Buried in Bill C15 – Due To Be Passed by Committee Monday – Is a Clause Which Suspends ALL Legislation Except the Criminal Code on a Single Minister’s Say So. Why That’s A Bad Thing…
In reviewing this, it’s important to understand 2 critical things: First, Ministers ALREADY have powers to temporarily step outside regulations and set those aside to create innovation sandboxes. A place where new ideas that might not conform to existing rules and regs might be tested, while still keeping in mind the intent of all other relevant legislation. Think driverless vehicles, for example. They need a place to be tested while being monitored carefully – proponents mitigate likely issues and prove there’s little chance of harm – and permission is granted for a temporary exemption. It’s been done successfully for years.
The second thing is that this is vastly different. At the moment, there must first be a request from a party to do so, and secondly, in approving any “sandbox” play area, the Minister must always take into account all of the existing legislation parliament has enacted that impacts the action in question: Health, safety, emissions and environmental objectives, the duty to consult First Nations if their lands might be impacted and so on. Everyone who’s ever had kids knows you need rules in sandboxes.
In other words, Ministers and proponents cannot, on the basis of the decision of a single person – the Minister – choose to ignore all the other legislation duly elected governments have created, because of their sole opinion that it’s “in the best interests of Canada”. That definition changes dramatically with every new election – but existing legislation does not. The only legislation this clause insists Ministers must adhere to is the criminal code.
So we are granting a single individual then almost unfettered right to approve the suspension of all existing protections for Canadians without anyone having to prove limited risk in advance. This is roughly akin to the way Trump is presently operating – without benefit of enabling legislation – but with the benefit of a subservient and obsequious House and Senate who refuse to rein him in. Ecojustice refers to the legislation as granting “Henry VIII Powers” to Minsters. We think we can look to much more recent examples closer to home – like the recent suspension of rules in the USA which expected the EPA to consider damage to human health when making rules. Not something we want here? But similar outcomes are possible under this legislation.
Read excerpts from their submission to the Finance committee below – and if you agree please contact your MP and tell them you object! Contact details for all MPs can be found here by MP – riding name – or by your postal code.
You can also sign on to a petition here.
Ecojustice Submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance on Bill C-15 (An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025)
Key Recommendation: Ecojustice urges the Standing Committee on Finance to remove the proposed amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act (Part 5, Division 5) from Bill C-15
Brief: Ecojustice Recommendations for Bill C-15
Overview
The proposed amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act, found in Part 5, Division 5 of Bill C-15, allow a Minister to exempt business and government entities from any Act or provision the Minister is responsible for, aside from the Criminal Code.[1] An exemption may be made if, in the Minister’s opinion, it is in the public interest and enables testing of a product, service or process that facilitates the “design, modification, or administration of a regulatory regime” to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth.[2]
Ecojustice submits these amendments introduce unprecedented and extraordinary “Henry VIII powers” that reflect an unconstrained delegation to the executive. The amendments empower Ministers to override essential elements of public interest statutes by exempting government and business from mandatory requirements on the basis of a Ministerial “public interest” opinion. Laws could become riddled with exemptions before Parliament even has the information on which to begin providing scrutiny. This grant of power to the executive raises concerns for democracy, Parliamentary supremacy and the rule of law.
Ecojustice urges the Standing Committee to remove the proposed Red Tape Reduction Act amendments from Bill C-15 in their entirety.
From Regulatory Sandboxes to a Regulatory Desert
Canada’s legislative regime provides Ministers with exemption powers under specific statutory schemes, often characterized as “regulatory sandboxes.” However, the powers under the proposed amendments differ in scope and in form. The amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act would give Ministers exemption powers that extend far beyond the traditional scope of regulatory sandboxes.
A typical regulatory sandbox can be found under s. 6.6 of the Canada Transportation Act. Here, the responsible Minister may exempt a person or class of persons from any provision in an Act that the Minister administers, if they are of the opinion that the exemption is in the public interest and promotes innovation in transportation.[3] This power has at least three significant constraints.
First, the Minister must have regard to the purposes of the corresponding Act. Second, the Minister would typically receive an application from the entity seeking an exemption.[4] Third, the exemption is limited to the specific purpose of promoting “innovation in transportation through research, development or testing.”[5] Thus, an exemption order must fit within the confines of the pre-existing transportation scheme, ensuring adherence to Parliament’s previous decision-making process.
The proposed amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act are a wholesale exemption power that enable any Minister to exempt an entity – including the federal government itself[6] – from virtually any statute (except the Criminal Code) without having regard to legislative purposes. Unlike typical regulatory sandboxes, there is also no clear requirement for an application to be made to the Minister beforehand.
Most importantly, the proposed legislative changes would allow for exemptions on the basis of broad and vague factors including “competitiveness” and “economic growth”. These factors enable virtually any use of the exemption power. This contrasts with the limited “innovation” focus in the regulatory sandbox exemption power under the Canada Transportation Act. The proposed exemption powers mean the executive can undermine prior legislative decisions so long as doing so is “justified”, based on discretionary determinations about “competitiveness” and “economic growth”.
A Threat to Parliamentary Democracy and the Rule of Law
The proposed powers would subvert the legislative process by allowing the executive to undo decades of parliamentary decision-making. As mentioned, there is no requirement for a Minister to consider statutory purposes when issuing an exemption order, meaning that government and businesses could be exempt under legislation for reasons that Parliament never intended and without Parliamentary oversight.
In practice, this means that entities could be exempted from environmental protection, labour protection or health statutes in the name of economic interests, even if Parliament’s intention had been to prioritize environmental and other safeguards in the public interest. For example, the Species at Risk Act’s stated purposes are to “prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct [and to provide for the recovery of endangered species] as a result of human activity.”[7] Yet under the proposed amendments, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change could exempt a project proponent from permitting requirements that could result in the extinction of a species. Thus, the executive would have extraordinarily unbound powers to undermine this legislative decision and the intent of the legislature.
To provide another example, the Ministers of Health and Environment and Climate Change could suspend the application of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 or its regulations to allow a business entity to release banned toxic substances and pollutants, even if it poses an increased health risk to vulnerable communities. Such an exemption clearly runs counter to the legislation’s purpose to prevent pollution and protect vulnerable populations and yet is baldly enabled by the proposed executive powers.[8]
Regulatory sandboxes are conventionally understood and designed as tightly contained mechanisms that permit limited experimentation for the purpose of promoting innovation within clear statutory boundaries, with legislative oversight. The exemption powers contemplated by the proposed amendments would be a dramatic and undemocratic extension of this model. They effectively shift the power to determine when and to whom the law applies from the legislature to the executive. This raises significant concerns for Canada’s constitutional separation of powers that underpin democratic accountability and the rule of law.
The Amendments Undermine Public Engagement and Consultation Principles
The amendments’ decision-making powers also undermine public engagement and Indigenous consultation principles in environmental and other statutes. Under the Species At Risk Act, reports, recovery strategies and action plans must be posted on the public registry for the purposes of public engagement and consultation.[9] However, the amendments would allow the Minister to scrap these requirements so that the government could test a less stringent procedure or regulatory measure; for example, a novel framework exempting public registry reporting could be tested on the basis that it facilitates the “modification” and “administration” of the species protection regime[10]
Comparable concerns might arise under the Impact Assessment Act, which requires the decision-maker to consider Indigenous group knowledge when assessing a proposed project.[11] The Minister could simply exempt a business or government proponent from these requirements even though Parliament deliberately included them in the environmental assessment scheme.
Furthermore, the amendments may be made behind closed doors, with communication to the public only after the fact. Section 14(1) requires a Minister to make their decision-making process, reasons, and public communication procedure publicly accessible, only “as soon as feasible,”[12] after the making of an exemption order. The Minister may also withhold information that in their opinion would be inappropriate to make publicly accessible for safety, security or confidentiality reasons. Ministers could make a unilateral exemption decision without prior public engagement, and then only selectively provide relevant information after the decision is already made.
Summary
Bill C-15’s amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act raise serious concerns for the state of Canada’s parliamentary democracy and the rule of law.
These “Henry the VIII” style exemption powers are not only unreasonable, but also unnecessary for furthering Parliament’s legislative goals. They go far beyond existing regulatory sandbox models within Canadian legislation and would undermine critical constitutional principles including the separation of powers, which underpins government accountability and the fundamental role of Parliament in law making.
As Canada confronts serious threats to its sovereignty and economic well-being, Parliament ought to consider that our resilience will come from reaffirming and protecting the constitutional principles that have long safeguarded our democracy. Eroding parliamentary oversight over legislation and how it is applied will weaken public trust and could put the health and well-being of Canadians and our environment at great risk.
Recommendation: Ecojustice urges the Committee to remove the proposed amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act (Part 5, Division 5)from Bill C-15.
End Notes
[1] Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, Part 5, Division 5, Amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act, s. 208, amended s. 12(1) of the Act; see s. 11 for the broad definition of “entity.”
[2] Bill C-15, Amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act, s. 12(3).
[3] Canada Transportation Act, s. 6.7(1).
[4] Canada Transportation Act, ss. 6.6(1), 6.7(1).
[5] Canada Transportation Act, s. 6.7(1).
[6] The amendments define “entity” as including “an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an unincorporated association or organization and His Majesty in right of Canada or of a province.”
[7] Species at Risk Act, s. 6.
[8] Canadian Environmental Protection Act, s. 2
[9] Species At Risk Act, e.g., ss. 42(1), 50.
[10] Bill C-15, Amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act, s. 12(3)(b).
[11] Impact Assessment Act, ss. 22(1)(g), 33(1)(d).
[12] Bill C-15, Amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act, s. 14(1).
