Discussion Bill C-15 by Kellie Auld

As Canadian citizens, we should all be asking parliament to review and challenge the serious implications of Bill-C 15, the Budget Implementation act (2024). This bill contains over 50 amendments to unrelated acts, bundled into one omnibus package. Many of these changes would normally require full debate, consultation, or separate legislation. This briefing highlights the the most serious concerns.

1. Status of Bill (February 2026)
Not Passed. Currently before the Senate Standing Committee on National Finance still subject to amendment, removal of problematic divisions, being returned to the House for reconsideration. The bill has not received Royal Assent.

2. What is Buried Inside Bill C-15
The Budget Implementation Act contains amendments to more than 50 Acts, including the Income Tax Act, Canada Labor Code, Employment Insurance Act, Immigration and Refugee Protection act, Criminal Code, Investment Canada Act, FINTRAC / Anti-Money laundering regime, environmental and resource-sector laws, Infrastructure Bank & housing programs, health and transportation, Statutes, and digital-compliance and administrative-state frameworks across multiple departments. These are substantive policy changes, not budgetary items.

3. Division 5 - The Most Concerning Section
Division 5 amends the Department of Employment and Social Development Act to allow a minister to exempt themselves from statutory obligations, exempt unnamed public servants from those same laws, issue exemption orders that override Existing Acts, and do so without public reporting, disclosure, or parliamentary review

This effectively allows ministers and delegated officials to neutralize laws internally.

4. Why Division 5 requires Removal or Major Amendment
Division 5 would replace rule-of-law with rule-by-administrative directive, expand executive power without accountability, undermine Parliamentary oversite, allow departments to force citizens into digital-only systems by exempting themselves from statutory service obligations, and remove transparency from decisions affecting benefits, eligibility, access and due process.

No budget should contain powers that permit elected officials or unnamed bureaucrats to ignore laws, override statutory protections, or operate without disclosure.

I am asking Canadians to write to their MP's. State that you respectfully request that the MP advocate for one of the following outcomes:
Option A - Remove Division 5 entirely from Bill C-15
Option B - Require Division 5 to be introduced as a standalone bill
Option C - Apply strict amendments: mandatory publication of any exemption orders; parliamentary review and approval; prohibitions on delegating exemption power to unnamed officials; strict limits and sunset clauses.
These are the minimum guardrails required in a democratic system. Budget bills should not be used to expand executive power, weaken transparency, or alter dozens of Acts through a single vote.

I urge you, dear reader, to review the structure and implications of Bill C-15 and support measures to remove or amend Division 5.

Please make yourself aware of what is going on in Ottawa - It will affect us all!

If you would like to read more of Kellies writings, please visit substack.com/katrinaroo.

This article show gross government overreach and other informative truth based data and research can be found at WWW.DRUTHERS.CA

Get involved and make a difference for our kids & grandkids!

So, it sounds like you understand this. What could all this mean to me as a canadian citizen?

I agree with the concern about the structure of a bill like this. Even if someone supports certain parts of it, bundling so many unrelated amendments together makes it difficult to properly evaluate each change. It creates a situation where people are not really voting on individual policies, they are voting on a package deal, which can weaken accountability.

What stands out to me most is Division 5 and the idea of exemption powers without transparency. Even if the intention is to improve efficiency, giving ministers or officials the ability to bypass statutory obligations without public disclosure feels like a major shift. Basic safeguards like reporting requirements and parliamentary oversight should be standard in any situation like that.

CristianB said:

What stands out to me most is Division 5 and the idea of exemption powers without transparency. Even if the intention is to improve efficiency, giving ministers or officials the ability to bypass statutory obligations without public disclosure feels like a major shift. Basic safeguards like reporting requirements and parliamentary oversight should be standard in any situation like that.

Click to expand...

I think it is important to separate intent from impact here. Governments often justify these kinds of provisions by saying they need flexibility to respond to complex situations. That might be true in some cases, but the concern is what happens after the power is granted. Once it exists, it can be used in ways that go beyond the original intent, which is why checks and balances are so important.

PeterM said:

As Canadian citizens, we should all be asking parliament to review and challenge the serious implications of Bill-C 15, the Budget Implementation act (2024). This bill contains over 50 amendments to unrelated acts, bundled into one omnibus package. Many of these changes would normally require full debate, consultation, or separate legislation. This briefing highlights the the most serious concerns...

Click to expand...

The digital access point really stood out to me as well. If departments can exempt themselves from service obligations, that could lead to more systems becoming digital only. That might seem efficient on paper, but in reality not everyone has equal access to technology or the ability to navigate those systems easily. That could create real barriers for certain groups of people.

I also think it is worth asking whether this is something new or part of a larger trend. Have previous budget bills included similar types of provisions, or is this an expansion of executive authority beyond what we have seen before. If it is part of a trend, then the discussion should probably go beyond just this one bill.

One thing I do appreciate is that the post outlines specific actions people can take. Suggesting removal, separation into a standalone bill, or strict amendments gives people something concrete to focus on. It is a lot more productive than just raising concerns without any clear direction.

The idea of precedent is what concerns me the most. Laws are not just about the current government, they set the framework for future governments as well. Even if current officials act responsibly, expanding executive power without clear limits can create long term risks that are hard to reverse later.

immagooglethat said:

The idea of precedent is what concerns me the most. Laws are not just about the current government, they set the framework for future governments as well. Even if current officials act responsibly, expanding executive power without clear limits can create long term risks that are hard to reverse later.

Click to expand...

That is exactly it. A lot of people focus on who is in charge right now, but the bigger issue is what tools are being created. Once those tools exist, they can be used by anyone in power later on. That is why transparency and clear limitations are so important from the start.

CristianB said:

That is exactly it. A lot of people focus on who is in charge right now, but the bigger issue is what tools are being created. Once those tools exist, they can be used by anyone in power later on. That is why transparency and clear limitations are so important from the start.

Click to expand...

I think more people also need to understand that the bill is still in the Senate committee stage. That means there is still an opportunity for changes to be made. Public awareness at this point can actually have an impact, but only if people are paying attention and engaging with the process.

Vieris said:

I think more people also need to understand that the bill is still in the Senate committee stage. That means there is still an opportunity for changes to be made. Public awareness at this point can actually have an impact, but only if people are paying attention and engaging with the process.

Click to expand...

And that is where transparency becomes critical. If exemption powers are being proposed, there should be very clear guidelines on how they are used and when. Without that, it becomes difficult for the public to evaluate whether the powers are reasonable or not.

There is definitely a balance that needs to be found. Governments do need some level of flexibility to operate efficiently, especially in areas that are constantly changing. But that flexibility should not come at the cost of accountability. Without proper guardrails, even well intentioned policies can lead to unintended consequences.

Another thing to consider is how quickly large bills can move through the process once they reach later stages. Even if there is technically time for review, most people are not aware of what is happening until it is almost finalized. That creates a gap between the legislative process and meaningful public participation.

Great points, thank you