Dielectic vs Dogma

King Carney? Bill C-15 and the Problem With How the CCF Describes It

The Canadian Constitution Foundation has published both a fundraising email and an opinion article warning that Bill C-15 gives federal ministers extraordinary power.

These are serious claims. If accurate, they would justify serious concern.

This post does not speculate about motive or intent. It does not argue that concern about executive power is illegitimate. It does one narrow thing only. It checks what the CCF says about Bill C-15 against what the bill and the structure of Canadian law actually allow.

What the article and email actually say

To avoid any dispute over wording, here are the relevant claims in the CCF’s own words.

From the article headline and subheading:

“Budget implementation bill gives the government the power to exempt any company from almost any law.”

From the body of the article:

“Section 12 of the Bill C-15 would allow the minister to exempt any individual, business or other organization from any existing law or regulation other than the Criminal Code, for up to six years, with few limits.”

Later, the article repeats:

“Section 12 says ministers would be allowed to create exemptions to any law except for the Criminal Code…”

The fundraising email uses the same framing:

“Section 12 of Bill C-15… would give federal ministers the power to exempt any individual or business from almost any law for up to six years, seriously threatening the rule of law.”

Why “almost any law” is not accurate

Bill C-15 does not apply to “almost any law” in Canada.

It applies only to:

  • Acts of Parliament, and
  • Regulations made under Acts of Parliament

That already excludes most law Canadians live under.

Using consolidated statutes and regulations listed on CanLII
https://www.canlii.org/ca/laws/stat

There are:

  • 958 federal Acts of Parliament
  • 5,115 federal regulations

Bill C-15 explicitly excludes the Criminal Code and its regulations. Removing those leaves roughly 5,930 federal laws that could even be considered under the broadest possible reading.

By contrast, once provincial statutes and regulations are included, there are about 43,800 statutes and regulations across Canada.

Even before any other limits are applied, federal statutory law represents roughly 13.5 percent of statutes and regulations nationwide. That is not “almost any law”.

And statutes and regulations are only one part of Canadian law. Entire categories of law are completely outside the scope of Bill C-15, including:

  • Common law, meaning court decisions interpreting and applying the law
  • Constitutional law
  • Municipal bylaws
  • Indigenous legal orders

Common law alone consists of well over one million court decisions, none of which are subject to exemption under Bill C-15. These figures are included only to illustrate scale.

Limits the article does not account for

Bill C-15 does not allow ministers to exempt laws simply because they exist.

A minister can only exempt provisions that they administer or enforce. That requirement excludes large categories of legislation in practice.

For example:

  • Judicial and court governance statutes are administered by courts
  • Parliamentary governance statutes are administered by Parliament or Officers of Parliament
  • Laws enforced by independent regulators are not under ministerial control

Concrete examples include:

  • Judges Act
  • Supreme Court Act
  • Parliament of Canada Act
  • Canada Elections Act
  • Canadian Human Rights Act
  • Broadcasting Act
  • Telecommunications Act
  • Privacy Act
  • Access to Information Act

The article specifically claims that Bill C-15 could be used to bypass the Conflict of Interest Act and the Access to Information Act.

Both are enforced by independent Officers of Parliament, not by ministers. Bill C-15 does not give ministers authority over them.

Readers can verify this directly:

These examples describe powers the bill does not grant.

Another practical limit the article does not address: discretion

There is another important constraint built into how Bill C-15 operates that is not reflected in the article’s description.

Bill C-15 authorizes exemptions. An exemption only makes sense where a law already allows some room for judgment in how it is applied. If a rule applies automatically, with no decision point, there is nothing to exempt.

In other words, non-discretionary laws are outside the practical reach of this power.

A simple example is pension eligibility. If a statute says that a person becomes entitled to a pension at a certain age, and the criteria are met, the benefit applies automatically. There is no discretionary decision by a minister. Because there is no judgment involved in applying the rule, there is nothing an exemption order could lawfully attach to.

The same logic applies to many other federal statutes that operate mechanically rather than through case-by-case judgment.

Examples include:

  • Canada Pension Plan
  • Old Age Security Act
  • Canada Elections Act
  • Citizenship Act

These laws do not give ministers discretion over whether or how they apply to particular individuals. Bill C-15 does not transform non-discretionary rules into discretionary ones.

Once this constraint is taken into account, the number of laws that could realistically be affected shrinks even further.

This does not mean the power is trivial. It means its scope is narrower than the phrase “almost any law” suggests.

A necessary clarification about exemptions

Before evaluating claims about power, it is important to clarify a basic legal distinction that is often misunderstood in public debate.

An exemption means a law remains fully in force and applies to everyone else, while applying differently and temporarily to a specific entity under authority granted by Parliament. Exemptions are time limited and subject to judicial review.

A suspension temporarily puts a law on hold for everyone.

An override allows a law to operate despite conflicting with a higher legal rule, such as when Parliament invokes section 33 of the Charter.

Bill C-15 authorizes exemptions. It does not authorize suspensions or overrides. Understanding which tool is actually at issue matters when assessing the scope of the power being granted.

Why the language in Bill C-15 is not unusual

Some of the wording in Bill C-15 can sound alarming at first glance, particularly phrases like “if the minister is of the opinion” or “on any terms the minister considers appropriate”.

It is important to note that this language is not unique to Bill C-15.

Comparable wording appears in many long-standing federal statutes, including:

Aeronautics Act
https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-a-2/latest/

“The Minister may… exempt any person… if the exemption, in the opinion of the Minister, is in the public interest…”

Bank Act
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-1.01/page-38.html

“The Minister may, if the Minister considers it appropriate to do so… subject to any terms and conditions that the Minister considers appropriate.”

Food and Drugs Act
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-27/fulltext.html

“The Minister may, by order, on any conditions that the Minister considers necessary, exempt…”

These powers have existed for decades under governments of different political stripes. They function within a legal system that includes statutory purpose, time limits, and judicial review.

This is an important detail when assessing whether a provision is extraordinary or routine.

Why accuracy matters

There are legitimate debates to be had about executive discretion, regulatory experimentation, and oversight. Those debates do not require overstating what a bill does.

When claims like “almost any law” or “any law except the Criminal Code” are repeated without scale, structure, or context, readers are left with a distorted picture of reality.

Bill C-15 may still deserve scrutiny. But scrutiny should begin with what the bill actually authorizes, not with claims that do not hold up when checked against the structure of Canadian law.

If an argument is strong, it does not need exaggeration.

Epic Tetus Avatar

Published by

Epic Tetus
Categories:
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment