Bill C-15 Part 5 Section 6

Read Full Bill Text Here

ON THIS PAGE

5 Bill C-15 Division Summaries with Vote Questions. Read each summary. Then vote below.

  • Division 20: Earnings Loss Benefit
  • Division 21: RCMP Superannuation
  • Division 22: CDIC
  • Division 23: Personal Info Protection
  • Division 24: Basic Pension Accommodation

DIVISION 20 Earnings Loss Benefit Veterans Well-being Regulations — ss. 376–379

WHAT THE BILL SAYS

Division 20 makes retroactive corrections to how the first annual adjustment to the earnings loss benefit is calculated for veterans and Canadian Armed Forces members — and adds a regulation-making power to address the pre-2019 benefit framework.

First adjustment proration — military salary (s. 376) Adds a rule that the first annual adjustment to a member or veteran's monthly military salary is prorated to the number of days remaining in the calendar year from the day after release, completion of reserve service, or death — deemed in force at four different dates:

  • April 1, 2006 — initial rule for regular force and Class C Reserve
  • October 3, 2011 — extended to Class B Reserve Service over 180 days
  • April 1, 2015 — extended to all Class A, B and C Reserve Service
  • April 1, 2019 — subsections repealed (superseded by subsequent framework)

First adjustment proration — earnings loss benefit variables (s. 377) The same proration logic is applied to Variables A and B in the earnings loss benefit calculation and to the benefit amounts under ss. 23(1) and 23(3) of the Veterans Well-being Act — deemed in force April 1, 2006, repealed April 1, 2019

Regulation-making power (s. 378) The Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the earnings loss benefit as it read before April 1, 2019 — with retroactive effect if the regulations so provide

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

When a veteran starts receiving the earnings loss benefit partway through a year, the first annual adjustment was supposed to be prorated — you only get the portion of the adjustment that covers the days left in that calendar year. Division 20 retroactively confirms that rule was always in effect, going back to April 1, 2006.

This is a technical correction that rewrites the regulatory record across four time periods — each deemed to have been in force on the date it should have applied. The regulation-making power adds a further backstop to address anything the deemed provisions don't cover for the pre-2019 benefit structure.

⚠️ No independent audit mechanism exists to verify whether veterans were underpaid or overpaid under the original earnings loss benefit calculation — and the Governor in Council can rewrite the rules again by regulation alone, with retroactive effect, at any time.

See also: Division 19 — the same structural gap applies to basic pension corrections going back to 1985.

DIVISION 21 Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act — ss. 380–385

WHAT THE BILL SAYS

Division 21 makes targeted amendments to the RCMP Superannuation Act governing disability awards and claims processing for RCMP members deployed in elevated-risk conditions:

Elevated risk deployment criteria (s. 380) Replaces the English version of s. 32.12(1)(c) — the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness determines whether a deployment has exposed or may expose members to conditions of elevated risk; the addition of "may expose" extends the trigger to prospective risk, not just confirmed past exposure

Claims processing — transfer to Veterans Affairs (s. 381) Replaces s. 32.2 — all claims for awards under Part II of the RCMP Superannuation Act are now dealt with and determined by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (as defined in the Pension Act), applying Pension Act procedures and provisions with necessary modifications

Retroactive authorization — claims (s. 383) The Minister of Veterans Affairs is retroactively authorized to have dealt with and determined all Part II claims made before Royal Assent — validating all prior decisions made under the new framework before it was formally enacted

Retroactive authorization — information disclosure (s. 384) Any information disclosure that occurred before Royal Assent that would be authorized under s. 32.3 of the Act is retroactively authorized — validating prior disclosures

Terminology alignment (s. 385) When both this Division and s. 112 of the Public Complaints and Review Commission Act are in force, references to "Force" in the English version are replaced with "RCMP"

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Division 21 formally transfers RCMP disability award claims to the Veterans Affairs Minister and Pension Act process — and retroactively validates everything that was already done under that arrangement before the law caught up. Claims processed, decisions made and information disclosed before Royal Assent are all deemed authorized.

The elevated risk trigger is also quietly expanded: a deployment qualifies not just when risk has been confirmed, but when the Minister believes risk may exist — a lower and more subjective threshold.

⚠️ The retroactive authorization doesn't acknowledge a gap in legal authority — it erases it. In law, there was no unauthorized period. The decisions were always valid. The disclosures were always lawful. The record simply reflects that now.

DIVISION 22 Canada Development Investment Corporation Act New Act · Access to Information Act — ss. 386–388

WHAT THE BILL SAYS

Division 22 enacts a standalone statute for the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDEV) — replacing its existing incorporation under the Canada Business Corporations Act with a dedicated federal Act — and continues all existing rights, obligations and personnel without interruption.

Continuation and status (ss. 5–9) CDEV is continued as a federal Crown corporation, remaining an agent of His Majesty in right of Canada, headquartered in Toronto unless the Governor in Council orders otherwise, with the full capacity of a natural person

Mandate (ss. 10–11) CDEV's mandate is to assist in the creation and development of businesses, resources, property and industries of Canada — conducted in a commercial manner and in the best interests of Canada. Activities include: advising the Government of Canada on financial, commercial, economic and strategic matters; investing in entities owning property or carrying on business related to Canada's economic interests; investing in ventures likely to benefit Canada; managing and disposing of assets assigned by the Government; and performing duties required by other Acts

Governance (ss. 12–14)

  • Board: chairperson, CEO and 2–10 other directors
  • Directors appointed by the designated Minister with Governor in Council approval for up to four-year terms
  • Chairperson and CEO appointed by the Governor in Council
  • Governor in Council may terminate any director at any time
  • Directors and employees deemed federal public servants for compensation and aeronautics purposes

Powers and restrictions (ss. 15–21)

  • Financial Administration Act s. 91 does not apply to CDEV or its wholly-owned subsidiaries
  • Subsidiary incorporation, dissolution, amalgamation and share transactions require the designated Minister's concurrence
  • CDEV may give guarantees on terms set by the Finance Minister
  • Entities acquired through security realization or insolvency proceedings are deemed not to be wholly-owned subsidiaries for 180 days
  • Investment information held by CDEV about non-wholly-owned investees is privileged — disclosure permitted only for Act administration, criminal prosecution, tax administration or with written consent

Capital and financing (ss. 22–23)

  • Authorized capital set by the Finance Minister in $100 par value shares — held in trust for the Crown, non-transferable
  • Finance Minister may lend to CDEV from the Consolidated Revenue Fund on terms the Minister fixes

Transitional provisions (ss. 24–28)

  • All property, rights, obligations, contracts, proceedings and by-laws of the former CDEV carry over to the new corporation
  • Existing directors continue in office for the remainder of their terms
  • Section 8 (Crown contracting) and s. 17(2) (guarantee exclusions) are deemed to have applied to a specific subsidiary as of December 16, 2024 — retroactively

Access to Information (s. 387) CDEV's new Act is added to Schedule II of the Access to Information Act — with only s. 21 (privileged investment information) listed as the applicable exemption provision

Coming into force (s. 388) Fixed by order of the Governor in Council — no set date

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

CDEV — the Crown corporation that has managed federal investments in Trans Mountain, Ridley Terminals and other strategic assets — gets its own Act of Parliament for the first time. Previously incorporated under general corporate law, it is now a purpose-built federal entity with a statutory mandate to invest in Canada's economic interests, advise the government on strategic matters and manage assets assigned to it by Cabinet.

The Finance Minister sets its capital, can lend it money from the public purse, and sets the terms on any guarantees it issues. The Governor in Council appoints and can remove its leadership at any time.

Investment information CDEV holds about companies it has stakes in is legally privileged — with narrow disclosure exceptions. Only s. 21 of the new Act is listed under Access to Information, meaning most of CDEV's operations are shielded from ATI requests.

The Governor in Council decides when all of this takes effect.

⚠️ The retroactive application of s. 8 and s. 17(2) to a specific subsidiary as of December 16, 2024 — before this Act existed — follows the same pattern as Division 21. A named entity was retroactively brought under rules that had no legal force when they were applied.

DIVISION 23 Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act PIPEDA (2000, c. 5) — ss. 389–398

WHAT THE BILL SAYS

Division 23 adds a new data mobility framework to PIPEDA — giving individuals the right to have their personal information transferred between organizations — and extends all existing PIPEDA enforcement mechanisms to cover the new framework.

New Division 1.2 — Mobility of Personal Information (s. 389)

Data mobility right (s. 10.4): On an individual's request, an organization must disclose that individual's personal information to another organization designated by the individual — as soon as feasible — provided both organizations are subject to a data mobility framework

Regulation-making power (s. 10.5): The Governor in Council may, after consulting the Privacy Commissioner, make regulations covering: required security safeguards for disclosure and collection, technical interoperability standards, which organizations are subject to a data mobility framework, and exceptions to the disclosure requirement including protection of proprietary or confidential commercial information

Regulatory flexibility (s. 10.6): Regulations may distinguish among different classes of activities, information or organizations

Enforcement extensions (ss. 390–397) All existing PIPEDA enforcement tools are extended to cover Division 1.2 contraventions:

  • Complaints to the Privacy Commissioner (s. 390)
  • Court applications after Commissioner reports (s. 391)
  • Court orders to correct practices (s. 392)
  • Compliance agreements with the Commissioner (s. 393)
  • Commissioner audit powers (s. 394)
  • Organizational code of practice development (s. 395)
  • Whistleblower reporting to the Commissioner (s. 396)
  • Employee whistleblower protections (s. 397)

Coming into force (s. 398) Fixed by order of the Governor in Council — no set date

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Division 23 creates a "data portability" right in Canadian federal privacy law — the right to tell a company to send your personal data to another company you choose. Think: asking your bank to send your transaction history directly to a new financial app, or your telecom to transfer your account data to a competitor.

The right exists in the statute. But which organizations it applies to, what security standards they must meet, and what exceptions apply are all set by Cabinet regulation — with only a consultation requirement for the Privacy Commissioner, not approval. The Governor in Council also decides when any of this takes effect.

The Privacy Commissioner gets full enforcement authority over the new framework — complaints, audits, compliance agreements and court applications all apply. Whistleblower protections cover employees who report violations.

DIVISION 24 Broadcasting Act Broadcasting Act (1991, c. 11) — s. 399

WHAT THE BILL SAYS

A single clause — s. 399 — replaces paragraphs 2(3)(b) and (c) of the Broadcasting Act, which set out interpretive principles that apply to the Act's policy objectives.

The replacement text adds two principles:

  • (b) the right to privacy of individuals is to be considered in interpreting the Act
  • (c) the Government of Canada's commitment to enhance the vitality of official language minority communities, support their development taking into account their uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions, and foster the full recognition and use of both English and French in Canadian society

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

Two new interpretive lenses are added to the Broadcasting Act: privacy rights and official language minority community support. These aren't operational rules — they're principles that shape how the Act is read and applied by the CRTC and courts.

The official languages addition is notably more detailed than the privacy addition — specifying uniqueness, diversity and historical and cultural contributions as factors to consider. The privacy right is stated simply, with no elaboration on scope or limits.

Neither change creates a new enforceable right on its own — but both can be used to interpret CRTC decisions and broadcasting policy going forward.

⚠️ The two new principles are not treated equally. Privacy gets one plain sentence — no definition, no scope, no limits. The official languages commitment gets a detailed list of factors: uniqueness, diversity, historical contributions, cultural contributions, full recognition of both languages. When the CRTC or a court has to weigh these principles against each other, the more detailed one has more to work with. Privacy, as written, brings less to the table.