A proposed change to the Red Tape Reduction Act is buried in Division 12 of Part 5. It sounds harmless enough on the surface: reduce regulatory burdens to spur innovation and economic growth. Who could argue?
But the how matters. Details of Bill C-15 should concern anyone who cares about parliamentary accountability. Ministers will be able to grant exemptions to laws for up to three years, with possible extension, to selected “entities”. The only clear exclusion is the Criminal Code. Think about that for a moment.
That means a single minister could effectively suspend the application of existing federal regulations for certain businesses or organizations, without Parliament debating or amending those laws directly.
If a regulation is truly outdated or harmful to innovation, then Parliament should review it. That’s how our system is supposed to work. Laws are debated. Committees study them. Witnesses testify. Amendments are proposed. Votes are taken.
Instead, this proposal shifts power from Parliament to individual ministers.
This raises several serious concerns.
First, the equal application of the law. Regulations are meant to apply broadly and consistently. Granting exemptions to select “entities” creates the possibility of regulatory favoritism. Who qualifies? Who decides? On what criteria? What safeguards prevent unequal treatment?
Second, transparency. Will these exemptions be publicly disclosed in real time? Will Canadians see the analysis behind the decision? Will there be measurable benchmarks to determine whether the exemption actually produced innovation or growth?
Third, precedent. Temporary exemptions that can be extended risk becoming permanent carve-outs. Once the executive branch becomes comfortable suspending regulations for chosen actors, the line between reform and bypass becomes blurred.
Encouraging innovation is important. So is economic growth. But neither objective justifies weakening parliamentary oversight or concentrating broad discretionary power in a minister’s office.
If there are regulatory barriers to growth, bring them forward. Amend them openly. Repeal them properly. Let Canadians see the debate.
Extraordinary powers require extraordinary safeguards. As currently framed, this provision appears far broader than necessary and lacks the transparency and accountability that Canadians should expect.
Innovation should not come at the expense of democratic process.
