Bill C-15: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025

Bill C-15: An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025

Tabled in the House of Commons, January 26, 2026

Explanatory Note

Section 4.2 of the Department of Justice Act requires the Minister of Justice to prepare a Charter Statement for every government bill to help inform public and Parliamentary debate on government bills. One of the Minister of Justice’s most important responsibilities is to examine legislation for inconsistency with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms [“the Charter”]. By tabling a Charter Statement, the Minister is sharing some of the key considerations that informed the review of a bill for inconsistency with the Charter. A Statement identifies Charter rights and freedoms that may potentially be engaged by a bill and provides a brief explanation of the nature of any engagement, in light of the measures being proposed.

A Charter Statement also identifies potential justifications for any limits a bill may impose on Charter rights and freedoms. Section 1 of the Charter provides that rights and freedoms may be subject to reasonable limits if those limits are prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This means that Parliament may enact laws that limit Charter rights and freedoms. The Charter will be violated only where a limit is not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.

A Charter Statement is intended to provide legal information to the public and Parliament on a bill’s potential effects on rights and freedoms that are neither trivial nor too speculative. It is not intended to be a comprehensive overview of all conceivable Charter considerations. Additional considerations relevant to the constitutionality of a bill may also arise in the course of Parliamentary study and amendment of a bill. A Statement is not a legal opinion on the constitutionality of a bill.

Charter Considerations

The Minister of Justice has examined Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, for any inconsistency with the Charter pursuant to his obligation under section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act. This review involved consideration of the objectives and features of the bill.

What follows is a non-exhaustive discussion of the ways in which Bill C-15 potentially engages the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. It is presented to assist in informing the public and Parliamentary debate on the bill. It does not include an exhaustive description of the entire bill, but rather focuses on those elements relevant for the purposes of a Charter Statement.

The main Charter-protected rights and freedoms potentially engaged by the proposed measures include:

Part 1 – Income Tax Act

Disability Supports Deduction

Part 1 would amend the Income Tax Act to add to the list of expenses eligible for the Disability Supports Deduction. Additions to the list of eligible expenses include accessibility tools, devices and services for taxpayers with a range of disabilities who incur costs for specific disability supports in order to earn income or to attend school. Deductions would be available, under certain conditions, for the cost of ergonomic work chairs, bed positioning devices, mobile computer carts, alternative input devices for computers, digital pen devices, navigation devices for low vision, memory or organizational aids, and service animals.

In expanding the scope of tax relief for persons with disabilities, the amendments promote the core aims and values underpinning s. 15 of the Charter. The amendments potentially engage section 15 of the Charter given that eligibility with regard to certain expenses is limited to taxpayers with severe and prolonged impairment of physical functions or those with specific disabilities. The following considerations support the consistency of the amendments with section 15 of the Charter. Courts have recognized that governments seeking to address the disadvantage of persons with particular and/or severe disabilities will inevitably have to engage in line-drawing when determining eligibility for a benefit or program, and that this will not generally constitute discrimination unless the exclusions are arbitrary or inconsistent with the overall purpose of the program. The lines drawn in the present context are consistent with the overall purpose of ensuring persons whose disabilities pose significant challenges for workplace and educational advancement have the tools they need to pursue an education and advance their careers.

Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit

Part 1 would amend section 241 of the Income Tax Act to authorize the disclosure of taxpayer information by the Canada Revue Agency to an official of the Department of Natural Resources for the purposes of determining whether a property is a clean electricity property or qualified natural gas energy equipment or whether a system is a qualified natural gas energy system. The proposed amendments would also allow for the sharing of taxpayer information to a person employed or engaged in the service of an office or agency of the Government of Canada for the purposes of administering or enforcing the clean electricity investment tax credit.

Because the amendments would authorize the disclosure of taxpayer information, they have the potential to interfere with privacy interests and may engage section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of these amendments with section 8. The proposed amendments are administrative in nature and would apply in a context where privacy expectations are generally reduced. The purpose of the proposed provisions is to ensure that taxpayer information can be used for purposes closely related to the purposes for which the information was provided, that is, for the administration and enforcement of the Income Tax Act. As such, the proposed powers are similar to existing powers that have been upheld by the courts in the administrative and tax contexts.

Information Sharing with Minister of Employment and Social Development

Part 1 would amend the information sharing provisions of the Income Tax Act and the Excise Tax Act to allow the Canada Revenue Agency to share taxpayer information under the Income Tax Act and confidential information under the Excise Tax Act with Employment and Social Development Canada for the purpose of the administration or enforcement of the Canada Labour Code as it relates to the classification of workers. This would provide Employment and Social Development Canada with access to better information to allow it to more effectively address the issue of driver misclassification in the trucking industry. This occurs when an employee is misclassified as an independent contractor, resulting in the employer not having to comply with certain tax obligations and, by consequence, the employee is deprived of advantages, such as certain benefit and pension entitlements, Because the amendment would authorize the disclosure of taxpayer and confidential information, it has the potential to interfere with privacy interests and may engage section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of this amendment with section 8. The proposed amendments are administrative in nature and would apply in a context where privacy expectations are generally reduced. The purpose of the amendments is to allow taxpayer and confidential information to be used for purposes closely related to the purposes for which the information was provided, that is for the purposes of administering and enforcing the Canada Labour Code with respect to the classification of employees, including determining eligibility for pensions and benefits. The Minister’s authority to disclose this information is discretionary and would be exercised in accordance with the Charter.

Part 5 – Various Measures

Division 1 – High Speed Rail Network Act

Division 1 would enact the High-Speed Rail Network Act (HSRN Act), which establishes a legislative framework to facilitate the implementation of a rail network that allows for the carrying of passengers at high speed between Quebec and Ontario. The enactment, among other things, specifies that Indigenous knowledge that is provided in confidence in relation to the initiative is treated as confidential, and makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act (ATIA).

Canada has publicly committed to consider Indigenous knowledge in the implementation of the rail network by consulting with impacted Indigenous communities throughout the initiative’s process. Subsection 25(1) of the HSRN Act provides that Indigenous knowledge provided in confidence to the Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Works, or VIA HFR-VIA TGF Inc. (the Railway Corporation), in regard to the high-speed rail network, is confidential and must not be disclosed without written consent. As an example, such knowledge could include the location of medicinal plants, or the location of calving grounds. Further, s. 25(2) of the HSRN Act provides that this Indigenous knowledge may be disclosed if it is publicly available, for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice, or for use in legal proceedings.

The ATIA provides a right of access to information under the principle that records under the control of government institutions should be available to the public. This means that confidential Indigenous knowledge that is collected under the HSRN Act may be subject to disclosure under the ATIA. The Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Works, or the Railway Corporation, in order to protect confidential Indigenous knowledge from disclosure, would have to rely, on a case-by-case basis, on the existing exemptions under the ATIA in order to protect confidential Indigenous knowledge from disclosure in response to an ATIA request which would prohibit the disclosure, in response to an ATIA request, of confidential Indigenous knowledge that is obtained under the HSRN Act. Division 1 would also make a consequential amendment to the ATIA.

As discussed above, section 2(b) of the Charter may provide a limited right of access to documents in the possession of the government. The limitations on public disclosure of confidential information by the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works, or the Corporation, have the potential to engage section 2(b) of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of the prohibition restricting disclosure of confidential Indigenous knowledge with section 2(b). First, the statutory prohibition against disclosure under the ATIA would pursue the important objective for the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works, and the Railway Corporation, to assure Indigenous communities that Indigenous knowledge and information provided in confidence, in regard to the high-speed rail network, would be, to a certain extent, protected from disclosure under the ATIA. This would assist in establishing meaningful dialogue between Indigenous communities and Canada throughout the project’s federal regulatory and decision-making process and the project’s development.

Second, the prohibition is within a range of reasonable alternatives available to protect Indigenous knowledge from disclosure, in the undertaking of federal projects. This is supported by similar provisions, which deal with the undertaking of federal projects, where the protection of Indigenous knowledge from disclosure is found.

Finally, the prohibition on disclosure would not be absolute. For example, the Minister of Transport, Minister of Public Works, or the Railway Corporation may disclose confidential Indigenous knowledge, with written consent. In addition, Indigenous knowledge may be disclosed, if the Indigenous knowledge is publicly available, for use in legal proceedings, or if disclosure is for the purposes of procedural fairness and natural justice. For example, in the latter case, Indigenous peoples whose communities may be potentially impacted by the project’s corridor, may have a right to know and respond to the confidential Indigenous knowledge of another Indigenous community to the extent such information is relied upon by a decision-maker when a decision is made.

Division 9 – Consumer-Driven Banking Act

Division 9 would repeal the current Consumer-Driven Banking Act and enact a new Act. The purpose of the Act is to establish a framework where consumers can direct that their data be shared among participating entities of their choice, to ensure that the sharing of data among participating entities is safe and secure, and to foster competition in the financial sector.

The Act would regulate how banks, federal and provincial financial institutions, other financial service providers, and financial technology companies may share consumer financial data, such as chequing, savings, and loan data, amongst other regulated participants when directed to do so by the consumer. The regulation of these activities under the Act would include consideration of any relevant national security concerns in decisions to accredit participating entities, and in their ongoing supervision. The Act will also require participating entities who wish to outsource certain tasks related to consent management, authentication management, and the movement of data, to use an accredited third-party service provider. Participating entities that elect to do so will continue to be liable for their responsibilities under the Act. The responsibility for implementation and oversight of the consumer-driven banking framework will be shifted from the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to the Bank of Canada.

Division 9 would also make related amendments to the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act, the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, and related amendments to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act would be made in Division 23.

Regulatory compliance powers

The proposed new Consumer-Driven Banking Act would authorize routine regulatory compliance powers for the monitoring of regulatory standards. The Act would also provide the authorities required to verify compliance with the Act, as well as any undertakings, terms and conditions, or national security orders issued by the Minister of Finance for reasons related to national security. Regulators would be authorized to require information from regulated entities to access any of their records, to enter their business premises for these purposes and to reproduce any records. Authorized persons would also be able to enter a dwelling-house with a warrant if necessary for compliance and verification purposes. Because all of these powers have the potential to interfere with privacy interests, they may engage section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of these new powers with section 8 of the Charter. There is generally a lower or diminished expectation of privacy in commercial information, especially information required to be produced or maintained in a regulatory context. The regulatory powers would be available for the purpose of verifying compliance and preventing non-compliance with the Act; they would not be available for the purpose of advancing a criminal investigation. In addition, prior judicial authorization would be required to enter a private dwelling-house for regulatory compliance purposes. Any information obtained under the Act would be treated as confidential. As such, the proposed powers are similar to regulatory inspection and requirement powers that have been upheld in other contexts.

Reporting and notification obligations

Participating entities would be required to report to the Bank of Canada certain information, such as any breach of the security safeguards that involves consumer data under the control of the participating entity, with the reporting to include information to be specified in regulations. Entities would also be required to notify consumers of any breaches related to their data if it is reasonable to believe that the breach creates a real risk of significant harm to the consumer. Entities would be required to notify the Bank of Canada of any significant recurring or systemic problem, that may have an impact on the consumer-driven banking system. The compelled disclosure of information has the potential to intrude upon a reasonable expectation of privacy so as to engage section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of the reporting and notification obligations with section 8 of the Charter. The reporting and notification obligations serve regulatory ends, allowing the Bank of Canada to be informed of incidents that may pose a risk to the safety or security of consumers and to take measures to respond to those risks, as well as informing consumers of risks to enable them to take steps to protect themselves and to assert their rights.

Disclosure authorities

The Minister of Finance, the Bank of Canada and designated authorities would be granted the authority to disclose information obtained under the Act that is otherwise confidential to other government authorities or regulatory bodies. This would include, for example, information that applicants for accreditation submit in their applications, such as their names, contact information, addresses, etc., as well as information that the Minister could request from applicants for reasons related to national security. The disclosure of a person’s information may intrude upon their reasonable expectation of privacy so as to engage section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of these disclosure authorities with section 8 of the Charter. Generally, expectations of privacy in a regulatory context are lower or diminished. The disclosure powers would need to be interpreted and applied consistently with the regulatory purposes of the Act as a whole. The authority to disclose would be discretionary, and the discretion would need to be exercised in a reasonable and proportionate manner, balancing relevant Charter values with the purposes of the Act. Disclosure of information could only be provided to entities that agree to keep the information confidential.

Confidential information – obtained under the Act

Subject to the disclosure authorities mentioned above, information obtained under the Act by the Bank of Canada, the Minister of Finance, or a designated person or government authority, including information related to national security, would be confidential and its disclosure prohibited. The disclosure of confidential information would be an offence, punishable by, on conviction on indictment, in the case of an individual, a fine not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not more than five years, or in the case of an entity, a fine of not more than $5,000,000; or on summary conviction, in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or in the case of an entity, a fine of not more than $500,000.

Section 2(b) of the Charter provides that everyone has freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, and includes freedom of the press and other media of communication. Section 2(b) has been broadly interpreted as encompassing any activity or communication, aside from violence or threats of violence, which conveys or attempts to convey meaning. Section 2(b) may provide a limited right of access to documents in the possession of the government. Such access is constitutionally protected only where, without the desired access, meaningful public discussion and criticism on matters of public interest would be substantially impeded. However, even where a case for public access is established, access may be declined based on countervailing considerations, such as if information is protected under privilege or if disclosing the information would impact the proper function of a government institution. Prohibitions on persons’ liberty to communicate information may therefore engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Charter. Because the offence could lead to a term of imprisonment, they also engage the liberty interest under section 7 of the Charter, and so must accord with the principles of fundamental justice.

The following considerations support the consistency with the Charter of the prohibitions on the disclosure of confidential information. The purpose of the prohibition would be to protect the privacy and commercial interests of regulated entities and associated persons, as some of the information could be confidential business information. Prohibiting the disclosure of sensitive information would also help safeguard national security. Conferring confidentiality on information obtained from regulated entities encourages compliance with the regulatory requirements by assuring them that their information will be appropriately treated. The prohibition primarily would apply to officials, who would have obtained knowledge of the confidential information in the course of their official duties. The Minister of Justice has not identified any potential inconsistencies with the principles of fundamental justice under section 7. The offence is routine, necessary for enforcing the objectives of the Act, and tailored to the objective of encouraging compliance with the Act. The offence would not give rise to the possibility of imprisonment in the absence of, at a minimum, negligence on the part of an accused. The provisions would preserve judicial discretion to impose a fit and appropriate sentence in each case.

Confidential information – undertaking and orders

The Minister of Finance would be authorized to require national security-related undertakings, impose terms and conditions and to issue national security-related orders directed at regulated entities, where the Minister is of the opinion that it is necessary to do so for reasons related to national security. The Minister would also be authorized to specify relevant national security-related information as confidential, the disclosure of which would be an offence. The limitations on public disclosure of confidential information have the potential to engage section 2(b) of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency with the Charter of the prohibitions on the disclosure of confidential information. The purpose of the prohibition would be to protect national security. Prohibiting the disclosure of sensitive information helps safeguard national security, as well as the security of the regulated entities in this context. The prohibition primarily would apply to regulated entities and individuals. The Minister would be required to notify the National Security and Intelligence Review Agency and the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians when information is specified as confidential, which would provide a safeguard against any misuse of the authority to prohibit disclosure of confidential information.

Protection of identities of employees

Where an employee of a participating entity or the technical standards body has reasonable grounds to believe that the participating entity, the technical standards body or any individual or entity has committed or intends to engage in a contravention of this Act or the regulations, and reports their concerns to the Bank of Canada, government authority, regulatory body or law enforcement agency, the identity of the employee must be kept confidential as well as any information that could reasonably be expected to reveal their identity. Disclosure of the confidential information related to the identity of the employee would be an offence punishable by, on conviction on indictment, in the case of an individual, a fine not more than $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not more than five years, or in the case of an entity, a fine of not more than $5,000,000; or on summary conviction, in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or in the case of an entity, a fine of not more than $500,000. Prohibitions on persons’ freedom to communicate information may engage freedom of expression in section 2(b) of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency with the Charter of the prohibitions on the disclosure of confidential information. The purpose of the prohibition would be to protect the identity of employees in order to avoid them facing potential negative consequences from their employers related to their disclosure of their employer’s wrongdoing, and in order to encourage them to assist the regulators in their mandate to further the purposes of the Act. Making it an offence to disclose identifying information about the employee would provide some assurance to persons who are well-positioned to witness and understand any non-compliance with the Act that they can come forward without risking their livelihoods or other retribution by their employers.

Offences

A number of regulatory offences would be created for failure to comply with the obligations imposed under the Act, including contravening Ministerial orders and directions related to national security, as well as contravening most provisions of the Act and regulations. Because the offence provisions could lead to a term of imprisonment, they engage the liberty interest under section 7 of the Charter, and so must accord with the principles of fundamental justice.

In reviewing the offence provisions, the Minister of Justice has not identified any potential inconsistencies of the provisions with the principles of fundamental justice under section 7. The offences are routine, necessary for enforcing the objectives of the Act and tailored to the objective of encouraging compliance with Act. None of the offences would give rise to the possibility of imprisonment in the absence of, at a minimum, negligence on the part of an accused. The provisions would preserve judicial discretion to impose a fit and appropriate sentence in each case.

Administrative Monetary Penalties

This Division provides for an administrative monetary penalties regime in the Consumer-Driven Banking Act. Under this administrative monetary penalty regime, the Bank of Canada would be empowered to issue notices of violation and proposed penalty, based on reasonable grounds that a person has committed a violation. Recipients of a notice of violation and penalty would have a right to pay the penalty or make representations with respect to the violation and proposed penalty. If representations are made, the Governor would determine on a balance of probabilities whether the person has committed the violation, and whether to impose the penalty proposed, a lesser penalty, or no penalty. Maximum penalties would be set up to $1,000,000 for violations by an individual and $10,000,000 for regulated entities. Given the possibility of monetary penalties, this could potentially be perceived as impacting section 11 rights.

Section 11 of the Charter guarantees certain rights to persons who have been charged with an offence, including the right to a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial adjudicator. Its protections apply only to persons “charged with an offence”. For the purposes of section 11, this occurs when a person is subject either to proceedings that are criminal in nature, or that result in “true penal consequences”. True penal consequences include imprisonment and fines with a punitive purpose or effect, such as when a fine or penalty is out of proportion to the amount required to achieve regulatory purposes.

The following considerations support the consistency of the above provisions with the Charter. The administrative monetary penalty regime under the Act would not involve criminal charges, prosecution, or sentencing, nor would they provide for imprisonment. The purpose of the penalty would be to promote compliance with the Act or relevant agreements or terms and conditions under the Act, rather than to punish, as that concept is defined for the purpose of section 11 of the Charter. There is no minimum prescribed penalty. If a contravention of non-compliance can proceed either as a violation or as an offence, proceeding in one manner precludes proceeding in the other. In this statutory context, these provisions would not authorize the imposition of a penalty that would have “true penal consequences” for the purpose of section 11.

Division 14 – Legislation Related to Financial Institutions (Powers of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions)

Division 14 would amend the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Bank Act, the Insurance Companies Act, and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to enhance the powers of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions to address threats to the integrity and security of financial institutions. Among other things, the amendments would enable the Superintendent to share otherwise confidential informationwith any federal government agency or body for purposes related to the Superintendent’s regulation of financial institutions, including purposes related to threats to the integrity or security of financial institutions and related to risks to national security. A condition of this sharing, already present in the relevant legislation, would be that the Superintendent would have to be satisfied that the information would be treated as confidential by the agency or body to which it is disclosed. Because the proposed new provisions authorize the sharing of otherwise confidential information, they could be seen as engaging section 8 of the Charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

The following considerations support the consistency of the amendments with section 8. The information in question would only be disclosable for purposes relating to the Superintendent’s duties, in other words for the same purpose for which the information was initially provided. The amendments reflect the reality of the Superintendent’s need to disclose information in the course of cooperating with other federal agencies and bodies, particularly in the areas of integrity and security of institutions, and national security. As mentioned above, the Superintendent would have to be satisfied that the information would be kept confidential by the receiving agency or body as a condition for sharing the information.

Division 18 – Special Economic Measures Act

Division 18 would amend the Special Economic Measures Act (SEMA) by enacting provisions which would empower the Governor in Council to make regulations requiring that a federal financial institution provide information to the Minister of Finance concerning any property in the institution’s possession or control that belongs to a person or state that is subject to a sanctions order under the SEMA, as well as information concerning any profits the federal financial institution itself may have realized from that property. The amendments would also enact provisions authorizing the Minister of Finance to make orders directing a federal financial institution to pay any such profits to the Receiver General for Canada. In support of these measures, the amendments would authorize the collection and disclosure of relevant information among the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Superintendent of Financial Institutions, or the Director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. In addition, the Minister of Finance would be authorized to disclose relevant information to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada and to disclose or request relevant information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Because these amendments involve collection of information which may attract a reasonable expectation of privacy and authorize sharing of information between government institutions, they potentially engage the protection against unreasonable search or seizure under section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of the measures with section 8. Privacy interests are generally diminished in the regulatory and administrative contexts, and the standard to authorize a privacy intrusion for administrative and regulatory purposes is generally lower than the Charter standards that apply for the purpose of investigating criminal offences. The information collection powers are intended to support the proper administration of the SEMA regime by allowing the Minister of Finance to obtain information required to accurately assess federal financial institutions’ holdings of any property belonging to sanctioned persons, and the profits that may have been generated from these holdings. The sharing of information between relevant government institutions is, in turn, necessary to support the administration and enforcement of these authorities. Such information sharing would not displace existing legal frameworks, such as the requirement for law enforcement and national security agencies to use specific lawful authorities, including judicial authorization, where necessary.

Division 21 – Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act

Division 21 would amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to provide authorities to disclose information, including personal information, for the administration and management of disability benefits. The proposed authority would permit the Minister as defined in subsection 3(1) of the Pension Act, the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, and the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), to disclose information to each other for the purpose of the administration of disability benefits. It would also allow the same Ministers to disclose information for the purpose of the internal administration and management of the RCMP.

The disclosure of information between listed Ministers and the Commissioner of the RCMP, which could include personal information, has the potential to engage section 8 of the Charter. The following considerations support the consistency of the proposed amendments with section 8. Privacy interests are diminished in the regulatory and administrative contexts. The disclosure of personal information would be limited to the information required for the purpose of managing disability benefits, and for the administration and management of RCMP members. The information would have already been disclosed to the government and so privacy expectations would be reduced. As such, the proposed authorities are similar to existing ones that have been upheld by the courts in the administrative and regulatory contexts.

Division 22 – Canada Development Investment Corporation Act

Division 22 would enact the Canada Development Investment Corporation Act. This Act would continue the Canada Development Investment Corporation, setting out the purpose of the Corporation as assisting in the creation and development of businesses, resources, properties and industries of Canada. The Corporation would be obligated to operate in a commercial manner. The Act would, among other things, provide that information obtained by the Corporation, or its subsidiaries, in relation to entities in which they hold investments is privileged and prohibited from disclosure except in specified circumstances. Circumstances would include disclosure for the administration of the Act, legal proceedings, regulatory and tax purposes, or with consent. This requirement would also be reflected in a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act. Since these provisions would restrict access to information in the hands of a government institution, they have the potential to engage the freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of these provisions with the Charter. The Corporation, which is required to operate commercially, needs to maintain the ability to preserve the confidentiality of commercial information in the course of its business dealings, as other commercial entities are able to do. Preserving the confidentiality of commercial information enables the Corporation to engage in business negotiations on a level playing field, and to maintain the trust of business partners. The provisions would not limit the ability to report on matters of public interest, but would reflect the reality of the necessity of confidentiality in business dealings.

Division 25 – Human Pathogens and Toxins Act

The Human Pathogens and Toxins Act (HPTA) establishes a safety and security regime to protect the health and safety of the public against the risks posed by human pathogens and toxins. It does so by creating a range of obligations, including a licensing requirement, for persons carrying out controlled activities in relation to these biological agents. The HPTA defines a “human pathogen” as a micro-organism, nucleic acid or protein that is either listed in one of the specified schedules to the Act or that is not listed but that falls into one of the defined Risk Groups, which establish categories of human pathogens based on the risk they pose to individual or public health. The definition of “toxin” is limited to scheduled substances (generally, substances produced by or derived from a micro-organism that are able to cause disease in a human).

Division 25 would amend the HPTA by providing for the creation by the Minister of Health of a publicly accessible registry of toxins and human pathogens. The registry would replace existing schedules to the HPTA that list toxins and human pathogens in respect of which controlled activities may be conducted pursuant to a licence under the Act. The bill would preserve the existing schedule that lists prohibited human pathogens and toxins in respect of which no activities are permitted. The definition of “human pathogen” would be amended to include biological agents that are listed in the registry (in addition to those that are listed in the schedule, or agents that are not listed in either the registry or the schedule but that fall into one of the defined Risk Groups). The definition of “toxin” would be amended to include: (a) substances that may or may not be listed in the registry and that pose a moderate to high risk to the health of individuals; (b) substances that are listed in the registry and pose a moderate to high risk to the health, safety or security of the public due to a reasonable risk of intentional use as a biological weapon, along with the minimum quantity at which they pose such a risk; or (c) substances that are listed in the schedule.

The HPTA creates a number of offences for failure to comply with the obligations that apply to persons carrying out controlled activities in respect of human pathogens and toxins. The bill would re-enact existing offences with minor amendments, enact some new offences and would increase the maximum penalties that apply to existing offences. Because the offence provisions could lead to a term of imprisonment, they engage the liberty interest under section 7 of the Charter, and so must accord with the principles of fundamental justice.

In reviewing the offence provisions, the Minister has not identified any potential inconsistencies of the provisions with the principles of fundamental justice under section 7. The offences are rationally tailored to the legislative objective of protecting the health, safety, and security of the public against the risks posed by human pathogens and toxins. The obligations under the HPTA apply only to biological agents that pose at least a moderate risk to the health of individuals or to the health, safety or security of the public. Substances that may not pose a risk to individual health but that pose a moderate to high risk to the health, safety or security of the public due to a reasonable risk of intentional use as a biological weapon would only be captured by the definition of “toxin” if they are listed in the publicly accessible registry along with the minimum quantity at which they pose such a risk. None of the offences would give rise to the possibility of imprisonment in the absence of, at a minimum, negligence on the part of the accused. For human pathogens or toxins that are listed in the registry, a person could not be convicted of an offence in relation to that pathogen or toxin unless it was proved that the registry and the relevant information regarding the pathogen or toxin were reasonably accessible to the person at the time of the alleged contravention.

Powers to collect information (section 8 of the Charter)

The HPTA includes a number of provisions authorizing the collection of information for regulatory purposes, similar to authorities found in other federal statutes. These include the power to enter and carry out inspections in places where the inspector believes on reasonable grounds that regulated activities are taking place or where documents, material or equipment relevant to the administration or enforcement of the Act are located, as well as the power to require regulated parties to provide information to the Minister of Health. The HPTA also obligates licence holders to notify the Minister and provide specified information in circumstances where they have reason to believe that: a human pathogen or toxin has been inadvertently released or produced in the course of an activity authorized by the licence; an incident involving a human pathogen or toxin in their possession has caused or may have caused disease in an individual; or a human pathogen or toxin in their possession has been stolen or is otherwise missing.

Division 25 would re-enact the inspection and requirement powers with minor amendments to clarify their scope. It would also enact a new authority to require prescribed information about foreign control, influence or ownership from licence applicants and holders that handle higher risk biological agents. The bill would amend the notification obligation to change the threshold on which the obligation is triggered from “reason to believe” to “reasonable grounds to suspect.” It would also add a new obligation to notify the Minister of prescribed incidents involving higher risk human pathogens and toxins. Because the inspection, requirement and notification provisions have the potential to interfere with privacy interests, they may engage rights under section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of these provisions with section 8. The inspection and requirement powers would not be available for the purpose of advancing a penal investigation. Rather, these powers would be available for the purpose of verifying compliance and preventing non-compliance with the Act, in a regulatory context where privacy expectations are diminished. As such, the proposed powers are similar to regulatory inspection powers that have been upheld in other contexts. The notification obligations similarly serve regulatory ends, allowing the Minister to be informed of incidents that may pose a risk to the health, safety or security of the public and to take measures to respond to those risks.

Administrative Monetary Penalties (section 11 of the Charter)

Division 25 would establish an administrative monetary penalties regime for certain breaches of the HPTA. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has violated prescribed provisions of the Act, an individual designated by the Minister of Health for this purpose would be empowered to issue a notice of violation. The person named in the notice of violation would have the right to request a review of the decision that they have committed a violation, of the penalty imposed, or both. The Governor in Council would be empowered to make regulations respecting, among other things, the designation of non-compliance with certain provisions as violations and the determination of penalties within limits the bill imposes. Given the possibility of substantial monetary penalties, the new provisions could potentially be perceived as impacting section 11 Charter rights.

The following considerations support the consistency of the provisions with the Charter. The process leading to the imposition of a monetary penalty would be administrative in nature. The purpose of imposing a penalty would be to promote conduct that complies with the provisions of the Act, rather than to punish, as that concept is defined for the purpose of section 11 of the Charter. The penalties would be subject to a legislated cap of $50,000 for individuals for each violation of the Act and $250,000 in the case of an entity, with no mandatory minimum penalty. As an alternative to paying a penalty over $5000, a person could request to enter into a compliance agreement, with terms acceptable to the Minister, which could include reducing the penalty in whole or in part. The imposition of administrative monetary penalties under the proposed regime would not give rise to “true penal consequences” for the purpose of section 11 of the Charter.

Division 28 – Aeronautics Act

Offences

Division 28 would amend the existing offence provisions under the Aeronautics Act to increase the maximum fines upon summary conviction to $150,000 for an individual, and $1,500,000 for a corporation. For the Air Navigation Systems (ANS) Corporation, the maximum fine for contravening an order by the Minister of Transport to maintain or increase the level of civil air navigation services it provides would be increased to $1,500,000 for each day or part of a day that the offence continues.

In addition, amendments would expand the existing vicarious liability provisions to provide that air traffic service providers and certain maintenance organizations may also be found vicariously liable for offences or violations committed by an employee, agent or mandatary under the Act. Under the provisions, a person would not be found guilty of an offence if they establish that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence. Further, imprisonment cannot be imposed as punishment if a person is found vicariously liable for an offence, or in default of payment of any fine imposed as punishment in relation to the offence. A person being found liable for the actions of employees, agents and mandataries could be perceived as engaging section 11(d) of the Charter, which protects the presumption of innocence.

The following considerations support the consistency of the offences with section 11(d). The offences are regulatory in nature, as opposed to “true crimes,” and are not punishable by imprisonment. While a person could be liable for the actions of an employee, agent or mandatary, they are able to raise as a defence that they exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

The amendments would also create a new prohibition on interfering with the operation of a remotely-piloted aircraft system, unless authorized by the Minister. Because a contravention of this prohibition would be subject to existing offence provisions and penalties under the Act, and could therefore be punishable by imprisonment, it could engage the right to liberty under section 7 of the Charter.

In reviewing the relevant provisions, the Minister of Justice has not identified any potential inconsistencies between the offence provisions and the principles of fundamental justice under section 7. The scope of the offence is tailored to its objective of reducing an aviation safety risk that could result in injury or damages, and upon conviction a judge will have discretion to impose a fit and appropriate sentence. Due diligence in seeking to prevent the contravention would also be an available defence.

Administrative Monetary Penalties

Amendments would modernize the existing administrative monetary penalty scheme under the Act. Under the scheme, the Governor in Council may make regulations designating provisions that a contravention of which may be proceeded with as a violation, and for which the administrative monetary penalty scheme would apply. If a contravention of a provision is proceeded with as a violation, the scheme would preclude prosecuting that contravention as an offence, and vice-versa.

In particular, the amendments would introduce a new option for persons served with a notice of violation to request to enter into a compliance agreement with the Minister to ensure the person’s compliance with the provision for which the violation relates. The amendments would also increase the maximum amount of administrative monetary penalties to $150,000 in the case of an individual, and $1,500,000 in the case of a corporation. Given the possibility of substantial monetary penalties, the amendments could potentially be perceived as impacting section 11 rights.

The following considerations support the consistency of the provisions with the Charter. The proceedings leading to the imposition of a monetary penalty would be administrative in nature. The administrative monetary penalties would not be subject to a mandatory minimum fine. Further, as an alternative to paying the penalty, an individual could request to enter into a compliance agreement, with terms set by the Minister, which could include reducing the penalty in part or in whole. In this context, the provisions would not give rise to “true penal consequences” for the purpose of section 11 of the Charter.

Information-Sharing

Amendments would establish a new regime for the voluntary provision of information related to aviation safety and security and set out limits on the disclosure and use of information.

The regime would provide the Minister with the power to establish and administer programs under which a person or organization may provide information related to aviation safety or security, and enter into arrangements or agreements with a person or organization for the provision of information for such purposes. Further, the provisions would provide that information obtained by the Minister under a program, arrangement, or agreement is confidential and must not be disclosed, subject to certain exceptions. These exceptions include circumstances where: the information is required under the Act; the information was obtained by means other than a program, arrangement or agreement; the information relates to a contravention under the Act, in certain circumstances; disclosure is authorized by another source of legal authority, such as another law, a warrant, or a subpoena; or disclosure is consented to in writing. The provisions would also set out similar exceptions under which information could be used against a person who provided it in proceedings in respect of a contravention under the Act.

The proposed provisions allowing for the collection and disclosure of information relating to aviation safety or security, which could include commercially sensitive or personal information, could potentially engage section 8 of the Charter. The following considerations support the consistency of the provisions with section 8 of the Charter. Privacy interests are diminished in the regulatory and administrative contexts. The information obtained under a program, arrangement or agreement established under the authority would be provided voluntarily to the Minister and used for the purpose of improving aeronautical safety and security. Further, the proposed provisions would require that information obtained from such programs, arrangements or agreements be kept confidential and not be disclosed except in limited circumstances. As such, the proposed powers are similar to existing powers that have been upheld by the courts in the administrative and regulatory contexts.

Division 37 – Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act – Various Measures

Division 37 would make a number of technical amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations (Regulations), as well as a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act. The Regulations obligate Reporting Entities such as banks and other financial institutions to take steps to determine the beneficial ownership of clients that are legal entities, such as corporations, trusts and partnerships. Beneficial owners are those with significant ownership or control over a legal entity. This helps ensure that Reporting Entities know who their clients are, which in turn helps in detecting and deterring money laundering. The Regulations also obligate Reporting Entities to send a report to the Director appointed under the Canada Business Corporations Act when, in the course of this verification, they discover any discrepancies (for example, inconsistent, false or misleading information).

Among other things, the amendments would prohibit the disclosure by government institutions or agencies of reports and information related to discrepancies discovered by Reporting Entities (such as banks) in the course of determining beneficial ownership or control of an entity, with exceptions for disclosure to certain government agencies, as well as entities that may be prescribed by regulation. Since these amendments would prohibit the disclosure of information by government, and so limit access to information, they have the potential to engage the right to freedom of expression guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of the amendments with the Charter. The amendments are intended to complement the requirement under the Regulations to report discrepancies discovered in the course of verification of beneficial ownership to the Director appointed under the Canada Business Corporations Act. These amendments in turn serve to help detect entities that are obscuring their beneficial ownership, a tactic used not only in money laundering and terrorist financing, but also in fraud, tax evasion and sanctions evasion. These reports, like other reports under the PCMLTFA, can contain sensitive commercial and financial information. Maintaining their confidentiality helps to preserve the privacy and commercial interests of persons and entities who participate in the financial system. In addition, since these reports can reveal concerns about criminality, their disclosure outside government could risk “tipping off” entities that have been the subject of a report. Maintaining the confidentiality of private information that is in the hands of government does not limit the ability to report on matters of public interest, but rather is a privacy-protective measure similar to other limitations on the disclosure of private information obtained by government in other Acts.

Division 43 – Competition Act

Division 43 would amend, by reenacting, s. 74.01(1)(b.2) of the Competition Act. This provision requires that businesses substantiate any public claims of the business or business activity’s environmental benefits. The proposed amended version of s. 74.01(1)(b.2) would make the standards for that substantiation more flexible by no longer requiring public claims are substantiated in accordance with internationally recognized methodology.

Consumers who consider the environment in their spending choices usually have limited information on a business and are not in positions to evaluate the truthfulness of an environmental claim. As a result, consumers must often take those claims on faith. The Competition Act prohibits businesses from making false or misleading claims in order to promote a product, service, or business interest. Section 74.01(1)(b.2) of the Act aims to combat deceptive marketing practices including “greenwashing,” the practice of using unsupported claims of environmental protection, restoration, or mitigation of the causes and effects of climate change.

The proposed amendment would likely engage the right to freedom of expression protected under section 2(b) of the Charter. Section 2(b) generally extends to advertising and other expression that is done for commercial purposes, including commercial expression by corporations and individuals. The following considerations support the consistency of the provision with section 2(b) of the Charter.

The restrictions on expression have the aim of protecting consumers from misleading or false information and deceptive marketing tactics. This type of commercial expression does not usually implicate the core values of the Charter right, which include the search for political, artistic and scientific truth, the protection of individual autonomy and self-development, and the promotion of public participation in the democratic process. Limits on expression that do not engage the core values of the right are more easily justified.

The objective of this provision is to protect consumers, and the functioning of the market, from harm caused by false or misleading advertising about a business or business activity’s alleged benefits to the environment. Such misrepresentations can undermine consumer confidence and impede fair competition between businesses who target consumers that prioritize environmental concerns. The provision is reasonably tailored so that it does not prohibit businesses from making environmental claims altogether, but only those that are not adequately substantiated, and only in the context of promoting a business or business activity. By no longer requiring the use of an internationally recognized methodology to substantiate claims of the environmental benefits of a business or business activity, the amendment would allow for a more flexible approach for businesses to defend their claims by demonstrating that they are supported by adequate evidence.

Division 45 – Stablecoin Act

Division 45 would enact the Stablecoin Act, which imposes duties on persons that create a stablecoin--—a type of digital asset designed to maintain a stable value relative to a traditional currency—and make it available for purchase, directly or indirectly, to persons in Canada. The Act would establish a new framework to regulate the issuance of stablecoins, making them safer for Canadians and businesses and helping build trust in digital payments. The Act would require the Bank of Canada (Bank) to maintain a public registry of stablecoin issuers and would also make rules regarding the redemption of stablecoin by issuers, the reserve of assets issuers must maintain and the policies they must establish, including in relation to governance, risk management and data security. The Act would introduce national security safeguards that provide the Minister of Finance with authority to refuse the application of a stablecoin issuer based on reasons related to national security. The Minister could also impose conditions, require an undertaking, or issue orders to mitigate risks, if appropriate.

The Act would also make consequential amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and related amendments to the Retail Payment Activities Act.

Information collection and disclosure powers

The proposed Act would require stablecoin issuers to be registered with the Bank before issuing stablecoins. Applicants would need to provide certain information including with respect to ownership, structure, and descriptions of their technological systems, as well as any further information requested by the Bank or provided for in regulations. Issuers would also be required to submit a report to the Bank, in accordance with the regulations, containing information including about the issuer’s financial condition, the number of outstanding stablecoin, the composition of the reserve of the assets and their fair market value. The issuer would also be required to make this report publicly available on its website. In addition, the Act would provide the Bank with the power to request any information from an applicant or an issuer that it considers necessary for verifying compliance with the Act or carrying out the Bank’s objects under the Act. The Act would also allow the Minister of Finance to request from any person any information that the Minister considers necessary for the exercise of the Minister’s powers, duties and functions under the Act. Information collected under the Act would be confidential, with disclosure and use of confidential information allowed only in specified circumstances. The proposed measures to collect, disclose and/or use information potentially engage section 8 of the Charter.

The following considerations support the consistency of these measures with section 8. Privacy interests are generally diminished in the regulatory and administrative contexts, and the standard to authorize a privacy intrusion for administrative and regulatory purposes is generally lower than the Charter standards that apply for the purpose of investigating offences. The powers to collect information are intended to support the proper administration of the regime, including verifying regulatory compliance. Both the Bank and Minister must treat any information collected under the Act as confidential, with disclosure only permitted in limited circumstances. The information that would be liable to disclosure would have already been disclosed to the government and so privacy expectations would be reduced in relation to other government uses, for example sharing information with the Senior Advisory Committee, a discussion forum of federal financial sector regulators.

Administrative monetary penalties

The Stablecoin Act would establish administrative monetary penalties where a person fails to fulfill certain requirements of the Act. Such penalties could be imposed by the Bank where it believes on reasonable grounds that a person has committed a violation of the Act. Given the possibility of substantial monetary penalties, the new provisions could potentially be perceived as impacting section 11 Charter rights.

The following considerations support the consistency of the provisions with the Charter. The process leading to the imposition of a monetary penalty would be administrative in nature. The purpose of imposing a penalty would be to promote conduct that complies with the purposes of the relevant portions of the Act, rather than to punish. In this context, the imposition of a penalty would not give rise to “true penal consequences” for the purpose of section 11 of the Charter.

Restrictions on communication

The Stablecoin Act would prohibit issuers from communicating false or misleading information to the public, as well as from representing a stablecoin in a manner to suggest that the stablecoin is legal tender, a deposit or proof of a deposit or insured under a public deposit insurance system or guaranteed by a government. The Act would also prohibit stablecoin issuers from using certain terms, expressions or illustrations in the sale of stablecoins, as specified in the regulations. The proposed measures would potentially engage section 2(b) of the Charter since they would impose restrictions on commercial expression.

The following considerations would support the consistency of the provisions with section 2(b) of the Charter. The restrictions on expression are aimed at protecting consumers from misleading or false information and deceptive marketing tactics. This type of commercial expression has a lower value compared to other forms of protected expression, because it generally lies further from the core of the right, which includes the search for political, artistic and scientific truth, the protection of individual autonomy and self-development, and the promotion of public participation in the democratic process. The fact that the expression is commercial in nature is a relevant factor in determining whether any limits on that expression are justifiable under the Charter. The regulations specifying which terms, expressions or illustrations are prohibited by the Act would also have to be justifiable limits on expression in order for the prohibition itself to be consistent with the Charter.