What is being presented as an effort to promote transparency, equality and fairness. Under these rules, large organizations, that is, employers with more than 25 employees, will be required to provide salary information in job advertisements, explain the use of artificial intelligence in the recruitment process, do not require Canadian experience, and inform candidates of the hiring decision within 45 days. However, the question arises: will these reforms actually prove to be a practical benefit for job seekers or will they remain a mere paper change?
The concept of transparency is undoubtedly a positive and welcome idea. For years, job candidates have complained that they are not provided with complete information about salary, career opportunities and the recruitment process. Often, after long interviews and wasting time, people are disappointed to find that the compensation offered is far below their expectations. In this context, making salary information mandatory seems like a good step.

But the problem lies in the nuances of the law. If an employer is allowed to set a salary range as wide as $50,000 per year, what practical guidance does this information provide? For example, if a job is advertised as having a salary range of $60,000 to $110,000, what practical guidance does the candidate have? Such a broad range can not only confuse the candidate but also give the employer room to negotiate a lower salary later. We have the example of British Columbia, where a similar law was enacted in 2023. Although there has been a slight reduction in wage inequality, the law has so far failed to significantly reduce the gender pay gap. This experience indicates that simply disclosing salary is not enough, but also requires clear criteria, strict monitoring and effective enforcement.
Another important aspect of these new laws is the disclosure of the use of artificial intelligence in the recruitment process. AI technology is rapidly entering the human resources sector in the modern era. Resume screening, initial screening and even interview questions are now being determined by algorithms. The government is demanding that employers explain whether they are using AI or not. The move is ostensibly to promote transparency, but the question is, is mere disclosure enough? According to experts, the problem is not just knowing that AI is being used, but also checking how it is being used, what data sets it is based on and whether it does not have an unspoken bias against a specific group. If every employer repeats the same phrase that we use AI in the initial screening and humans intervene later, what practical benefit will it have for the candidate? Transparency is only meaningful when it is accompanied by accountability and oversight.
The ban on the Canadian experience requirement is another important reform, which is being seen as a ray of hope, especially for new immigrants. For years, it has been complained that candidates with international experience are rejected simply on the grounds that they do not have experience working in Canada. This requirement is not only unfair but also detrimental to the country’s economy, as it results in a waste of skilled labour. Banning this requirement is a good step, but questions remain about its practical implementation. If an employer does not state the requirement in the advertisement but ignores the candidate during the interview on the same basis, where is the spirit of the law?
Similarly, the requirement to inform the candidate of the hiring decision within 45 days is also apparently candidate-friendly. In the current system, many people wait for months for a response, which not only increases mental stress but also leads to them missing out on other opportunities. However, this requirement will not be easy to enforce, especially at a time when unemployment in Ontario is rising and employers are already under financial pressure.
The question here is whether these reforms are right to implement at this time? Recruitment experts say that in the current economic climate, when companies are struggling to reduce costs and increase profits, additional legal requirements can become a burden for them. If employers implement these laws as a mere formality, their purpose will be defeated.
The editorial agrees that transparency, equality and fairness are indispensable in the employment system. But legislation is effective only when it is in line with the realities on the ground, effectively implemented and its results are regularly monitored. If the government really wants these reforms to be more than just symbolic, it must ensure clear guidance for both employers and candidates, a strong grievance redressal system and constant monitoring.