Some MPs alarmed by plan to allow cabinet to exempt entities from certain laws

OTTAWA – Some members of Parliament are slamming the Liberal government’s plan to give new powers to cabinet to temporarily exempt individuals or corporations from some federal laws.

The exemptions are being referred to as “regulatory sandboxes” and are contained in a clause in the government’s omnibus budget implementation bill, currently being debated at a House of Commons committee.

The clause would allow federal ministers to exempt individuals or corporations from any federal laws they are responsible for, except the Criminal Code.

The Conflict of Interest Act would also still apply, the Treasury Board said.

Several MPs raised concerns about the clause at a House of Commons committee Thursday. Some asked whether the move could lead to conflicts of interest and whether the projects would be beneficial for the public.

Bloc Québécois MP Marie-Hélène Gaudreau raised concerns about transparency and oversight and potential “ethical derailments.”

In French, Gaudreau said the “regulatory sandboxes” are “more like a beach and there will be collateral damage.”

Conservative MP Kelly Block questioned the point of having legislation in place if ministers can bypass it. She said the plan is “at best ambiguous” and that exemptions would allow ministers to “pick winners and losers.”

Treasury Board President Shafqat Ali defended the government’s plan. He said it would allow the government to speed up processes and that exemptions would only be permitted if they were determined to be in the public’s interest.

“This saves time, it saves resources,” he said.

He said exemptions have been allowed at Transport Canada and Health Canada since 2019.

Treasury Board assistant secretary for regulatory affairs Michael DeJong told the hearing a number of “regulatory sandboxes” have been implemented at Transport Canada.

He said they led to a shift from paper to electronic documents and the introduction of AI in railway operations.

Asked at the meeting if other jurisdictions allow for exemptions, Ali said all other G7 countries use them.

“It’s my understanding that in the G7, we’re the only country who has very limited uses in two departments,” he said.

The bill says a minister is not required to consider a request for an exemption. It also says an exemption would be valid for no more than three years, though a one-time, three-year extension can be granted if certain circumstances are met.

The bill says a minister may order an exemption only if they think it would allow for the testing of a product, service, process, procedure or regulatory measure “with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of a regulatory regime to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth.” 

The minister also has to be sure that sufficient resources exist and a plan in place to manage any risks to public health, safety or the environment.

Fair Vote Canada said in a news release Thursday it applauds Conservative party efforts to amend the bill to remove clauses giving ministers the power to allow for exemptions to federal law.

“Under Bill C-15, a minister’s opinion of what is in ‘the public interest’ will become a higher authority than almost any piece of legislation,” the release said. “The danger to democracy posed by Bill C-15 is not a partisan issue.”

Last month, dozens of organizations — including the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Nature Canada and Alliance 4 Democracy — signed a statement arguing that the provisions in the bill threaten “the rights of everyone in Canada” and highlighting concerns about health and safety, the environment and legal protections.

“Ministers would have radically new discretionary power to decide when and how federal legislation applies and to whom,” the statement read. “But laws should apply equally to all, regardless of status, wealth or power.”

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Feb. 12, 2026.