The Liberal government’s budget bill could grant new powers to ministers that would enable them to temporarily exempt any individual or company from federal laws, except the Criminal Code.
Such powers are currently granted to certain ministers only, such as the ministers of transport and health, but the bill seeks to expand it to all ministers, a move opposition parties say could lead to abuses.
To use these powers, the minister must also be of the opinion that “sufficient resources” exist to oversee the testing, manage any risks associated with the exemption, and protect public health, safety, and the environment, the bill says. The minister must also ensure a “feasible implementation plan” has been developed.
The government says the proposed measures aim to encourage innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth, adding that ministers could use such powers to provide an exemption for a period of up to three years, which could be extended up to a maximum of six years.
The bill requires that ministers who use these powers make the exemption order publicly accessible. A description of the decision-making process and a summary of the reasons for the exemption must also be made public, as well as a description of the process for providing comments or requesting information from the minister about the exemption.
The bill also says the minister can exclude information that, in their opinion, would be “inappropriate” to make publicly accessible due to safety or security considerations or in order to protect confidential or personal information.
The Red Tape Reduction Act currently allows select regulators, such as Transport Canada and Health Canada, to have the authority to exempt individuals and companies from federal laws, excluding the Criminal Code. The proposed amendment contained in Bill C-15 would expand such authority to all federal ministers.
Conservatives’ Concerns
Conservative MPs have expressed concern about the powers granted to ministers under the government’s budget bill, questioning whether the measures could potentially conceal conflicts of interest.“It’s a path for ministers to bypass the usual parliamentary safeguards and ethical scrutiny by shifting decisions into private exemption orders,” Barrett said. “Does that not present a cause for concern for parliamentarians?”
“The act is quite clear,” von Finckenstein said. “[The minister] cannot participate in the decision. He can’t even be in the room. He has to leave and absence himself when that decision is made.”
Barrett noted that under Bill C-15, ministers could make an exemption order without making it public, referring to the part of the provision that says ministers may exclude information from their public description of the exemption order if they consider the information to be “inappropriate” to publicize due to safety, security, or confidentiality considerations.
In response, von Finckenstein said the exemption would have to be published “somewhere,” noting that the “effect” of the exemption would be public. He hadn’t looked at the legislation from this particular aspect, he said, but added that he didn’t understand how an exemption could be secret.
“The expectation, I think, that Canadians have is ... that there’s no reason for a government to put forward legislation that gives them the opportunity to exempt themselves from all laws except the Criminal Code,” Barrett said. “I think that Canadians should be rightly concerned, and I certainly am.”
Bloc, NDP Concerns
Meanwhile, Bloc Québécois Leader Yves-François Blanchet said in a Dec. 10 social media post that the clause “goes beyond slippage” and is “a bit like a law to suspend all others.”“Democracies vote for laws and justly make a big deal out of it,” he added. “Did [the Liberals] say they were going to do this? Were they elected for this?”
“If the Liberals can decide everything without obeying the law and without consulting anyone, can we still call this a democracy?” Perron said during question period in the House of Commons on Dec. 10.
Government House Leader Steven MacKinnon responded by saying “of course” Canada is a democracy. “We are here to debate it publicly. That is the very definition of democratic debate,” he said, adding that Bill C-15 contains “very important tools for advancing our economy, advancing Canadian innovation, and ensuring that we can achieve great things together.”
NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice said the clause raises concerns about corruption, given it could lead companies to pressure ministers to go around existing laws.
‘Regulatory Sandboxes’
A spokesperson from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat told The Epoch Times that the measure in Bill C-15 is designed to enable “regulatory sandboxes, which allow temporary exemptions from certain legislative requirements so that innovative products, services, or processes can be tested under controlled conditions.”“These sandboxes help regulators keep pace with technological change and assess real-world impacts before making permanent regulatory changes,” the spokesperson said in a Dec. 9 emailed statement.
“The goal is to foster innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth while maintaining protections for health, safety, and the environment.”
For example, Transport Canada launched a regulatory sandbox in July to test safety standards for battery-electric and hydrogen-powered freight trains in real-world operations, ensuring safety while reducing regulatory burden. Insights from the project will inform future regulatory modernization and support industry innovation, the spokesperson said.
Another example involving Transport Canada includes a regulatory sandbox launched in 2019 to assess the use of light sport aircraft, including electric models, for flight training in Canada. These aircraft were already popular in Europe and offered affordability, advanced technology, and benefits to the environment, but they required testing to confirm safety in Canada. The sandbox allowed Transport Canada to gather evidence to show that these aircraft can be as reliable and safe as traditional training aircraft, said the spokesperson.
