Bill S-7 · 45th Parliament · Mark Carney
Cutting Red Tape for All Canadians Act
An Act to modernize certain regulatory and administrative processes
Government bill, sponsored by Pierre Moreau (Senator). Still before Parliament.
- IntroducedOct. 6, 2026
- Debated in principleNot reached
- Studied by a committeeNot reached
- Passed its first chamberNot reached
- Passed the second chamberNot reached
- Became lawNot reached
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Mark CarneyPrime Minister
- Pierre MoreauSenator
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 7 October 2026, Sen. Pierre Moreau introduced Bill S-7, An Act to modernize certain regulatory and administrative processes (Cutting Red Tape for All Canadians Act) in the Senate and it was given first reading. Division 1 of Part 1 amends the Agricultural Products Marketing Act to, among other things, (a) provide that powers are delegated to a marketing board in relation to the marketing of an agricultural product in interprovincial or export trade by virtue of being named in the schedule to that Act, rather than by Order in Council; (b) provide that the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is responsible for the delegation of those powers; (c) delegate powers in relation to the marketing of agricultural products to administrative bodies; (d) provide for limitations and exceptions that were previously set out in orders and regulations made under that Act with respect to the exercise of the delegated powers; and (e) require marketing boards and administrative bodies to make accessible to the persons with respect to which they exercise their delegated powers the requirements or other measures they establish in the exercise of those powers. It also repeals certain orders and regul…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
Only laws are compared, introduced against passed.
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes precise numerical limits and defined terms with repeated grants of ministerial discretion over electronic systems and compliance conditions. Subjective phrases such as 'considers appropriate' and 'reasonable grounds' recur across multiple divisions.
Open to argument
“by any other means that it considers appropriate”
Leaves the choice of non-internet publication entirely to the board's subjective judgment without objective criteria.“on any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate”
Gives the Minister open-ended power to set compliance-agreement terms without statutory bounds.“believes on reasonable grounds”
Uses a fact-specific but ultimately subjective standard that invites argument over what an inspector must have known.
Clear-cut
“The maximum penalty for a violation is $25,000, in the case of an individual, and $250,000, in any other case.”
Supplies fixed dollar amounts that leave no room for interpretive dispute.“within, but not later than, 12 months after the day on which the Minister becomes aware”
States an exact, calendar-based limitation period.“person means an individual, corporation, partnership, trust, joint venture or unincorporated association or organization”
Provides an exhaustive statutory definition rather than relying on common-law meaning.
Discretion. Ministers and the President may choose electronic systems, set conditions for compliance agreements, decide when electronic filing is mandatory, and determine what documents satisfy reporting duties.
Challenging the law itself. Broad discretion and undefined 'electronic means' could support a vagueness or overbreadth argument under Charter s. 7, though the core electronic-authorization provisions are unlikely to be struck down.
Disputing a charge under it. A person can readily dispute whether an inspector had 'reasonable grounds' or whether the Minister's chosen electronic format was properly specified, but fixed penalty amounts and limitation periods are hard to contest.
Read by a language model from the as introduced text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
Only laws in force for two years or more are checked.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.