain dust (COHSR, MOHSR and OGOSHR) and airborne flour dust (COHSR and MOHSR). For other airborne chemical agents, the limits are established by referencing the values adopted by the American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) in its annual publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs).

The ACGIH is a scientific charitable organization that advances occupational and environmental health, and its publication is the most internationally accepted document outlining exposure limits. The term “Threshold Limit Values (TLVs)” is the ACGIH’s terminology for “occupational exposure limits.” It refers to airborne concentrations of chemical substances and represents conditions under which it is believed that nearly all workers may be repeatedly exposed, day after day, for a working lifetime without adverse effect.footnote 8

However, the OHS regulations did not specify limits for all airborne chemical agents, and the absence of limits may have suggested to employers that some substances are not hazardous. As a result, employees may have been exposed to dangerous levels of an airborne hazardous substance not explicitly listed in the OHS regulations under the Code.

Standards incorporated by reference

Standards organizations exist worldwide, and their main role is to create and maintain technical standards. These standards create consistency for terminology, test methods, and codes of practice, to name a few, for manufacturers, professional organizations, and governments. Standards are developed for a variety of sectors, including construction and infrastructure, fire protection, and OHS. Incorporating these standards by reference ensures that Canadian regulations remain consistent with those of the rest of the world. The Labour Program has qualified individuals who participate in standards association technical committees for those standards that are referenced in the five OHS regulations. This allows the Labour Program to provide feedback and to ensure the standard covers specific information when the standard is referenced in the regulations.

In Canada, the CSA Group comprises two organizations: Standards Development, and Testing, Inspection and Certification. Standards Development is a not-for-profit standards development organization and Testing, Inspection and Certification provides global testing, inspection, and certification. Both organizations have technical committees that develop and update standards through a consensus-based process. The membership of a CSA Group Technical Committee consists of four categories: General Interest, Producer Interest, Regulatory Authority and User Interest. The general interest group includes representatives of academic or scientific background; the producer interest group includes representatives involved in manufacturing, retailing or distribution; the regulatory authority group includes regulators at any level of government; and the user interest group includes those representing consumer interests. The Labour Program participates in the technical committees as a member of the regulatory authority group. The standards developed by the technical committees are subject to review within five years from the date of publication.

The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is a separate entity from the CSA Group and was created by the Government of Canada as a Crown corporation in 1970 with a mandate to promote standardization in Canada. The SCC leads and facilitates the development and use of national and international standards and accreditation services. Canadian and international standards that are incorporated by reference in the OHS regulations are reviewed by the SCC as a rule of thumb every five years. The review process confirms that the content of a standard is current, and the standard is reaffirmed, or the review process prompts the need for a revision to be released.

The OHS regulations contain many references to incorporated standards. References to standards related to fire protection, ventilation, and ionizing and non-ionizing radiation were static in that they referred to a specific, dated version and were out of date or obsolete.

Six standards and publications, listed here, are referenced in the regulations and are unilingual. There are no official French translations:

The Labour Program utilizes these unilingual standards and publications, as the information they contain is widely regarded by the international community as being the predominant standard in their respective sectors. When relevant and internationally recognized bilingual standards become available, the Labour Program reviews those standards and references them if appropriate.

Record keeping

The five OHS regulations require employers to maintain records of hazard investigations and air sampling reports, but there was a discrepancy between the two requirements with regard to the amount of time that employers had to keep reports. Hazard investigation reports had to be kept for 30 years, whereas air sampling reports had to be kept for 3 years under four of the OHS regulations (the COHSR, the MOHSR, the AOHSR and the OTOHSR) and for 2 years under the OGOSHR. As well, these four OHS regulations required employers to record all hazardous substances used, produced, handled or stored for use in the work place, without specifying a clear record retention period, while the OGOSHR did not include this requirement. Because some chemicals have a long latency period before adverse effects are manifested, the effects of airborne hazardous substances may not be known until well into the future. Harmonizing the record keeping requirements of the five OHS regulations by extending the record keeping period for sampling reports is intended to facilitate internal investigation into incidents of occupational illness that could occur years after an incident or known exposure.

Air sampling requirements

The five OHS regulations require air sampling to be undertaken where a worker may be at risk of exposure to airborne chemical agents. However, the OHS regulations did not specifically direct employers to take air samples from the breathing zone, where employees are most likely to be exposed to the highest concentration of the airborne chemical agent. This resulted in employers not taking air samples in areas of the work place that are most important for employee health and safety. Additionally, the OHS regulations and their referenced standards did not provide clear direction to employers as to which sampling method to employ for measuring air samples against specific threshold limit values. As a result, employers frequently did not differentiate between types of threshold limit values and employed incorrect sampling techniques, which rendered the measurements invalid for the purposes of the hazard investigation.

Based on completed sampling reports that summarize the sampling techniques used, and the results, the Labour Program identified several occasions where the appropriate sampling technique was not followed. This resulted in the need to redo the sampling at the cost of the employer.

Previous stakeholder consultations revealed the need to clarify the duration of sampling required and the sampling technique to be used as prescribed for airborne chemical agents.

Objective

The objective of the Regulations is to protect the health and safety of employees in federally regulated work places by limiting their exposure to hazardous substances. This is accomplished by introducing new regulatory requirements for exposure to engineered nanomaterials, thermal stress, non-solar UV radiation, and radon; providing a methodology for substances for which maximum exposure limits have not been established; updating references to incorporated standards; harmonizing record keeping requirements and clarifying air sampling requirements.

Description

The Regulations amend the Hazardous Substances sections in the following five OHS regulations under the Code:

Additionally, the Regulations make consequential amendments to the AMPs Regulations.

Changes made as a result of prepublication

As a result of stakeholder feedback during prepublication, the following amendments were made to the Regulations, as described below:

Other technical amendments are described below:

The Regulations are summarized below.

New requirements for engineered nanomaterials

The Regulations amend the five OHS regulations to require employers to establish an engineered nanomaterials exposure and prevention control program, in accordance with the CSA Standard Z12885 (the Standard), entitled Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings, when engineered nanomaterials are present in the work place. The Standard focuses on the manufacturing and use of engineered nanomaterials in work places. It describes elements of hazard identification, preventative and protective measures, and specifies proper work procedures and training needs. It also provides guidance on health and safety practices in occupational settings relevant to nanotechnologies.

Through this Standard, the Regulations require employers to ensure that a qualified person establishes objectives with respect to the development of protection and prevention measures, and controls the exposure associated with the handling, use and storage of engineered nanomaterials if they are known to be present in the work place. The employer will ensure that the qualified person identifies all such materials and includes the following data fields in an inventory:

Since the Standard is updated regularly to keep pace with evolving technology, it is incorporated as an ambulatory reference. Where insufficient or inconclusive data on new engineered nanomaterials exist, employers will be required to take precautionary measures, as outlined in the Standard, to prevent or minimize harm in circumstances where there is uncertainty about the exact nature and extent of the risk.

New requirements to reduce the risk of thermal stress

The Regulations amend the five OHS regulations to require employers, in consultation with the work place committee, the health and safety representative, or the policy committee, as appropriate, to develop and implement procedures to reduce the risk of employees experiencing thermal stress.

These procedures should comprise all necessary measures, including the following:

In developing and implementing the procedures to monitor thermal conditions and reduce the risk of thermal stress, employers will need to comply with the ACGIH publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), which is incorporated by reference. Therefore, employers are required to put in place controls to prevent heat stress and heat strain, and cold stress if employees are exposed to hot or cold working conditions that reach specified thresholds. The reference to the publication is ambulatory, meaning that employers are required to comply with the most recent version.

New requirements for non-solar UV radiation

The Regulations amend the five OHS regulations to require that employees be kept free from exposure to UV radiation with a wavelength ranging from 180 nanometres (nm) and 400 nm inclusively — other than solar radiation — if the level of radiation exceeds the levels indicated in the ACGIH publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs). This publication specifies the maximum exposure limit to non-solar UV radiation and is incorporated by ambulatory reference.

Harmonization of the radon requirement

The Regulations amend the acceptable level of radon and set it to 200 Bq/m3 in the COHSR to be consistent with Health Canada’s guidelines and add it to the OGOSHR. The radon requirement is not in the MOHSR or the AOHSR, as radon exposure is not an issue in these work places. The Regulations also repeal the radon limit from the OTOHSR, as radon exposure is not an issue on board trains.

New maximum exposure limits requirement

The Regulations amend the five OHS regulations to require employers to ensure that the concentration of any airborne chemical substances, where a set threshold limit value has not been established by the ACGIH, be kept as low as feasible if employees are exposed to them.

Update references to standards

The Regulations update the references to currently incorporated standards and publications and change the type of reference from static to ambulatory. Ambulatory references refer to the most up-to-date version of the standard or publication, and regulated parties are expected to comply with the most current version.

The following references related to fire protection, ventilation, and ionizing and non-ionizing radiation are updated.

The COHSR:

The MOHSR:

The OGOSHR:

The OTOHSR:

The AOHSR:

Harmonization of record keeping requirements

The Regulations harmonize the hazard investigation and air sampling report retention times in the five OHS regulations by requiring the employer to maintain records of air sampling for internal use for 30 years. In addition, the Regulations clarify that employers must keep and maintain records of hazardous substances used by contractors and specify that the records of all hazardous substances used, produced, handled or stored for use in the work place must also be kept for 30 years.

Air sampling requirements

The Regulations introduce additional air sampling requirements in the five OHS regulations by adding detailed instructions on where and how often the air samples should be taken. The method is specified in the unilingual National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, which is incorporated by ambulatory reference. The Regulations require that samples be taken where there is the likelihood of a concentration of an airborne chemical agent or in the breathing zones of highly exposed employees. The Regulations specify the names of the equipment to be used for sampling, as well as the equipment’s detection limits, flow rate and sampling time. The Regulations also require that, when recording the sampling and testing instrument used, the names and precision of the equipment (i.e. all measurements will have results that are close to one another), its detection limits and flow rates, and the sampling duration for each test be included in the record.

Removal of outdated requirements

The Regulations

In addition, the Regulations also

In response to feedback received following prepublication, references to the following standards are removed from the Regulations, as they are outdated:

The COHSR:

The OGOSHR:

Regulatory development

Consultation

In 2009, the RRC identified Part X of the COHSR as a priority for review. As a result, a working group was created which reviewed Part X of the COHSR in depth between 2009 and 2014. Members met 18 times and reached a consensus on each element of proposed regulatory amendments that, at the time, would have only amended the COHSR.

In 2014, the RRC was amalgamated with the Labour Operations Practices Committee to form the Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee (OHSAC). In 2021, the scope of this regulatory initiative expanded to include the four other regulations under the Code that also have provisions for hazardous substances to ensure consistency and harmonization. As a result, further consultations with the OHSAC took place in June 2022. The proposed Regulations and the expanded scope were presented to OHSAC and were met with a positive response. Following this meeting, OHSAC members had 31 business days to provide the Labour Program with any applicable questions they had regarding these amendments.

The Labour Program received comments from five stakeholders as a result of this consultation: one employer and four unions. The employer expressed concerns regarding the adoption of new standards. They suggested that the new standards would create confusion and the previous requirements under the OHS regulations were sufficient. They were also concerned that the new maximum exposure limits would place further technical burden on employers. The four unions were broadly supportive of the amendments, as they would further protect worker health and safety. However, concerns were raised regarding the enforcement of the new requirements. There was also concern that the limits or practices within the newly referenced standards would not be mandatory.

With respect to the referencing of new standards, the requirements specify which limits and practices within the standards are mandatory. Enforcement of the Regulations will continue with existing approaches, including educating and counselling employers on their obligations, seeking assurances of voluntary compliance from employers, and/or issuing compliance orders to cease contraventions and prevent reoccurrences. To address more serious or repeated violations, administrative monetary penalties may be issued.

Prepublication in the Canada Gazette, Part I

The Regulations were prepublished for a 30-day comment period from October 28, 2023, to November 27, 2023, which resulted in 18 submissions provided by seven employers, three employee groups, four individuals, and four entities who preferred to remain anonymous.

Given the number of topics incorporated in the proposed Regulations, comments received from stakeholders were diverse, including both positive and negative feedback. Many expressed that the Regulations represented enhancements to the health and safety of employees in federally regulated work places.

The paragraphs below provide a report of the comments submitted by stakeholders during the 30-day comment period and through subsequent discussions. As described below, in some cases, amendments were made to the Regulations in response to stakeholder comments.

Engineered nanomaterials

An employer expressed concern that the definition of the term “engineered nanomaterials” in the proposed Regulations included naturally occurring nanomaterials and inquired as to how employers will identify nanomaterials in work places. In response to this comment, the Labour Program updated the definition in the Regulations to ensure it only captures engineered nanomaterials and not naturally occurring nanomaterials. Additional information was added to the “Description” section of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Statement (RIAS) to clarify the roles of employers as they relate to engineered nanomaterials. The Labour Program will also ensure guidance material is updated to provide further clarification explaining how to identify nanomaterials in the work place.

An employer noted that the nanoparticle hazard assessment requirement would entail the review of all their laboratory environments. The “Benefits and costs” section was updated to account for the impact on affected industries, including laboratories under the federal jurisdiction.

An employer suggested a 12-month transition period to allow employers time to successfully adapt to the new requirements. The Labour Program has since extended the coming into force period to the first anniversary of the day on which the Regulations are registered.

Two employee groups were supportive of adding new requirements for engineered nanomaterials.

Thermal stress

An employer suggested that the definition of the term “thermal stress” be reviewed to bring it into alignment with the definitions contained in Employment and Social Development Canada’s (ESDC) guideline entitled Thermal stress in the work place, published on October 17, 2018. Several stakeholders also noted issues that arose from the definition of thermal stress. For example, one employer expressed concerns that the requirement to report incidents of “exposure to thermal stress,” as thermal stress was defined in the Regulations, would represent an onerous burden for employers controlling outdoor work places where many employees are frequently exposed to hot or cold weather. This reporting would be without real benefit and would result in superfluous reports that would likely distort the register and undermine the purpose of informing on the hazards present in the work place. The Labour Program agreed that changes to the definition would clarify the concept and facilitate a proper interpretation of the requirements. As a result, the Labour Program modified the definition of thermal stress to clarify that it is the adverse health effects experienced by employees who have been exposed to hot or cold working conditions, and not the conditions to which they are exposed. Modifications were also made to certain sentences where the term was used. For example, the wording “exposure to thermal stress” was removed from the Regulations, since it implies that thermal stress is an external hazard as opposed to the body’s outcome as a result of exposure to hot or cold environments.

An employer and two employee groups noted the complexity of the wet-bulb globe temperature (WBGT) method, which is the method required by the Regulations to measure environmental heat. Respondents also noted that workers experience thermal stress differently and suggested that the proposed Regulations did not account for Canada’s diverse workforce and climate. It was requested that the Labour Program consider a process that uses humidex-based methods for assessing thermal stress. The Labour Program’s assessment of both methods, supported by technical expertise, confirms that the WBGT method of measurement required by the Regulations is the most up to date and efficient in preventing injuries and illnesses related to thermal stress and, therefore, no change was made.

After the public consultation period, another employer expressed similar concerns regarding the complexity of the WBGT. They were also concerned that the Regulations would create an overlap between thermal stress requirements and employer obligations relating to the hazard prevention program (HPP). In contrast with other comments in support of the consideration of individual factors to better protect employees from the risks of thermal stress, this employer was concerned that such requirements, as well as the implementation of control measures such as work-rest cycles and training, would create an unnecessary financial burden on employers and unduly and negatively impact operations and productivity. The Labour Program met with this stakeholder to discuss their concerns. Factoring in personal characteristics, such as acclimatization, implementing work/rest cycles and putting in place the prescribed control measures where there is a likeliness of thermal stress are important steps to prevent heat-related illnesses and injuries. They are also best practices in the field of industrial hygiene. Although not explicitly prescribed, the prevention of injuries and illnesses related to thermal stress is already required under section 124 of the Canada Labour Code as well as in the HPP parts of the regulations. As for the overlap between sections of the regulations, the employer must comply with the hazard-specific requirements and include those elements in their HPP, as is currently the case for other hazards that are explicitly addressed in the regulations. The employer was also concerned that the reference to the ACGIH’s control measures implied prescribed training and monitoring frequency and methods. The Labour Program acknowledges that referring to the ACGIH’s control measures as measures to be implemented, while listing out similar procedures to be developed by the employer, brought on ambiguity as to the level of flexibility provided to the employer regarding the determination of control measures, notably training and monitoring frequency and methods. As such, the reference to the ACGIH’s control measures was removed, making it clear that the employer has some flexibility in developing procedures that are appropriate to the work place.

An employee group further expressed concern that the proposed heat stress exposure limits are based on values for acclimatized workers, putting unacclimatized workers at risk of injury. However, in addition to exposure limits, the Regulations set obligations for the employer to develop and implement procedures that account for many variables tailored to their specific work places and activities. The Regulations also require that individual and cumulative factors, including acclimatization, be taken into consideration as part of the required risk assessment. The Labour Program maintains that the combination of prescriptive and outcome-based requirements found in the Regulations provides optimal protection from thermal stress.

An employer reported being unable to locate the thresholds to prevent cold stress in the publication incorporated by reference and to understand the requirement. The Regulations require an employer to ensure certain controls are in place if an employee is exposed to external temperatures reaching specific thresholds that are provided for in the referenced ACGIH’s publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs). The Regulations include a clear reference to the section where a person can find the thresholds; however, this section does not provide a single threshold to prevent frostbite and hypothermia, but many different thresholds for various situations. For example, it specifies time limits for cold-water immersion based on water temperatures and immersion depths. Although the referenced publication provides instructions and thresholds, the Labour Program has adjusted the language used in the Regulations, using the plural form of “threshold” to avoid any ambiguity, and will publish updated guidance material to assist employers in developing thermal stress prevention programs and control measures.

An individual further expressed concern that the thermal stress standards do not take into consideration individual and cumulative factors (such as activity level and attire) that influence resistance to hot or cold exposure as well as the possibility of adverse effects when wearing personal protective equipment in certain conditions. However, the Regulations require that individual and cumulative factors, including those specified by the respondent, be taken into consideration as part of the required risk assessment. Activity level and attire are addressed in the referenced publication through adjustment factors based on the metabolic rate category and on clothing, as well as in Labour Program guidelines. Therefore, no changes were made to the Regulations. The individual also expressed concern with the ALARA (which stands for “as low as reasonably achievable”) principle, arguing that it can be interpreted in favour of employer gains at the expense of employee health and safety. The Labour Program recognizes that the mention of the ALARA principle in the RIAS published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, was unnecessarily confusing. As the principle is not included in the Regulations, the Labour Program removed its mention from the RIAS, which was also revised to clarify the impact of the Regulations.

An employer inquired about thermal stress training requirements for low-risk occupations and expressed concerns that such requirements would yield few benefits. The Labour Program did not make any changes to the Regulations as a result of this comment, as the Regulations do not prescribe training where the risk of heat stress is low. On the contrary, the Regulations require that training be provided where an employee is exposed or likely to be exposed to hazardous temperatures. The Labour Program will review its guidance material, which includes a decision-making figure to assist employers with the risk assessment and ensuing decisions.

An individual suggested reordering the control measures that the employer must include in the procedures for minimizing the risk of thermal stress so as to bring the sequence of the control measures into alignment with the hierarchy of controls in Part XIX of the COHSR. Although the requirement does not establish a priority, the Labour Program agrees that the suggested modification would make the Regulations more coherent and, therefore, reordered the components based on the hierarchy of controls.

Non-solar UV radiation

An employer suggested adding a requirement to screen work places for non-solar laser UV sources. The Labour Program considered this comment; however, the requirement to ensure employees are not exposed to UV radiation that exceeds the established thresholds is outcome-based and provides the flexibility for employers to choose the best way to achieve this objective. This flexibility cannot be achieved with prescriptive requirements such as the one suggested by the respondent; therefore, no changes were made to the Regulations.

An employee group provided their support for the amendments to UV radiation and for the development of regulations through collaboration between government, employer and employee representatives. However, they were concerned that the Regulations do not account for the potential hazards that could appear at lower levels than those included in the maximum exposure thresholds. The Labour Program’s analysis concluded that the maximum exposure limits provided in the Regulations are appropriate and provide a basic level of protection, as is the case for all maximum exposure limits. The employer remains responsible for assessing the risks of UV radiation in collaboration with the health and safety committees and can determine that a higher level of protection is appropriate.

Radon

An employer inquired about the expectations for radon, specifically if all work places will require testing (e.g. both unoccupied and occupied work places or work places with subsurface foundation). Similarly, another employer suggested that the Regulations should specify places where radon testing should take place, that there should be exemptions to retesting for radon, and that guidance material should be made available. The radon provisions are outcome-based, in the sense that the Regulations require employers to ensure their employees are not exposed to concentrations of radon that are, on average, higher than 200 Bq/m3 over the course of the year. This exposure limit encompasses all work places; however, the outcome-based requirement provides flexibility for employers to establish their own testing and mitigation procedures. An exemption from retesting is not necessary, as the Regulations do not include explicit testing requirements, nor would an employer be required to retest radon levels if a work place is already below 200 Bq/m3.

An employer inquired if a timeline for radon measurement in work places will be included in the Regulations (e.g. in the next 20 years, all work places will have a 91-day testing period as per Health Canada’s guidance). Because the Regulations provide an outcome-based requirement of a maximum exposure limit, they provide flexibility for employers to establish their own testing and mitigation procedures, and, as such, no further amendments were made to the Regulations.

An employer challenged the assumption that 875 out of 25 000 (3.5%) indoor work places are expected to exceed the new radon levels. This employer indicated that they have previously conducted their own study with over 2 500 smaller remote work places and concluded that 6% were above 200 Bq/m3. They also indicated that current gaps exist within industries regarding their ability to mitigate radon levels in work places. The Labour Program liaised directly with this employer and, as a result, increased the estimated costs associated with the radon provision in the “Benefits and costs” section of the RIAS. Additionally, in relation to their feedback regarding industries’ ability to mitigate radon levels, the Labour Program has since extended the coming into force date to the first anniversary of the day on which the Regulations are registered.

Two employee groups provided their support on the amendment to lower radon levels from 800 Bq/m3 to 200 Bq/m3 but questioned why a lower radon exposure limit was not proposed. The Regulations are in alignment with international guidelines as well as with Health Canada’s guideline, which is based on scientific information and was the subject of broad public consultation; therefore, the 200 Bq/m3 exposure limit is maintained in the Regulations.

An individual provided their support for the amendment to lower the radon level from 800 Bq/m3 to 200 Bq/m3, as it furthers international alignment.

An individual inquired about the cost and where to purchase radon testing kits. Radon test kits and radon measurement services are available from many different providers. The Government of Canada provides guidance on radon testing, as well as lists of Canadian National Radon Proficiency Program (C-NRPP) certified products and professionals, through Health Canada; therefore, no further action was taken.

Maximum exposure limits

An employer mentioned that the ALARA principle was not directly referenced in the proposed Regulations; although it was mentioned in the “Background” section of the prepublication, which created confusion as to whether the ALARA principle and the Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs) should be used. Similarly, an individual expressed that the use of the ACGIH publication on TLVs and BEIs in the proposed Regulations was incorrect, as it prescribes exposure threshold limits, not the ALARA principle. The Labour Program recognizes that the mention of the ALARA principle in the RIAS published in the Canada Gazette, Part I, was unnecessarily confusing. As the principle is not included in the Regulations, the Labour Program removed its mention from the RIAS. However, the ACGIH publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs) is referenced in the Regulations and employers must ensure employees are kept free from exposure to concentrations of airborne chemical agents that are in excess of the values established in that document. The Regulations also include a requirement for the employer to ensure that the concentration in the air of a chemical agent to which employees are exposed and for which the value is not established in the Regulations is maintained at levels that are as low as feasible. As a result of this comment, the “Background” section was amended to provide further clarification to explain the ALARA principle and how it relates.

An employer inquired whether assessing exposure to airborne chemical agents would involve medical assessments. Similarly, an individual noted that the ACGIH publication incorporated by reference mentions both TLVs and BEIs and requested clarification as to why BEIs were not included in the requirements introduced by the Regulations. Although the referenced ACGIH publication includes guidelines regarding BEIs, the Regulations specifically and exclusively refer to the TLVs component of the publication to set limits of exposure to airborne chemical substances. BEIs are often measured through medical procedures, which is outside the scope of this regulatory initiative; therefore, no amendments were made to the Regulations.

An employee group provided their support for the requirement to ensure concentrations of airborne chemical agents (other than airborne grain dust, airborne flour dust and airborne asbestos fibres) to which employees are exposed and for which values have not been established by the ACGIH in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), are maintained at levels that are as low as feasible. However, they inquired as to what constitutes “feasible.” The Labour Program considered this comment and decided to keep the term “feasible,” which is used in other parts of the Regulations, because it allows for the consideration of technological, practical and economic constraints. In the context of exposure limits, maintaining concentrations of airborne chemical agents as low as feasible means maintaining them at the lowest concentration level given the availability of the technology, the possibility of putting specific measures in place in the context of the work place, and the costs that would be involved in ensuring the risk of exposure is null.

An individual noted that the ACGIH publication on TLVs and BEIs is not intended for regulatory use. Similarly, another individual commented that it is the Government of Canada’s responsibility to provide an endorsement of the use of TLVs as legal occupational exposure limits in federal work places, as the ACGIH states that the TLVs are not developed for use as a legal standard. Although the Labour Program acknowledges that the TLVs and BEIs were developed as guidelines, they are the most widely accepted occupational exposure limits in the field of industrial hygiene and are broadly used in provincial regulations to determine exposure limits. As for their endorsement as legal occupational exposure limits, this will occur through their incorporation by reference within the text of the five OHS regulations.

Standards incorporated by reference

One employer was supportive of amending the Regulations to make standards incorporated by reference ambulatory, although they suggested a 12-month transition period to allow employers time to successfully adapt and implement the latest standards. The Labour Program has since extended the coming-into-force period to one year following registration.

An employer suggested updates to the references within the current Regulations, namely noting the year of publication and the title of the latest version of Safety Code 6. The Labour Program acknowledged this comment, although these changes were already part of the proposed Regulations, with all references to safety codes being made ambulatory, and their titles updated accordingly. This means that the mention “as amended from time to time” replaces the publication date to ensure the latest version is in force at all times.

Three employee groups supported the ambulatory incorporation of standards. However, two of them noted that some standards incorporated by reference are not available in both official languages, which could be an issue for employees who are not fully bilingual and a burden for employers, especially while interpreting technical information. They suggested that the Labour Program provide French translations in these circumstances. The Labour Program acknowledges these comments and will continue to use bilingual standards where possible, using unilingual publications only when internationally recognized bilingual ones are not available. Though the Regulations include references to such unilingual publications, they are the most recognized worldwide and by the industry, and their incorporation is the best way to achieve the regulatory objectives. Furthermore, the Labour Program will provide guidance in both official languages to support employers in understanding and complying with the requirements. It can also be noted that the cost to employers for translation of unilingual standards was included in the “Benefits and costs” section.

An individual suggested adopting the most stringent and cautious standards immediately to avoid risking employee health and well-being. However, the individual did not specify whether they were concerned with a specific requirement or generally supportive of the amendments. As for regulatory quality and efficiency, the Labour Program has made amendments using the most current and reputable standards with the collaboration and support of stakeholders and will continue to monitor current research and standards to ensure the Regulations are up to date and promote the highest level of occupational health and safety.

Another individual mentioned that standards from other countries are available and should be included in the Regulations. Standards are established by groups of experts who consider the environment for which they are developed, which may vary from one region of the world to another. For this reason, the Labour Program normally references Canadian or North American standards, which are internationally recognized. These standards are based on current research and available data. As a result, no amendments were made based on this comment.

After the comment period, one stakeholder informed the Labour Program that the status of certain safety codes which were referenced in the proposed Regulations would be changing. Specifically, Safety Code 25 and Safety Code 26 would be archived, as they were no longer endorsed as current guidance by their publisher. As a result, the Labour Program removed those references from the Regulations. Exposure limits set out in Safety Code 6, which remains referenced in the Regulations, are applicable to the devices that were the subject of Safety Code 25. As for Safety Code 26, the publisher advised the Labour Program that they continue to discuss with stakeholders the need for new federal guidance on the safe use of magnetic resonance clinical systems. As a result, the Labour Program removed the references to both archived safety codes from their publications and reflected these new changes in the RIAS.

Record keeping

An employer requested clarification on the record retention requirements and pointed out that, while the RIAS used the term “toxic,” the Regulations referred to “hazardous substances.” Specifically, the respondent inquired as to whether the intent is to prescribe the retention of records for all hazardous substances for 30 years, and whether this can be achieved through the retention of safety data sheets (SDSs). The Regulations extend the retention period of hazardous substances records to 30 years to facilitate internal investigation into incidents of occupational illness. Although the records can be created by compiling SDSs, it is not mandatory to do so. The Labour Program amended the RIAS to replace the word “toxic” with “hazardous,” as well as to describe the amendments related to the retention period for hazardous substances records.

Two employee groups expressed their support for the 30-year record-keeping requirement; however, one of these groups suggested that the retention period be increased to 40 years in order to better protect workers who may fall ill from work place hazardous exposures many years after exposure. The other group also suggested the creation of a federal occupational exposure registry, in partnership with the provinces, to identify and track occupational hazards over the longer term. To this end, they suggested that consideration be given to electronic methods where possible and that data on membership in equity-seeking groups (for example gender, race, disability status and Indigenous identity) be collected. Such data collection is outside the scope of the Regulations; therefore, no action is required on this issue.

An individual expressed concern with internal responsibility and suggested external oversight be provided, including the auditing of records and independent inspection and sampling. They pointed out the limits of voluntary compliance and suggested the penalties for non-compliance be raised to act as a deterrent. The AMPs Regulations categorize violations based on a scale that is coherent through all of the Labour Program’s occupational health and safety regulations. Amendments have been made to the AMPs Regulations’ annexes to identify new requirements for which non-compliance can be penalized and to classify each violation in accordance with the established scale. The penalty amount differs based on the size of the business and the AMPs Regulations provide for the public naming of employers who have committed violations other than administrative. The Labour Program made no further amendments to the Regulations or to the AMPs Regulations’ annexes, as a result of this comment.

One employer expressed concern that record-keeping requirements could be interpreted as being applicable to contractors operating at the employer’s work place, performing work for their own purposes and under their own control. The employer possesses many such work sites, which are used by other employers and contractors who do not report to the employer. Similarly, another employer suggested that the proposed Regulations be amended to clarify that the record-keeping requirements only applied to work places “controlled by the employer.” The Regulations have been modified to remove existing ambiguity about record keeping by employers and to clarify that employers are required to keep records for hazardous substances used, produced, handled or stored for use by employers, employees and contractors employed by them in their work places.

Air sampling

An employer cautioned that some hazards may be elevated above employee breathing zones, which are subject to air sampling, and could still pose potential harm to worker health and safety and, as such, they suggested sampling be taken where a potential hazard may reasonably be presumed present. The Regulations include outcome-based requirements to protect employees from exposure to hazardous substances. For example, concentrations of airborne chemical substances to which employees are exposed must remain within defined limits. Where there are no specified limits, exposure must remain as low as feasible. Additionally, the Regulations include sampling requirements such as the requirement to take samples where there is the likelihood of an airborne chemical agent and in the breathing zones of highly exposed employees using a method that is appropriate for the chemical agent. Because the qualified person may take additional samples where relevant, and because they must ultimately ensure the work place meets certain concentration thresholds for airborne chemical hazards, no amendments were made to the Regulations; however, the Labour Program will update the guidance material to help industrial hygienists and employers in interpreting the sampling requirements and in taking samples for compliance with the Regulations.

An employer suggested that the Regulations specify that the sampling strategy should be determined by a qualified person, and not by the employer. No amendments were made to the Regulations, as the Regulations specify that the samples must be taken by a qualified person and allow for multiple methods to do so, whether they are listed in standards that are incorporated by reference, or otherwise determined by the qualified person.

An employee group and one individual expressed concern that requiring breathing zone samples for “highly exposed employees” would limit other workers from requesting and receiving air sampling in their work areas or prevent a full occupational hygiene assessment. The employee group supported the inclusion of instrument specifications in the sampling records, while urging the Labour Program to provide additional background information and make training and consultation with workers available. The Regulations specify that the test should be taken “in the breathing zone of the employees who are most likely to be exposed to the highest concentration of the chemical agent or asbestos fibres” but do not limit testing to “highly exposed employees.” The objective of this requirement is to ensure samples include the highest concentrations, and that these hazardous concentrations are not overlooked. The Labour Program will update the guidance material to help industrial hygienists and employers in interpreting the sampling requirements and in taking samples for compliance with the Regulations.

An individual requested clarification on whether passive air samplers would be acceptable for the determination of the concentration of an airborne chemical agent. Passive air sampling is suitable in certain circumstances: the standards incorporated by reference define the sampling method that is appropriate for the chemical agent and scenario. The Regulations do not comprise any changes to the prescribed standards, which specify the requirements related to sampler capacity and sampling rates; therefore, no further amendments will be made to the Regulations.

An individual expressed concern with sample tampering by and lack of regulation of private laboratories. They suggested that unannounced sample collection and testing should be performed by government laboratories. The Regulations require testing to be performed by a qualified person employed by the employer and require employers to keep a record of measurements for 30 years to facilitate investigations into exposure to hazardous substances. Regulation of private laboratories is not part of the Labour Program’s mandate; however, the Labour Program will continue to ensure that testing is done in accordance with the Regulations through its compliance and enforcement policy, namely through proactive inspections or by responding to complaints from the work place.

An individual noted that the number of annual reports generated by employers and received by the Labour Program was not realistic in that, in their view, there would be more reports than what was estimated. The Labour Program reassessed both the number of air sampling reports and the estimated administrative costs related to record retention, which resulted in an upward adjustment of the estimated costs in the “Benefits and costs” section of the RIAS.

An individual requested changes to the terminology used in the requirement to include the qualified person’s name and occupation on the air sampling records, specifically suggesting that the “professional accreditations” should be noted, rather than the “occupation.” The term “occupation” is in line with the Canada Labour Code’s definition of a qualified person, which includes persons that are qualified based on their knowledge, training and experience. It is inclusive of occupations for which there are no professional orders. Furthermore, as the term “occupation” is the term used in the industry and, because it satisfies the regulatory intent, the Labour Program did not make any amendments to the Regulations.

An individual inquired as to whether the declaration of the instrument’s level of precision to be recorded in the qualified person’s report should be based on the manufacturer’s specifications. The sampling process involves different margins of error, for example stemming from the instrument, the sampling method or the analysis method. Some are specified by the manufacturer, while others are established according to the conditions in place. The qualified person who writes his expert report must specify these margins of error and establish the reliability and precision of his measurement, including that of the equipment. Although the term “precision” is not defined in the “Interpretation” section of Part X of the COHSR, the referenced publications thoroughly define the interrelated terms “accuracy,” “precision” and “bias.” The Labour Program will update guidance material as required to provide more clarity.

Lastly, an employee group expressed their support for the use of the NIOSH Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual.

General comments

An individual commented that Indigenous organizations should be provided with the funds needed to replace, repair or upgrade buildings to ensure that exposure to hazardous materials can be prevented, as they have been historically underfunded. The Labour Program acknowledges these concerns. First Nations organizations may have additional challenges implementing certain pieces of the Regulations, given ongoing challenges related to infrastructure on reserves. However, funding is not part of the Labour Program’s mandate and is therefore outside the scope of this initiative. The Labour Program has, however, extended the coming-into-force period to one year following registration to provide employers with sufficient time to implement the new requirements. Similarly, an employee group recommended that Indigenous engagement be initiated as soon as possible. The prepublication comment period from October 28, 2023, to November 26, 2023, provided an opportunity for all Canadians, including Indigenous peoples, to provide feedback on the proposed Regulations. No comments were received from Indigenous peoples at that time. Following this comment, an engagement letter was sent to Indigenous partners in winter 2025 to seek their input on the regulatory changes and identify their needs. Although the Labour Program heard back from some groups, no comments were provided on the Regulations. That said, the Labour Program remains available to support implementation throughout the implementation period and is reviewing its current engagement processes.

One employer suggested changing the management of hazardous substances requirements to encompass the entire life cycle of the substance. They suggested linking Parts X and XIX of the COHSR, and covering selection and acquisition, as well as disposal of hazardous substances in the Regulations. They also suggested requiring that the process of investigation in the COHSR includes all aspects of a hazardous substance, such as health and safety for employees, facilities, and environmental impacts. The life cycle and environmental impacts of hazardous substances are outside the scope of these Regulations, but within the scope of legislation such as the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, which provides a legal framework for Canada’s management of chemical substances; however, this comment will be considered when updating guidance documents, such as the Guide to the Management – Hazardous Substances.

One employee group expressed concern that ventilation requirements for coal mines would be removed. Although five provisions pertaining to coal mines have been repealed from the COHSR, these provisions represented exceptions to the application of specific requirements. As a result, if there were coal mines in the federal jurisdiction, they would not be exempt from lighting and ventilation requirements nor be exempt from obligations within Part XV of the COHSR pertaining to hazardous occurrence investigation, recording and reporting. Specifically, the concentration limit for chemical agents where there is a hazard of ignition would apply in respect of methane gas in the underground portion of a coal mine, and so would the maximum exposure limits for carbon dioxide and respirable dust. The RIAS was revised to clarify that ventilation requirements for coal mines are not removed, but that references to coal mines, found in exception provisions, are being removed from the COHSR, as there are no longer coal mines in the federal jurisdiction.

An individual noted that the proposed Regulations and the existing guidance material entitled Guide to the Management – Hazardous Substances were misaligned. Specifically, they noted that employers don’t possess the technical skills required to estimate the likeliness that an employee would be exposed to each hazardous substance, and that this would prevent them from making informed decisions. Though this comment does not concern any of the new or updated requirements, the Labour Program confirms that the guidance material is in line with the Regulations; the Regulations require an employer to appoint a qualified person to perform a hazard investigation where there is a likeliness that an employee may be endangered by exposure to a hazardous substance, and the decision tree to which the individual is referring uses the same language. The Regulations do not require employers to seek a qualified person’s opinion to establish the likeliness because, while a professional opinion may be efficient, the likeliness may be established by more accessible means, such as personal observation and consideration of the substance’s properties and the way it is used.

One employer and one employee group expressed concerns that thermal comfort was not addressed in the proposed Regulations. This is correct, as thermal “comfort” is a component of office ergonomics, which is addressed in other parts of the Regulations, and is therefore outside the scope of this regulatory initiative.

The Labour Program received several comments that pertained to subjects that are outside the scope of these Regulations, including animal testing, climate change, biomaterials, research centres, data management, and compensation. No amendments were made based on these comments.

There were also several comments regarding broader Labour Program activities, such as compliance and enforcement, where stakeholders shared their suggestions for additional penalties and encouraged the government to explore deterrents that could be more effective than current enforcement methods, such as monetary penalties. The Labour Program has not made any changes to the Regulations based on these comments, as each violation had been carefully classified in accordance with the scale established by the AMPs Regulations and coherently used throughout the OHS regulations. The Labour Program will continue to consider these comments throughout ongoing and future initiatives.

Implementation timelines

Requests were made for additional time to review and implement provisions related to engineered nanomaterials, thermal stress and radon. In order to provide employers with the time to review the new requirements and their corresponding standards and publications, conduct testing as needed, and implement procedures and mitigation measures within their work places, the Labour Program changed the coming-into-force date so that the Regulations will come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which they are registered. Further, the Labour Program will provide guidance material to ensure employers have the information and support required to implement the changes required by these Regulations prior to their coming into force.

Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations

An assessment of modern treaty implications conducted in accordance with the Cabinet Directive on the Federal Approach to Modern Treaty Implementation concluded that the Regulations do not disproportionally impact modern treaty holders. As a result, specific engagement and consultations with modern treaty holders were not undertaken. However, in their role as employers, First Nation band councils will need to ensure that their work places comply with the Regulations.

The prepublication comment period from October 28, 2023, to November 26, 2023, provided an opportunity for all Canadians, including Indigenous peoples, to provide feedback on the proposed Regulations. The Labour Program later engaged with specific Indigenous partners. No comments were received at that time on the proposed Regulations; however, the Labour Program remains available to support implementation throughout the implementation period.

Instrument choice

Providing increased protection to employee health and safety where there is exposure to engineered nanomaterials, thermal stress, non-solar UV radiation, radon and airborne chemical substances, when maximum exposure limits have not been established, could only be accomplished through amendments to the federal OHS regulations. In addition, updating references to incorporated standards, harmonizing record-keeping requirements and clarifying air sampling requirements could only be accomplished through amendments to the federal OHS regulations. Therefore, no other instruments were considered.

Regulatory analysis

Benefits and costs

Summary

The total estimated costs of this regulatory initiative are $71.9M in present value (PV) over the next 20 years (2025–2044), with total benefits estimated at $91.5M (PV). The net impact is positive, estimated at $19.6M (PV). The amendments will have uneven impacts across the Canadian federal jurisdiction. Four provisions account for a significant share of the monetized impacts:

Below, the impacts of the new requirements in the Regulations are summarized and fall into the following categories:

  1. Lowering allowable radon levels
  2. Monitoring and reducing the risk of thermal stress
  3. Engineered nanomaterial provisions
  4. Standards incorporated by reference
  5. Non-solar UV radiation
  6. Maximum exposure limits
  7. Record keeping for hazardous substances
  8. New air sampling requirements
Updates following prepublication

Several updates were made to the cost-benefit analysis following prepublication.

The first update concerns the coming-into-force date of the Regulations, which has been pushed forward to one year following the day on which they are registered, to give employers a year to implement compliance activities before the Regulations come into force. This change means the coming-into-force date of the Regulations moves from year 1 (as expected in the prepublication) to year 2, with associated benefits starting to accrue in year 2, instead of year 1. As a result, the present value of net benefits decreased from $26.4M to $19.6M. Furthermore, the costs and benefits are now presented in 2024 dollars instead of 2023 dollars. This had the effect of increasing all monetized costs and benefits.

The second update reflects feedback from one large employer, which outlined the employer’s unique circumstances surrounding their radon testing and mitigation program, namely a higher radon incidence rate than found at other federal employers, and higher costs for testing and mitigation. This led to the inclusion of a separate analysis of the provision’s impact on this individual organization in the cost-benefit analysis. This new data was incorporated into the previous research findings on radon incidence and costs of mitigation used in the Canada Gazette, Part I, cost-benefit analysis. Using a weighted average to account for this organization’s size compared to the whole federal jurisdiction, the total impact on the cost-benefit analysis saw the reported radon incidence rate in the federal jurisdiction increase from 3.56% to 3.86%, with testing costs rising from an average of $534 to $606 per work site, and average mitigation costs increasing from $3,717 to $7,080. As a result, total present value costs associated with the radon provisions increase from $16M to $20.8M.

The third update reflects feedback from one stakeholder on the importance of wet-bulb thermometers in testing for heat stress conditions. This led to their inclusion in the monitoring costs for this provision. With the inclusion of these devices, monitoring costs increase by about $100 annually per affected work site, adding a total annual cost for the thermal stress provision of approximately $69,000 across all affected employers.

The fourth update reflects the inclusion of the 2021 census labour data released in November 2023. The outcomes of the 2021 census point to a decrease in employment across the labour force because of the pandemic. In addition, it reflects a decrease in employment growth in some occupations, such as those working primarily outdoors in the federal jurisdiction (FJ). As a result, the number of workers affected by outdoor thermal stress decreased by approximately 5 000 from what was projected in the cost-benefit analysis published in the Canada Gazette, Part I. Consequently, the total present value of the monetized costs for the whole regulatory initiative changed from only $70M to $71.9M, after factoring in the additional costs affecting the other provisions outlined above.

The fifth update relates to a reassessment of both the number of air sampling reports made per year in the federal jurisdiction and the estimated administrative costs incurred by employers for retaining air sampling reports for 30 years, from the current 3 years (2 years in the case of the current Oil and Gas Occupational Safety and Health Regulations). In addition, electronic record keeping has grown rapidly since the pandemic and is now assumed to be the main format for record keeping. It is estimated that there are 1 565 air sampling reports made in the federal jurisdiction each year, up from initial estimates of 8 at the time of the prepublication. The estimated additional costs to retain these records over this longer period come in at approximately $92,000 (PV) over the next 20 years, or $8,660 on an annualized basis.

Costs and benefits results by requirement
1. Lowering allowable radon levels

Consultations regarding the costs and benefits associated with the new radon provisions were held with officials from the Radiation Protection Bureau of Health Canada from 2016 to 2017. As a result of the Regulations, approximately 25 000footnote 10 indoor work places will need to undergo radon testing over the next 20 years (approximately 23 000 in the first year and 2 000 work places in years 2 to 20 due to employment growth in the federal jurisdiction [FJ] during this period). Of these work places, approximately 991 are expected to exceed mean radon concentration levels of 200 Bq/m3 and will require radon mitigation procedures (approximately 921 work places in the first year, and an additional 70 work places in years 2 to 20 from new businesses entering the FJ in this period).footnote 11 The bulk of the costs are expected to be one-time costs in the first year of implementation (2025), and they are estimated at $20.0M in present value.footnote 12 Costs in subsequent years are lower, averaging about $73,000. Total costs over 20 years, expressed in present value (PV), are estimated at $20.8M. Federally regulated employees will be subject to lower levels of radon gases, which will reduce the risk of developing lung cancer. The number of at-risk employees is estimated to be 36 073 in 2026.footnote 13 It is estimated that the new requirements will reduce radon exposure and will result in the prevention of 9.5 cases of lung cancer over the next 20 years. Total benefits are estimated at $37.0M (PV) over this period, or $3.5M on an annualized basis.

2. Monitoring and reducing the risk of thermal stress

The costs related to the development and implementation of procedures for monitoring and reducing the risk of thermal stress will be ongoing. Thermal stress can affect outdoor and indoor workers. It is anticipated, using updated estimates of the labour force volumes since prepublication, that the Regulations will affect around 52 000 federally regulated workers in total the year after coming into force. At present, there are approximately 39 000 outdoor federally regulated workers affected by outdoor thermal stress conditions, mainly in the rail, telecommunications, energy and air-transport sectors,footnote 14 representing close to 200 employers. These employment numbers reflect new data from the 2021 Canadian census, which was made available only after the Canada Gazette, Part I, prepublication. Letter carriers at Canada Post are not included in this number, as the corporation has already instituted a thermal stress program. The indoor thermal stress requirements affect approximately 13 000 federally regulated workers, primarily in the flour and grain milling industries, representing approximately 380 employers in these sectors.footnote 15

Costs for employers to comply with the Regulations monetized over 20 years are estimated at $39.8M (PV) and annualized costs are estimated at $3.8M. The expected improvements in productivity flowing from the new thermal stress provisions, estimated at between 9.5% and 12.5% of labour costs, as set out below, will result in approximately $46.9M (PV) in savings over 20 years for all affected employers. Annualized benefits are estimated at $4.4M. Net savings are estimated at approximately $670,000 annually.

3. Engineered nanomaterial provisions

The Regulations will require employers to implement an engineered nanomaterials prevention and control program and provide requisite training. This will affect approximately 1 200 employers and 29 000 likely exposed employees in 2025. Total costs over 20 years, for both the development and implementation of the program and training of affected employees, stand at an estimated $6.6M (PV), and approximately $627,000 on an annualized basis.

For benefits to break even with the costs of the Regulations, a minimum of 24.12 cases of injury/disease related to engineered nanomaterial exposure will have to be avoided over 20 years. This represents a rate of injury/disease reduction from engineered nanomaterial exposure of only 0.05%, or slightly less than one injury per 2 000 exposed workers over 20 years.

4. Standards incorporated by reference

The Regulations include multiple standards incorporated by reference. Costs related to the purchase and translation of new and/or updated standards are upfront costs that only accrue in the first year after implementation. Total costs stand at around $4.5M in 2025, which include $4.3M for stakeholders to purchase the new and/or updated standards, and approximately $249,000 in translation costs if the applicable standards are not already available in French.

5. Non-solar UV radiation

An internal review conducted by the Labour Program in the period from 2009 to 2014 found employers were already following the ACGIH recommendations now referenced in the Regulations. In addition, equipment manufacturers tend to update their equipment to conform to the latest standards at first opportunity. As a result, the impact of the Regulations is assumed to be very small. Based on sampling data measuring effective control measures used in affected sectors (primarily in the transport industry) over five years, most employers were found to be limiting exposure levels to within existing occupational exposure limits/TLVs. This is confirmed by the data, with the rate of injuries caused by exposure to non-solar ultraviolet radiation in the federal jurisdiction, for the period 2014–2024, standing at only 0.02 injuries per 100 employees.footnote 16 This is much lower than the overall rate of injury in Canada, which stood at 2.2 per 100 workers in 2022.footnote 17 Therefore, the Regulations will result in minor costs and benefits. These were not estimated. Since industries have been voluntarily adopting the standard, it was assumed that this would continue. In addition, the number of employees affected in the federal jurisdiction is relatively small, numbering, at most, not more than 11 000 employees in 2025.footnote 18

6. Maximum exposure limits

Affected industries are primarily in the transport sector (truck, locomotives and bus operators, vehicle and locomotive maintenance personnel, forklift operators and maintenance, and customs officers on the bridges between Canada and the United States). However, based on sampling data measuring effective control measures used in these sectors, most employers were found to be limiting exposure levels to within existing occupational exposure limits/TLVs, and hence costs are estimated to be negligible. Notwithstanding, regulation is needed to ensure compliance in the future, as standards may change, or technologies evolve.

7. Record keeping for hazardous substances

The record-keeping requirements related to air sampling in the Regulations are expected to result in additional administrative costs. It is assumed that storage and retention of records would be performed by employees generally falling under the occupation grouping “office support occupations” or similar variant, with an estimated average wage of $25.60 per hour in 2024, not including overhead.footnote 19 Total costs over 20 years are estimated at $91,712 (PV), with annualized costs of $8,657.

8. New air sampling requirements

The Regulations will include specific instructions related to the sampling of indoor air to reduce the number of samples rejected by the Labour Program due to poor sampling techniques. Negligible costs are associated with the new requirements, limited to the cost of employees familiarizing themselves with the new requirements. The Regulations will provide clarification to employers on the required sampling procedures to reduce the number of required samples that have to be redone at the employer’s expense per year and confer a small benefit to affected employers. It is estimated that the clarification of proper sampling procedures in the Regulations will prevent the necessity to redo these samples, thereby reducing total sampling costs by approximately $28,000 per year (current dollars), and by approximately $300,000 over 20 years (PV).

Total costs and benefits

The net impact of the Regulations is positive. The net present value (NPV) over the 20-year study (discounted at 7% per year) is estimated at $19.6M. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 1.27. In this case, benefits exceed costs, which indicate economic viability and tangible value to the public.

For more information about the costs and benefits related to these Regulations, the Cost-Benefit Analysis Report is available upon request.

Analytical framework

The cost-benefit analysis assesses the costs and benefits of the Regulations (i.e. the regulatory scenario) compared to a scenario where the changes did not occur (i.e. the baseline scenario).

Baseline scenario

In the baseline scenario, the limit for radon exposure in regulated work places would have remained at the threshold of 800 Bq/m3. An estimated 25 000 total indoor work places in the FJ, with an estimated 975 000 workers (assuming an average work site size of around 39 employees in the FJ), would have resulted in approximately 991 work places continuing to expose some 38 800 workers to radon levels over 200 Bq/m3 over the next 20 years. At an average radon level of 399 Bq/m3, this would have caused approximately 10 cases of lung cancer deaths over this period.footnote 20

In addition, under the baseline scenario, employers would not have been obligated to monitor and control thermal stress hazards, leaving some 47 000 workers exposed to outdoor thermal stress hazards and approximately 13 000 workers exposed to indoor thermal stress conditions over the next 20 years. This would have resulted in approximately 46 additional lost-time injuries related to thermal stress over this period.footnote 21 Productivity losses linked to working in temperature extremes without these controls were estimated at between 9.5% and 12% approximately during periods of exposure to excessive heat and cold conditions.footnote 22

In the baseline scenario, federal OHS regulations require air sampling to be undertaken where a worker may be at risk of exposure to airborne chemical agents. The frequency of sampling required and the sampling technique to be used for airborne chemical agents are not clearly identified. Employers are required to retain air sampling reports for three years (two years in the case of the current Oil and Gas Occupational Safety and Health Regulations).

Finally, under the baseline scenario, the previous regulations did not provide protections related to engineered nanomaterials, non-solar UV radiation, or maximum exposure limits, potentially leaving thousands of workers vulnerable to exposure to hazardous substances in the work place.

Regulatory scenario

The scope of the analysis is limited to Canadian work places subject to Part II of the Code, which consists of approximately 1.4 million Canadian workers, including approximately 29 000 Indigenous workers on First Nation reserves and in Inuit and MĂ©tis communities.footnote 13 Within this sector, a subset of employees will be affected by the Regulations, depending on their work place activities.

The measures related to radon testing and mitigation will impact the broadest number of stakeholders. Radon gas is present in all buildings, thus potentially affecting all indoor workers. Over the next 20 years, it is estimated just under 25 000 work places will require radon testing, with approximately 991 work places requiring radon mitigation activities due to levels exceeding the new threshold of 200 Bq/m3.

In 2026, the Regulations related to thermal stress will affect and benefit nearly 40 000 workers, employed by approximately 200 employers, who work outside, mainly in the railway, air transport, long shoring, communications, energy and mining sectors. Approximately 13 000 employees who work indoors will also be affected. Sectors where employees are at significant risk of indoor thermal stress exposure are in the flour and grain industry, representing approximately 380 employers. In total, the thermal stress provisions will immediately affect 53 000 indoor and outdoor workers.

In the context of the Regulations related to engineered nanomaterials, affected industries are mainly in the transportation, communications, energy and public sector (research laboratories, agriculture, National Research Council, forensic labs of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police). Similar to the affected employee population in the case of non-solar UV radiation, it is estimated that approximately 29 000 employees working in these industries may have been exposed to engineered nanomaterials based on their occupation.footnote 23

Industries affected by the Regulations related to non-solar UV radiation exposure include the transportation sector (welders in garages and vehicle maintenance shops) and a small portion of the federal public sector (research laboratories engaged in photobiology, photochemistry or laser material processing). An internal review conducted by the Labour Program in the period from 2009 to 2014 found employers were already following the ACGIH recommendations. In addition, equipment manufacturers tend to update their equipment to conform to the latest standards. As a result, the impact of the Regulations will be very small. In addition, the number of employees affected is no more than 11 000 employees.footnote 24

In the context of the Regulations regarding maximum exposure limits, affected occupations are primarily in the transport sector, including truck operators, locomotives and bus operators, vehicle and locomotive maintenance personnel, forklift operators and maintenance, and customs officers on the bridges between Canada and the United States. However, based on sampling data taken in 2016 measuring effective control measures used in these sectors over five years, most employers were found to be limiting exposure levels to within existing occupational exposure limits/TLVs. Therefore, the Regulations will result in minor costs and benefits that were not estimated. Since employers have been voluntarily adopting the TLVs outlined in the ACGIH publication, it was assumed that the behaviour was likely to continue. That said, the Regulations will need to ensure compliance in the future, as the ACGIH publication may change and/or technologies evolve.

Table 1: New standards to be referenced and their impacts
Baseline scenario Regulatory scenario Incremental impacts
Standards currently listed (baseline scenario) How current standards are referenced (static or ambulatory) All proposed standards would be ambulatory Most recent edition of standard
  1. Available for free? Cost of purchasing the standard?
  2. Available in both official languages?
 Description of incremental costs and benefits from the difference between current and proposed standards (or from the addition of proposed standards on top of current ones)
New standard would be referenced Not referenced CSA Standard Z12885, Nanotechnologies — Exposure control program for engineered nanomaterials in occupational settings, as amended from time to time 2020
  1. $285 (PDF)
  2. Not available in French. 174 pages
 Assumed to have negligible impact because of small population affected (see "Benefits and costs" section)
New standard would be referenced Not referenced National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health entitled Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, as amended from time to time 1977
  1. Free
  2. Not available in French. 150 pages
 Limited impact (employers tend to consult the instruction manual as industry practice)

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists entitled Industrial Ventilation, 20th edition, dated 1988, as amended from time to time

(This standard was split into two new standards. No new requirements)

 Not referenced American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists entitled Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practices for Design, as amended from time to time 2019
  1. $214.74 on techstreet.com (PDF)
  2. Not available in French. 680 pages
 No impact
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists entitled Industrial Ventilation: A Manual of Recommended Practice for Operation and Maintenance, as amended from time to time 2020
  1. $187.96 on techstreet.com (PDF)
  2. Not available in French. 304 pages
 Assumed to have negligible impact because employers tend to abide by latest standards as industry practice, especially when the current standard referenced is much older than the latest standard
Table 2: Currently referenced standards that are not all ambulatory
Baseline scenario Regulatory scenario Incremental impacts
Standards currently listed (baseline scenario) How current standards are referenced (static or ambulatory) All proposed standards would be ambulatory Most recent edition of standard
  1. Available for free? Cost of purchasing the standard?
  2. Available in both official languages?
 Description of incremental costs and benefits from the difference between current and proposed standards (or from the addition of proposed standards on top of current ones)
NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, third edition, volumes 1 and 2, dated February 1984, as amended from time to time Ambulatory in COHSR, AOHSR and MOHSR Static in OTOHSR and OGOSHR NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, as amended from time to time 2017
  1. Free
  2. Not available in French. 935 pages
 No impact
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, in its publication entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time Ambulatory American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists entitled Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) and Biological Exposure Indices (BEIs), as amended from time to time (thermal stress and UV radiation are sections in this publication that would now be referenced) 2023
  1. $73.79 (PDF)
  2. Not available in French. 308 pages
 Yes for thermal stress (see "Benefits and costs" section) Likely to be negligible for UV radiation because of small population affected, (see "Benefits and costs" section)
National Health and Welfare, in respect of radio frequency and microwave devices in the frequency range from 10 kHz to 300 GHz, Safety Code 6, dated 1990, as amended from time to time Ambulatory in all except: Static in OGOSHR (1979) Safety Code 6, as amended from time to time, published by the Department of Health 2015
  1. Free
  2. Available in English and French
 Assumed to have negligible impact because employers tend to abide by latest standards as industry practice, especially when the current standard referenced is much older than the latest standard
National Health and Welfare, in respect of X-ray equipment in medical diagnosis, Safety Code 20A, dated 1980; as amended from time to time Ambulatory except static in: OGOSHR (1981) Safety Code 35, as amended from time to time, published by Health Canada 2008
  1. Free
  2. Available in English and French
 Assumed to have negligible impact because employers tend to abide by latest standards as industry practice, especially when the current standard referenced is much older than the latest standard
Benefits
Reduction in radon exposure

To quantify the risk reduction and associated benefits, the number of at-risk employees for radon exposure (36 073 in 2026) was estimated by multiplying the number of work sites requiring and undergoing mitigation, i.e. the estimated number of work sites with radon levels exceeding 200 Bq/m3 (approximately 921 in 2025) by the average work site size (39).footnote 13

A study by Darby et al. found that the cumulative absolute risks for lung cancer by age 75 at 0, 100, 400 and 800 Bq/m3 were found to be 0.41%, 0.47%, 0.67%, and 0.93% in lifelong non-smokers, and 10.1%, 11.6%, 16.0%, and 21.6% in smokers.footnote 25 A Health Canada study found the average radon concentration for federal buildings with mean radon levels above 200 Bq/m3 was 399 Bq/m3.footnote 26 Extrapolation from the values in the Darby et al. study,footnote 26 found the overall reduction in lung cancer risk from a decrease in radon levels from 399 Bq/m3 to 200 Bq/m3 was 0.13% for non-smokers and 2.9% for smokers. This excess risk was then adjusted to 0.02% for non-smokers and 0.56% for smokers, to reflect actual time spent at the work place.

The cost-benefit analysis assumes impacts from radon mitigation will not materialize for 11 years after implementation, and will affect 36 073 employees in the eleventh year, with growth keeping pace with affected work sites. The number of smokers within this population was estimated at 11.6%.footnote 27 Using the above input parameters, the number of avoided incidences of lung cancer cases resulting from the implementation of the Regulations in years 11 to 20 was estimated at 9.46 cases, 2.37 cases avoided in non-smokers and 7.09 in smokers.

In addition to an expected reduction in lung cancer incidence, additional benefits were found by applying a Willingness to Pay (WTP) model. A 2002 study conducted by Spiegel and Krewski, using contingent valuation, found that at radon levels of 399 Bq/m3, 17% of survey respondents indicated they had acted to reduce radon exposure. Expressed and revealed preferences of respondents indicating that they would, or did, act to reduce exposure increased with radon-level exposure and knowledge of the radon guidelines and associated health impacts.footnote 28 For those respondents who did act to reduce radon exposure, they paid an average of $221 for a 100 Bq/m3 reduction in radon levels. Adjusted to 2024 dollars and for a reduction of 199 Bq/m3 (from an average level of 399 Bq/m3 to 200 Bq/m3), this translates into a WTP of $724.82. Factoring in the approximate 38 800 affected workers over 20 years (36 073 in the first year after implementation), and assuming 17% would be willing to pay for a reduction in radon exposure at 399 Bq/m3, total discounted benefits over 20 years from applying a WTP model is estimated at $4.1M.

Total benefits from radon mitigation over 20 years are estimated at $37.0M (PV) or $3.5M on an annualized basis. Annual benefits for the 2036–2044 period (assuming a latency period of 10 years before the onset of symptoms), where there are avoided cases of lung cancer, are estimated to average $9.9M per year in current dollars.

Outdoor thermal stress

Thermal stress monitoring and controls and requisite training for all affected employees will result in the prevention of productivity losses associated with extreme weather conditions. A study from the state of Washington estimated productivity losses of between 7% and 12% in extreme heat conditions.footnote 29 This means that with monitoring and administrative controls, productivity gains are expected in the range of 7% to 12%.

To monetize these savings in productivity, the number of affected outdoor workers was multiplied by their duration of exposure to extreme heat conditions (140 hours annually) and to extreme cold (16.88 hours) to calculate the total hours exposed for all employees. This amount was then multiplied by the average hourly salary ($44.62 in 2024) and by the estimated median productivity loss of 9.5%, resulting in a benefit of $4.24 per affected hour worked. Total benefits in the form of productivity gains from these provisions (for both extreme cold and heat exposure) are estimated at $41.6M over 20 years (PV). Annualized savings are estimated at $3.9M annually.

Savings related to the reduction of injuries are also anticipated. For the occupations affected, there were 40 lost-time injuries reported for the 2018–2022 period, where the source of injury was either from hot or cold environmental conditions.footnote 30 As a result, it is estimated that on average, there are four temporary lost-time injuries per year stemming from outdoor thermal stress conditions in the federal jurisdiction for the occupations affected by this provision. It is estimated that approximately half (median value) of these injuries will be prevented because of the new thermal stress provisions contained in the amendments.

Using the Relative Disutility Factors by Injury Severity Level and Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS),footnote 31 and assuming a level of severity of “minor,” each avoided lost-time injury caused by exposure to thermal stress will result in approximately $28,189 in savings. Since it is anticipated that the median number of injuries would be prevented per year (2 injuries), annual savings are estimated at $56,378 in current dollars. Total discounted savings from these injury reductions over the next 20 years (approximately 40 over this period) stand at approximately $582,700 (PV), and approximately $55,000 on an annualized basis.

Adding these modest savings stemming from injury reductions, the overall benefits of the outdoor thermal stress provisions increase to approximately $42.2M over 20 years (PV), with annualized benefits at $4M.

Indoor thermal stress

The main source of benefits related to the mitigation of indoor thermal stress is the recovery of lost productivity. However, expected productivity gains were calculated using the upper limit found in the Washington State study (12%), rather than the median value (9.5%), as it is much easier to control extreme temperature conditions in indoor work environments. Using the same formula as used to calculate the expected savings from the outdoor thermal stress provisions and substituting for the appropriate affected worker population and productivity gains, total productivity benefits are estimated at approximately $5.2M (PV) over 20 years (approximately $495,000 on an annualized basis).

As in the case of the outdoor thermal stress provisions, savings related to the reduction of injuries are also anticipated. For the occupations, there were three lost-time injuries reported for the 2018–2022 period, where the source of injury was either from hot or cold environmental conditions.footnote 32 As a result, it is estimated that, on average, there are three temporary lost-time injuries every five years, or 0.6 per year, in the grain and flour milling industries in the federal jurisdiction. It is estimated that approximately half (median value) of these injuries will be prevented because of the new thermal stress provisions contained in the amendments.

Using the same method to calculate the savings for these avoided injuries, as was adopted for outdoor thermal stress, and again assuming a level of severity of “minor,” each avoided lost-time injury results in approximately $28,189 in savings. Since it is anticipated that the median number of injuries would be prevented per year (0.03 injuries), annual savings are estimated at $8,457 in current dollars. Total discounted savings from these injury reductions over the next 20 years (approximately six reduced injuries over this period) stand at approximately $87,400 (PV), and approximately $8,250 on an annualized basis.

Adding these modest savings stemming from injury reductions, the overall benefits to indoor thermal stress provisions increase to approximately $5.3M over 20 years (PV), with annualized benefits at $503,000.

Engineered nanomaterials

Understanding the health impacts of engineered nanomaterial exposure is still in its infancy, and not much is known regarding its long-term effects. As a result, benefits were assessed using a break-even analysis to highlight the likelihood of a positive net benefit stemming from the mitigation of employee exposure to engineered nanomaterials. Using the Relative Disutility Factors by Injury Severity Level and the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) recommended by the United States Department of Transportation (DOT), which monetizes the benefits of avoided injuries by severity level as a fraction of the Value of Statistical Life (VSL), the estimation of a break-even point (in terms of avoided injury/disease) was possible. The MAIS model is summarized in the table below.

Table 3: Relative Disutility Factors by Injury Severity Level (MAIS) table b3 note a
MAIS level Severity Fraction of VSL
MAIS 1 Minor 0.003
MAIS 2 Moderate 0.047
MAIS 3 Serious 0.105
MAIS 4 Severe 0.266
MAIS 5 Critical 0.593
MAIS 6 Unsurvivable 1.000
Table b3 note(s)
Table b3 note a

United States Department of Transportation, op cit.

Return to table b3 note a referrer

Assuming a conservative estimate that injury/disease due to engineered nanomaterial exposure will cluster around moderate severity, each case of avoided injury/disease has a value of $441,631. Applying this value to the total cost of the engineered nanomaterial provisions, over 20 years, a reduction of 24.06 cases of injury/disease would have to occur to break even. This represents a rate of injury/disease reduction from engineered nanomaterial exposure of 0.05%, or slightly less than one injury per 2 000 exposed workers over 20 years. Therefore, it is possible to envisage the probability that the provisions will have a net positive impact.

New air sampling requirements

The inclusion of specific instructions related to the sampling of indoor air will confer a small benefit to employers. There is an average of six samples rejected by the Labour Program per year, which are required to be resampled at the cost of the affected employer. With an average cost per sample of approximately $4,800, it is estimated that the clarification of proper sampling procedures in the Regulations will prevent the necessity to redo these samples, thereby reducing total sampling costs by approximately $28,000 per year (current dollars), and by approximately $300,000 over 20 years (PV).

Total benefits

The total monetized expected benefit from the Regulations is $91.5M (PV) over 20 years, and $8.6M on an annualized basis.

Costs
Radon testing and mitigation

It is estimated that in the first year after implementation, 22 968 work places will undergo radon testing. In subsequent years, this falls to an average of around 103 buildings annually, as only new work place buildings will require testing. In terms of work places undergoing radon mitigation, in the first year, approximately 921 work places will be subject to mitigation. In subsequent years, this falls to 4 work places. It is estimated that 3.86% of work sites (buildings) tested would have mean radon levels above 200 Bq/m3 and will require mitigation, based on radon testing findings by Health Canada and Canada Post (weighted average).footnote 33 Average costs per radon test are estimated at approximately $606, and mitigation costs are estimated at approximately $7,080 for the average work place.footnote 34

Total costs for radon testing and mitigation are estimated at $20.1M in the first year after implementation, with average annual costs in subsequent years estimated at approximately $73,000. Total costs expressed in terms of present value over 20 years are estimated at approximately $20.8M. Annualized costs over 20 years are estimated at $2.0M.

Outdoor thermal stress

Costs to employers comprise seven main components: training, monitoring, the purchase of protective clothing, the development of an internal reporting protocol, the provision of water, administrative controls and engineering controls.footnote 35

The cost elements below are based on data provided by Canada Post from their thermal stress program. For this initiative, the cost of training was estimated at one hour per affected employee (39 394 employees estimated for 2025), with the cost equal to the average hourly wage ($44.62), as employees will not be engaged in regular work activities during the hour training session. Monitoring costs are estimated at $402 per affected work place annually (an estimated 660 work sites in 2025). Annual protective clothing costs are estimated at approximately $110 per employee affected. The cost of developing an internal reporting protocol is estimated at four hours of employee time, per employer (174 employers in 2025), at the average hourly wage, and is considered a one-time cost ($178.49 per employer).

Costs related to administrative controls include additional work-rest cycles (work breaks) and the provision of water. Costs related to these cycles during extreme heat and cold events were assessed as equivalent to the cost of the extra work breaks required (the extra time and the wages paid during these work breaks), per the recommended standards.footnote 36 Weather data revealed a weighted average, when accounting for the FJ population distribution across Canadian climatic zones, of approximately 2.5 extreme cold days per yearfootnote 37 and 20 extreme heat days (over 30 degrees) per FJ worker across Canada.footnote 38 Costs are equal to the total number of extra break hours required, in this case, one extra hour per day, multiplied by the employees affected and the average hourly wage. In the context of the cost of the provision of water to affected employers, the study by the state of Washington in 2006 found the median cost to employers averaged approximately US$25 per day (around CAN$46 in 2024 dollars) to provide water during extreme heat days, starting in year two.footnote 39 In 2024 Canadian dollars, this translates into $916 per affected employer per year. Costs are adjusted according to the estimate that 90% of employers are already applying these administrative controls.footnote 40

Average annual costs related to the outdoor thermal stress provisions are approximately $3.2M (current dollars) for the period as a whole, lower in the first year after implementation ($2.4M) before all provisions become mandatory in subsequent years. Total present value is estimated at $35.1M over 20 years, and $3.3M on an annualized basis.

Indoor thermal stress

Costs to employers comprise similar components to those regarding the outdoor thermal stress provisions (except for protective clothing and the provision of water).

The cost of training was estimated at one hour per affected employee (12 729 affected employees in 2025), multiplied by the average hourly wage ($44.62) for a total training cost of approximately $576,952. Monitoring costs are estimated at $157 per affected work site annually (469 work sites in 2025).footnote 41 The cost of developing an internal reporting protocol is estimated at four hours of employee time, per employer (379 employers in 2025), at the average hourly wage, and is considered a one-time cost ($178 per employer). These costs are based on data provided by Canada Post.

It is estimated that administrative controls for affected indoor environments (grain and flour mills) will only need to be applied during periods of outdoor heat extremes, as indoor thermal stress conditions are heavily influenced by outdoor temperatures. As a result, it is estimated that administrative controls will be required for a total of four weeks (160 working hours annually). Administrative controls are estimated at an extra half hour break per workday, half the amount required for outdoor thermal stress conditions because engineering controls, such as fans and heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems (which are expected to already be in place at these work places) are more effective in indoor environments. Costs specifically related to engineering controls are negligible, as HVAC systems, temporary equipment, shields, insulation and fans to reduce exposure are likely to be already installed in indoor work environments.

Total present value for the provisions related to indoor thermal stress is estimated at approximately $4.7M over 20 years, and $440,000 on an annualized basis.

Non-solar UV radiation

Based on sampling data measuring effective control measures used in affected sectors (primarily in the transport industry) over five years, most employers were found to be limiting exposure levels to within existing occupational exposure limits/TLVs. This is confirmed by the data, with the rate of injuries caused by exposure to non-solar ultraviolet radiation in the federal jurisdiction, for the period 2014–2024, standing at only 0.02 injuries per 100 employees.footnote 42 This is much lower than the overall rate of injury in Canada, which stood at 2.2 per 100 workers in 2022.footnote 43 Therefore, the Regulations will result in minor costs and benefits. These were not estimated. Since industries have been voluntarily adopting the standard, it was assumed that this would continue. In addition, the number of employees affected in the federal jurisdiction is relatively small, numbering, at most, not more than 11 000 employees in 2025.footnote 44

Purchase and translation of new standards

Costs related to the purchase and translation of new standards are upfront costs which accrue in the first year after the implementation of the Regulations. Total costs stand at around $4.5M in 2025, which include $4.3M for stakeholders to purchase the new standards, and approximately $249,000 in translation costs if the standards are not already available in French.

It is anticipated that all affected employers will purchase the standards that are now applicable in the Regulations if they are not available for free, at a total cost of approximately $688 per employer in the off-board federal jurisdiction. Employers in the on-board oil and gas and rail sector accrued additional costs of $187 for standards that are already ambulatory in the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, the Aviation Occupational Health and Safety Regulations and the Maritime Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, but not in the regulations specific to these industries.footnote 45 In total, this will affect approximately 5 558 employers in the off-board sector, and 656 in the on-board sector, including the 34 firms in the on-board oil and gas and rail sectors, who will have to purchase and translate an additional three standards.

It is assumed that each of the 17 industry sector associations in the FJ would have provided translation services to avoid an unnecessary duplication of efforts and costs for each employer. Most of the standards referenced are published by American industrial associations and are only available in English. The standards that require translation contain a total of 2 629 pages (1 308 for the on-board sector, and an additional 1 321 for the oil and gas and on-board rail sectors). This represented roughly $249,000 in translation costs at approximately $10 a page. It is estimated that approximately 15% of employers would require French translations, based on the portion of employers in the FJ based in Quebec (approximately 18%),footnote 46 and adjusted by three percentage points, as not all firms find it necessary to translate the standards for two reasons: the high rate of bilingualism amongst French speakers in Quebec, and the relatively high cost of translation for smaller employers.

Engineered nanomaterials

The costs to develop an engineered nanomaterial prevention and control program are comprised of several components: hazard identification, preventative and protective measures, development of proper work procedures and an assessment of training needs. Drawing on findings from previous cost-benefit studies on the costs of similar hazard prevention programs under federal OHS regulations, it is estimated that each of these components will take approximately 6 hours per one full-time equivalent (FTE) employee.footnote 47 Since there are four unique components, the engineered nanomaterials prevention and control program will take 24 hours (per FTE) to develop per employer.

Most employees exposed to engineered nanomaterials are in the transport, communications and energy sectors, with a handful in the federal public sector. It is estimated that in 2025, a total of approximately 1 250 employers will be affected. Costs to develop the program are highest in the first year, estimated at approximately $1.3M after implementation of the Regulations. Total costs (PV) over the 20-year cost-benefit period are approximately $2.4M and $224,000 on an annualized basis.

In addition, employees require training and refresher training every three years. Training will consist of the proper use of safety equipment to prevent exposure to engineered nanomaterials and is estimated to take one hour to complete per employee, with an additional half hour refresher training every three years. An estimated 30 000 current employees in the FJ are likely to be exposed to engineered nanomaterials and will require training. Costs are measured as opportunity costs and are equal to the training time multiplied by the average hourly pay in the FJ of $44.62 per hour. Costs are highest in the first year after implementation of the Regulations, as all affected employees require training, and are estimated at approximately $1.3M. Total costs for training are approximately $4.3M (PV) over 20 years, and $403,000 on an annualized basis.

Total costs over 20 years, for both the development and implementation of the prevention and control program, and the training of affected employees, are an estimated $6.7M (PV), and approximately $628,000 on an annualized basis.

New air sampling requirements

Costs to learn the new air sampling requirements are expected to be limited and, therefore, were not estimated. As stated above, the Regulations clarify the requirements and add detailed instructions specified in the NIOSH Occupational Exposure Sampling Strategy Manual, which will be incorporated by ambulatory reference. Employers will have clearer guidelines on how to proceed with air sampling, which is expected to save time once employers become familiar with the new instructions, offsetting the initial learning curve. In addition, it is assumed that employers will refer to the guidelines each time a sample is taken due to the relative infrequency of the procedure, which makes incremental costs unlikely. No training costs are expected, as affected employers are assumed to be familiar with the basic elements of the procedure.

New record-keeping requirements

The amendments are expected to result in modest increases in administrative costs. It is estimated that there are approximately 1 565 air sampling reports made annually, of which 196 reports are stored and retained in paper form and the remaining 1 369 are stored and retained electronically.footnote 48 The associated cost to store and retain each paper form is estimated at 20 minutes per year in labour costs. Storage and retention of each electronic form come in at a much lower 6 minutes per year in labour costs.footnote 49 Annual maintenance is estimated at 20% of total labour costs for the year. It is assumed that storage and retention of records would be performed by employees generally falling under the occupation grouping “Office Support Occupations” or similar variant, with an estimated average wage of $25.60 per hour in 2024, not including overhead.footnote 50 Total costs over 20 years are estimated at $91,712 (PV), with annualized costs of $8,657.

Compliance and enforcement

Costs may include advising employers on their obligations, seeking assurances of voluntary compliance from the employer, issuing compliance orders and, in cases of more serious or repeated violations, issuing AMPs under Part IV of the Code. As the federal OHS program is already involved in these types of enforcement activities as a core function, additional resource requirements, including the hiring of new staff, are likely to be minimal and, therefore, were not estimated. Further, the clarity in the Regulations assists in preventing misunderstandings that previously resulted in additional time being expended by OHS employees, thereby offsetting the minimal costs of compliance and enforcement.

Total costs

The total expected costs associated with the Regulations will amount to $71.9M (PV). Most costs incurred over the 20-year cost-benefit period will stem from the control and mitigation of outdoor thermal stress exposure. That said, the costs associated with outdoor thermal stress exposure risk reduction are significant, amounting to $35.1M (PV) over this 20-year period.

Cost-benefit statement
Monetized costs

Costs are summarized in the following eight tables.

Table 4: Radon provisions
Description of cost (affected stakeholders) First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized value
Cost of radon mitigation $6,883,308 $15,972 $7,031,016 $663,678
Cost of radon testing $13,207,492 $64,380 $13,803,070 $1,302,912
Radon testing and mitigation (all employers with offices) $20,090,800 $80,352 $20,834,136 $1,966,595
Table 5a: Outdoor thermal stress provisions
Description of cost (affected stakeholders) First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized value
Cost of training $1,582,046 $54,210 $2,083,546 $196,672
Cost of monitoring $335,151 $206,741 $2,835,563 $267,657
Cost of protective clothing $431,542 $524,061 $5,279,652 $498,362
Cost of administration controls, extreme heat $0 $2,134,692 $19,748,129 $1,864,084
Cost of administration controls, extreme cold $0 $536,021 $4,958,755 $468,071
Cost of internal reporting protocol $27,987 $304 $30,829 $2,910
Cost of water provision $0 $18,992 $177,730 $16,776
Outdoor thermal stress testing and mitigation (transport, energy, telecoms) $2,376,727 $3,475,021 $35,114,204 $3,314,532
Table 5b: Indoor thermal stress provisions
Description of cost (affected stakeholders) First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized value
Cost of training $519,257 $7,631 $600,775 $56,709
Cost of monitoring $66,298 $77,794 $802,274 $75,729
Cost of administration controls, extreme heat $288,476 $272,498 $3,199,501 $302,010
Cost of internal reporting protocol $60,882 $0 $60,882 $5,747
Indoor thermal stress testing and mitigation (grain and flour millers) $934,912 $357,923 $4,663,431 $440,195
Table 6a: Translation and purchase of standards costs
Description of cost (affected stakeholders) First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized value
Translation $248,780 $0 $248,780 $248,780
Purchase $4,279,443 $0 $4,279,443 $4,279.443
Costs of translation and purchase of standards $4,528,223 $0 $4,528,223 $427,432
Table 6b: Engineered nanomaterial provisions
Description of cost (affected stakeholders) First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized value
Hazard prevention plan $1,334,480 $40,313 $2,370,937 $223,800
Training $1,297,600 $206,470 $4,271,973 $403,244
Costs of nanomaterial provisions $2,632,080 $246,783 $6,642,909 $627,044
Table 7: Total costs
Description of costs (affected stakeholders) First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized value
Radon testing and mitigation (all employers with offices) $20,090,800 $80,352 $20,834,136 $1,966,595
Outdoor thermal stress testing and mitigation (transport, energy, telecoms) $2,376,727 $3,475,021 $35,114,204 $3,314,532
Indoor thermal stress testing and mitigation (grain and flour millers) $934,912 $357,923 $4,663,431 $440,195
Costs of translation and purchase of standards $4,528,223 $0 $4,528,223 $427,432
Costs of engineered nanomaterial provisions $2,632,080 $246,783 $6,642,909 $627,044
Administrative costs $7,802 $8,565 $91,712 $8,657
Total costs $30,570,545 $4,168,644 $71,874,616 $6,784,455
Monetized benefits
Table 8: Benefits for impacted stakeholders
Impacted stakeholder in the federal jurisdiction Description of benefit First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized value
Employers Reduction in lung cancer incidence $0 $10,066,045 $36,992,612 $3,491,841
Employers (transport, energy, telecommunications) Productivity gains and prevented injuries from reduction in thermal stress exposure (outdoors) $0 $4,556,822 $42,216,500 $3,984,939
Employers (grain and flour milling) Productivity gains and prevented injuries from reduction in thermal stress exposure (indoors) $0 $498,953 $5,327,250 $502,855
Employers Cost savings from clearer sampling procedures $0 $28,999 $299,719 $28,291
Employers (transport, energy, telecommunications, public service) Reduced injuries from reduction in exposure to engineered nanomaterials $2,632,080 $246,783 $6,642,909 $627,044
All stakeholders Total benefits $2,632,080 $15,397,602 $91,478,991 $8,634,970
Table 9: Summary of monetized costs and benefits
Impacts First year: 2025 (current dollars) Final year: 2044 (current dollars) Total (present value) Annualized Value
Total costs $30,570,545 $4,168,644 $71,874,616 $6,784,455
Total benefits $2,632,080 $15,397,602 $91,478,991 $8,634,970
Net impacts –$27,938,465 $11,228,958 $19,604,375 $1,850,514
Sensitivity analysis

The net present value was subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis using the total discounted costs and total discounted benefits as input variables into the model. To account for the possibility that costs and benefits may be much higher or lower than expected, the original cost and benefit estimates were put into a range, between half and 50% more than their original estimate. The selected ranges are shown in the table below.

Table 10: Ranges used for the Monte Carlo analysis
Indicator Nominal value Minimum value Maximum value
Total discounted cost $71,874,616 $35,937,308 $107,811,924
Total discounted benefits $91,478,991 $45,739,495 $137,218,486

The Monte Carlo analysis simulation shows that even with the possibility of large cost-over runs of 50% and benefits as low as 50% of the initial estimate (far below expectations), a positive total discounted net benefit is expected approximately 70% of the time.

Distributional impact analysis

The impacts of the Regulations are not evenly distributed amongst all sectors. While the provisions on radon will apply generally to all buildings where federally regulated employees are working, sectors and firms with greater concentrations of employment indoors will be more affected. In addition, when Health Canada tested federal buildings (where most federal public sector work places are located), approximately 73% of work places in the federal public sector were tested. Of the buildings tested, 3.86% were found to have concentration levels of radon over 200 Bq/m3 and 24% of those have already undergone radon mitigation. In the federal private sector, no such large-scale testing has been coordinated. As a result, a larger portion of private sector work places will require testing and mitigation in comparison.

The thermal stress provisions will have impacts concentrated in the telecommunications, energy, rail and air-transport sectors, which have a large number of outdoor workers, and in the grain and flour mill industry for indoor workers who may be exposed to extreme temperature conditions.

The non-solar UV radiation, engineered nanomaterials, and the maximum exposure limit provisions affect few industries in the FJ, and only a few specific occupations within them. For example, impacts related to non-solar UV radiation requirements are limited to the transportation sector (welders in transport garages and vehicle maintenance shops) and a small portion of the federal public sector (research laboratories engaged in photobiology, photochemistry or laser material processing). For engineered nanomaterial requirements, affected industries are mainly in the transportation, energy and the federal public sector (research laboratories, agriculture, National Research Council, forensic labs of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police). Finally, regarding the impact of the maximum exposure limit provisions, only a small percentage of work places are impacted directly, though all work places are required to adhere to them. Affected industries are primarily in the transport sector — specifically, truck operators, locomotives and bus operators, vehicle and locomotive maintenance personnel, forklift operators and maintenance, and customs officers on the bridges between Canada and the United States.

Table 11: Monetized costs and benefits by industry sector
Industry sector Total costs Total benefits Net benefits Annualized costs Annualized benefits
Air transportation $15,237,636 $17,744,489 $2,506,854 $1,438,325 $1,674,954
Banking / banks $6,558,734 $13,932,342 $7,373,608 $619,098 $1,315,115
Broadcasting (television, radio, Internet) $3,876,015 $5,084,701 $1,208,686 $365,868 $479,960
Communications $9,035,914 $11,650,865 $2,614,952 $852,926 $1,099,759
Energy / mining / mineral processing $117,366 $145,373 $28,008 $11,078 $13,722
Federal public services / public service departments / Crown corporations $5,201,872 $3,234,683 –$1,967,189 $491,020 $305,331
Feed, flour and seed $3,460,799 $4,092,534 $631,736 $326,675 $386,306
Fisheries / fishing $1,723 $19,709 $17,986 $163 $1,860
Grain handling / grain elevators $2,251,078 $2,793,425 $542,347 $212,486 $263,680
Indigenous / aboriginal / First Nations $818,653 $1,181,520 $362,867 $77,275 $111,527
Interprovincial infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, canals, causeways) $16,068 $38,414 $22,346 $1,517 $3,626
Longshoring / stevedoring / port / harbour operations / pilotage $5,844,298 $7,064,221 $1,219,922 $551,660 $666,812
Pipeline transportation $289,872 $366,066 $76,194 $27,362 $34,554
Postal services / postal contractors $168,131 $341,857 $173,726 $15,870 $32,269
Rail transportation $10,801,882 $13,005,409 $2,203,527 $1,019,621 $1,227,619
Road transportation $7,807,654 $10,345,920 $2,538,267 $736,987 $976,582
Water transportation (shipping and ferries) $386,922 $437,462 $50,540 $36,523 $41,293
Federal public sector $5,201,872 $3,234,683 –$1,967,189 $491,020 $305,331
Federal private sector $66,672,744 $88,244,308 $21,571,564 $6,293,435 $8,329,638
Total $71,874,616 $91,478,991 $19,604,375 $6,784,455 $8,634,970

Small business lens

Analysis under the small business lens concluded that these Regulations will impact small businesses. The Regulations will impose compliance costs on small businesses and are expected to result in some incremental administrative burden. There will be approximately 5 321 small businesses in the FJ impacted,footnote 51 representing approximately 29% of all small businesses and 28% of all businesses.footnote 52 The radon provisions will impact small businesses with indoor work places in all sectors. The air transport, rail transport, telecommunications, longshoring, energy and milling industries will experience impacts due to the thermal stress provisions, given most outdoor workers, or affected indoor workers (milling industry), work primarily in these sectors. The Regulations do not contain any provisions providing for flexibility for small businesses, as to do so would afford employees within small businesses less protections than those at larger firms.

This analysis identified net costs to small businesses of approximately $6.8M (PV, $2024) over 20 years, or an annualized cost of approximately $130 per small business (PV) for the 20-year period after implementation. In total, this reflects a cost of approximately $1,271 per small business over 20 years (PV).footnote 53

Table 12: Compliance impacts
Activity Annualized costs Annualized benefits Net annualized compliance benefits
Radon testing and mitigation $78,579 $0 –$78,579
Thermal stress testing and mitigation (outdoors) $338,430 $330,830 –$7,601
Thermal stress testing and mitigation (indoors) $185,758 $193,043 $7,285
Purchase and translation of referenced standards $369,227 $0 –$369,227
Nanomaterials prevention and control program and training $184,793 $0 –$184,793
Total compliance cost $1,156,788 $523,873 –$632,915
Table 13: Administrative impacts
Activity Annualized value Present value
Retention of air sampling reports for 30 years $5,303 $56,185
Table 14: Total compliance and administrative impacts
Totals Annualized value Present value
Total costs (all impacted small businesses) $1,212,973 $12,311,213
Total benefits (all impacted small businesses) $523,873 $5,549,913
Net cost per impacted small business $130 $1,271

One-for-one rule

The one-for-one rule applies, since there will be an incremental increase in administrative burden for businesses and this increase is considered burden “in” under this rule. No regulatory titles are repealed or introduced. Records related to air sampling must now be retained for 30 years, an increase from the current mandatory 3 years in the COHSR, the MOHSR, the OTOHSR, and the AOHSR, and 2 years in the case of the OGOSHR. It is estimated that there are approximately 1 565 air sampling reports made annually, of which 196 reports are stored and retained in paper form and the remaining 1 369 are stored and retained electronically.footnote 48 The associated cost to store and retain each paper form is estimated at 20 minutes per year in labour costs. Storage and retention of each electronic form come in at a much lower 6 minutes per year in labour costs.footnote 49 Annual maintenance is estimated at 20% of total labour costs for the year. It is assumed that storage and retention of records would be performed by employees generally falling under the occupation grouping “Office Support Occupations” or similar variant, with an estimated average wage of $20.08 in 2012 dollars, not including overhead.footnote 50 The Regulations are expected to result in an annualized administrative burden cost of $2,505 for all affected businesses, and an annualized cost of $0.40 per business. The present value cost over 10 years is anticipated to be $17,594 for all businesses, with annualized costs of $2.83 per business. All values are discounted to 2012 dollars, at a 7% discount rate, and expressed in 2012 dollars.

Table 15: Estimated administrative burden increase under the one-for-one rule
Count of all businesses at the start of the analytical period 6 214
Time (years) 10 (2025 to 2034)
Price year 2012
Discount rate 7%
Discount base year 2012

Present value administrative cost impact, all businesses

–$17,594

Present value administrative cost impact per business

–$2.83

Annualized administrative cost impact, all businesses

–$2,505

Annualized administrative cost impact per business

–$0.40

Regulatory cooperation and alignment

Upon further feedback and research, this section has been revised to clarify the analysis regarding regulatory alignment.

The Regulations will support regulatory cooperation and alignment. The Canadian Free Trade Agreement established a regulatory reconciliation process, overseen through the Regulatory Reconciliation and Cooperation Table (RCT), to address barriers to trade experienced by companies doing business across provincial and territorial borders. One of the work plan items of the RCT is to promote regulatory cooperation across Canada with respect to occupational exposure limits for chemicals and airborne contaminants. This work is ongoing.

Nanoparticles and radon in the work place are not regulated by any of the provinces and territories; however, contrary to the initial assessment, thermal stress is being addressed in some jurisdictions.

An updated review of provincial and territorial regulatory frameworks showed that the new thermal stress requirements bring the federal regulations in close alignment with 8 out of 13 provinces and territories. More specifically, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Yukon regulate exposure to hot or cold conditions with frameworks that are aligned with the requirements adopted through the Regulations. Other provinces (i.e. Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut) require similar control measures without providing explicit exposure limits. Ontario has recently tabled legislation to strengthen thermal stress requirements,footnote 54 while Alberta does not explicitly address thermal stress in its occupational health and safety regulations (contrary to initial findings outlined in prepublication).

The updated review of provincial and territorial regulatory frameworks further found that while Yukon, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia regulations contain maximum exposure limits, only British Columbia regulations require that workers’ exposure be maintained “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) below the prescribed exposure limits (contrary to initial findings outlined in prepublication). Furthermore, stakeholder feedback improved the understanding of the ALARA principle and resulted in the removal of the previous reference in this document to ALARA, which was inaccurate. Rather, the requirement introduced by the Regulations to maintain concentration levels as low as feasible for airborne chemical agents for which exposure limits have not been established draws upon the concept of the “precautionary principle.” The Regulations are therefore in closer alignment with Alberta’s OHS regulations, which also require the use of the precautionary principle for harmful substances for which there are no prescribed occupational exposure limits.

Finally, the updated review found that about half of provinces and territories (i.e. British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Nunavut, New Brunswick and, through its general duty provision, Ontariofootnote 55) use the ACGIH’s TLVs to establish exposure limits for non-solar ultraviolet radiation, as the Regulations do. This brings the federal regulations in closer alignment with these six provinces and territories.

The Regulations will result in Canada and the United States having similar OHS policiesfootnote 56 for exposure to engineered nanomaterials, thermal stress and UV radiation. Both countries are developing similar approaches to strengthen the regulation of nanotechnology applications. The National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) is a U.S. government research and development initiative which addresses issues related to the health and safety of nanotechnology through working groups. Concerning thermal stress, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provides recommendations in the document “Preventing Heat-related Illness or Death of Outdoor Workers,” which recommends the same measures as in the Regulations with regard to the maximum exposure limits, monitoring requirements, protective clothing and equipment, engineering controls and employee training. Furthermore, in August 2024, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for a “Heat Injury and Illness Prevention in Outdoor and Indoor Work Settings” standard. The standard would require employers to create a heat injury and illness prevention plan to evaluate and control heat hazards and implement control measures at or above two heat trigger levels, which would closely align U.S. and Canadian requirements.

The Regulations requiring that records be maintained for 30 years will be aligned with the federal regulations of the United States.

Effects on the environment

In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic and economic environmental assessment is not required, as there are no broader environmental impacts.

Gender-based analysis plus

Issue identification

A gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) was conducted as part of the development of the Regulations.

The impacts of exposure to hazardous substances affect different groups in unique ways. Below, a variety of impacts are discussed and analyzed based on diverse attributes of workers, such as gender and age.

Gender
Engineered nanomaterials

The federally regulated industries that are known to handle engineered nanomaterials include aircraft servicing, pipeline manufacturers, research laboratories, communication industries and the road and rail transportation industry. The Federal Jurisdiction Workplace Survey found that these industries are predominantly made up of men, with women accounting for only 39% of the population in pipeline industries and telecommunication and broadcasting services industries, and accounting for only 15% of employees in road transport and 19% in rail transport.footnote 57 Due to the higher number of men in federally regulated industries with potential exposure to engineered nanomaterials, the Regulations will impact more men than women. Individuals who can become pregnant, who are predominantly women, represent a smaller proportion of federally regulated employees in the industries using engineered nanomaterials. However, there is a risk that if exposed during pregnancy, offspring of employees could be affected.footnote 58 Prenatal exposure to engineered nanomaterials is of concern, as they have the potential to cross the placental barrier, which could cause toxicity to the fetus and lead to adverse effects, such as respiratory toxicity in offspring.footnote 59

Given that pregnant individuals may expose their fetus to engineered nanomaterials, the Regulations requiring employers to establish an engineered nanomaterials exposure and prevention control program in accordance with the CSA standard Z12885 will benefit pregnant employees and mitigate the negative impacts engineered nanomaterials may have on their offspring. The standard describes elements of hazard identification, preventative and protective measures, and specifies proper work procedures and training needs, as well as guidance on health and safety practices for relevant nanotechnologies. This information will provide the employee with the opportunity to make informed decisions prior to working with certain engineered nanomaterials that could have detrimental effects to their offspring. Employees will then be better able to make informed decisions regarding their health and safety in the work place.

Thermal stress

Thermal extremes can be caused by a combination of natural or artificial ambient environments, metabolic heat from physically demanding work, a specific process in a work place, or protective clothing impairing heat dissipation.footnote 60 As previously stated, thermal stress is the adverse effects of hot or cold working conditions on the body.

Workers who work outdoors in federally regulated industries, such as rail and air transportation, longshoring, energy and mining, are predominantly men.footnote 57 Thermal exposure can cause acute impairment of work capacity, as well as chronic effects on health that can contribute to reduced productivity.footnote 60 Due to the higher number of men in federally regulated industries with potential exposure to hot or cold thermal conditions, the Regulations will impact more men than women. In addition, the mining and minerals sector is an important employer of Indigenous peoples in Canada. Indigenous people account for 9.4% of Canada’s total populationfootnote 61 and account for 12% of the industry’s labour force in the upstream mining subsector.footnote 62 Therefore, Indigenous people, as well as other workers in these sectors, will benefit from the Regulations, as the provisions specify upper- and lower-bound temperature thresholds for employee work place exposure, in addition to procedures for reducing the risk of thermal stress.

Although women represent a smaller portion of employees in the mining industry, accounting for 14% of the employees,footnote 63 they are physiologically more at risk when exposed to hot or cold thermal conditions. Anthropometricfootnote 64 differences in men and women mean women are more susceptible to heat and cold stress due to differing insulation and heat loss processes.footnote 65 Women, at different phases of their menstrual cycle, such as during the luteal phase, may have varying core temperatures at rest and during heat exposure, compared to women in the follicular phase.footnote 60 Therefore, this implies that some workers are able to tolerate higher heat loads than others at varying times in their cycle, without sustaining heat-related illnesses, and be more capable of working in hot environments.footnote 60 Pregnancy also plays a role in heat stress management, as pregnant individuals are more susceptible to heat related illnesses.footnote 65 Given that women have a lower tolerance for thermal extremes, the Regulations that require employers to develop procedures that address the monitoring of thermal conditions, protective clothing and equipment, as well as work rest cycles, to name a few, and require employers to comply with the standard exposure limits for heat stress, heat strain and cold stress, including upper- and lower-bound temperature thresholds, will have a positive impact on women employees. The new requirements will contribute to a healthier and safer work environment for those who are at higher risk.

Radon

There is limited evidence to suggest sex differences impact health from radon exposure, and research suggests that radon, as a natural, radioactive substance, has similar damaging effects on the human body.footnote 66 The Regulations to harmonize radon requirements with Health Canada guidelines will benefit all employees.

Age
Thermal stress

Workers who are 45 years and older are at greater risk from the negative effects of exposure to heat and cold stress. As workers age, their regular body processes tend to slow down, which includes the ability to remove excess heat from the body quickly due to a reduction in blood flow to the skin, sweating, fitness and overall cardiovascular function.footnote 65 Poor health and a low level of fitness in older individuals will also increase susceptibility to heat extremes. Individuals who have underlying medical issues may also experience thermal stress worse and could experience greater thermal stress.footnote 67 As heat tolerance begins to diminish, there is a greater risk of developing serious illnesses such as heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Research suggests that aging results in a gradual reduction in maximum aerobic power (VO2max), in stroke volumefootnote 68 and cardiac output, and a reduction in sweat excretion.footnote 69 Older employees may have more trouble rapidly acclimatizing to environments when compared to younger employees. Therefore, older workers and individuals who are more susceptible to heat stress will experience greater positive impacts from the Regulations.

Similar to heat stress, older workers may face greater sensitivity to lower temperature extremes. When the body is in a cold environment, it tries to prevent excessive heat loss by increasing internal body heat through vasoconstriction at the skin, shivering, and increasing the body’s metabolic heat.footnote 70 Employees with underlying medical issues, for example diabetes, may have trouble acclimatizing to lower thermal stress conditions because of impairment in the body’s ability to increase metabolic heat production and decrease skin blood flow in cold conditions.footnote 71 Workers who take medications such as insulin for this underlying medical condition will be more susceptible to cold stress induced injuries and illnesses because medication can affect the perception and tolerance of cold.footnote 65 Consequently, older workers and workers with underlying medical conditions will experience a greater positive impact from the Regulations.

The Regulations will require employers to develop and implement procedures to reduce the risk of thermal stress, by monitoring thermal conditions and requiring protective clothing and equipment, etc., which contributes to a healthier and safer work environment for those who are at higher risk due to age-related factors.

Non-solar UV radiation

Over time, exposure to non-solar UV radiation can increase the risks of eye damagefootnote 72 and is associated with different types of skin cancer, sunburn, accelerated skin aging, as well as cataracts and other eye diseases. The severity of the effect depends on the wavelength intensity and duration of exposure. The effects of non-solar UV radiation are non-discriminatory — all people are susceptible to the diseases brought about by non-solar UV radiation. However, it should be noted that age is a factor when considering the risk of UV radiation exposure. Skin cancer risks increase as you age, likely due to accumulated exposure to UV radiation.footnote 73 The average age for a federal public servant is 44.2 years of age, as of 2019.footnote 74 According to the 2022 Welding Industry Report, the average age of a welder is 39 years of age.footnote 75 The Regulations will help mitigate the risk to older workers who are more susceptible to adverse outcomes when exposed to non-solar UV radiation. In addition, the Regulations will also provide better protection to younger workers who may plan on spending a significant portion of their careers in occupations exposed to non-solar UV radiation.

Summary

The Regulations are expected to positively impact all employees given that they would improve occupational health and safety in federally regulated sectors.

A notable positive impact is expected for employees who are at an increased risk from hazardous substances due to certain physiological factors, including pregnant employees, employees over a certain age (mainly 45 years or older) and employees who have pre-existing medical conditions. It is anticipated that the Regulations will positively impact men, who have greater representation in federally regulated sectors, such as aircraft servicing, pipeline manufacturing, research laboratories, air transport, longshoring, energy and the mining sectors, where engineered nanomaterials and thermal stress are present. While women make up a smaller percentage of workers who may be exposed to engineered nanomaterials and thermal stress, there is a risk that, through exposure during pregnancy, offspring of employees could be exposed to these risks as well. Thermal stress may also have greater adverse impacts on workers due to age and underlying health issues. Therefore, the Regulations specifying upper- and lower-bound temperature thresholds and the requirement to develop procedures for monitoring thermal conditions to reduce the risk of thermal stress will have a greater benefit for older employees. Finally, the Regulations will help mitigate the risk to older workers who are more susceptible to adverse outcomes when exposed to non-solar UV radiation.

Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards

Implementation

With the exception of the modification to the OGOSHR title, which will come into force on the day the Regulations are registered, these Regulations will come into force on the first anniversary of the day on which they are registered.

This will provide employers with the time to review the new requirements and their corresponding standards and publications, conduct radon testing as needed, and implement procedures and mitigation measures within their work places. Further, the Labour Program is developing and updating guidance material to ensure employers have the information needed to implement the changes required by these Regulations. Guidance materials will be finalized when the Regulations are published in the Canada Gazette, Part II, in consultation with stakeholders. For a copy of the draft guidance materials, please write to the Labour Program at edsc.lab.sst.politiques-lab.ohs.policy.esdc@labour-travail.gc.ca.

Compliance and enforcement

Compliance with the Regulations will be achieved using a variety of existing approaches along a compliance continuum. This may include educating and counselling employers on their obligations, seeking assurances of voluntary compliance from employers and/or issuing compliance orders to cease contraventions and prevent reoccurrences. To address more serious or repeated violations, AMPs under Part IV of the Code may be issued. No additional inspectors or inspections specifically related to these Regulations are anticipated.

Designated occupational health and safety violations are listed and classified under Schedule 1 of the AMPs Regulations. When amendments are made to Part II of the Code or its associated regulations, Schedule 1 of the AMPs Regulations is also amended to reflect any updates to obligations or provisions.

The AMPs Regulations specify the method used to determine the amount of an AMP when issuing notices of violation. The baseline penalty amount applicable to a violation varies depending on the type of person or department believed to have committed a violation and the classification of the violation.footnote 76 Each designated violation is classified as either Type A, B, C, D or E, in order of increasing severity, according to the level of risk and/or the impact and significance of the violation as outlined in Table 16.

Table 16: Classification method for violations under the Code
TYPE PART II
A Related to administrative and technical provisions.
B Related to low-risk hazards that may result in a minor injury or illness that requires medical treatment, but that do not result in disabling injuries.
C Related to medium-risk hazards that may result in a serious injury or illness that prevents an employee from effectively performing their regular work duties.
D Related to high-risk hazards that may result in serious injury or fatality.
E Involves immediate life-threatening hazards or hazards known to cause latent occupational disease. These hazards give the employee little to no opportunity to avoid or minimize severe injury or death or occupational disease.

The following guidelines will be reviewed and updated to assist employers with compliance with the Regulations:

The Labour Program’s compliance policy outlines the proactive and reactive activities used by delegated officials to ensure compliance. Statutory powers allow delegated officials to enter work sites and perform various activities to enforce compliance with the Code and the OHS regulations.

Contact

Marie-France Sanschagrin
Senior Director
Occupational Health and Safety
Workplace Directorate
Labour Program
Department of Employment and Social Development
165 HĂ´tel-de-Ville Street
Place du Portage, Phase II, 10th Floor
Gatineau, Québec
K1A 0J2
Email: edsc.lab.sst.politiques-lab.ohs.policy.esdc@labour-travail.gc.ca