Finance Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Let's go off that. You said they have a safeguard. Does the safeguard help to prevent a company like Brookfield from being awarded a contract and being exempt from the Conflict of Interest Act? Answer yes or no.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, as I was trying to explain to Canadians, there are a number of safeguards in the act. For example—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Does the safeguard include conflict of interest, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, as I said, I feel there are some who are more interested in the question than the answer, but Canadians would rather hear the answer sometimes.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Minister, it is very concerning that you can't answer this.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I don't like doing points of order like this. However, again, he's trying to answer—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Could you refer to which—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

It's on decorum. How's that? He's trying to answer. We can't hear an answer.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fragiskatos.

Mr. Hallan, you may continue.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

I have another example, Minister. In 2022, when you were the industry minister, you used the national security review provisions of the Investment Canada Act to order Chinese investors to divest holdings in Canadian mining companies. Now your government is cozying up to the Communist regime in Beijing.

I have a very clear question here. If these powers get passed, does that not give a minister power to exempt Chinese investors from the national security review in the Investment Canada Act, letting them buy up holdings in Canada's critical minerals, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, it is the responsibility of any government to protect the national security of Canada and the national economic security of the country.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Will these powers that you're trying to get not exempt any Chinese company from the Investment Canada Act, yes or no?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Chair, let me go back to the limitations that are included.

Again, Canadians would be surprised. What the Conservatives are trying to portray is an instrument that is being used by just about every G7 country and OECD country in the world, because innovators want to have sandboxes. However, you need to have guardrails and safeguards. That's why the act provides for time limits for the exemption. The exemption needs to be in the public interest. It is required to protect public health, public safety and the environment.

Madam Chair, I would probably suggest that the Conservatives—

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Minister, these decisions get to be made behind closed doors after you pass this law.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

—talk to business innovators in the countries that have demanded an expansion of the regulatory sandbox in order to be able to innovate, like other countries in the G7.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Not once, Minister, have you said anything about not having the Conflict of Interest Act or the Investment Canada Act exempt at all after these powers are granted. That's very concerning.

I hope you can see why Canadians are concerned about this specific provision being passed by you. It's because, behind closed doors, your government can grant any company...whether it has a conflict of interest with a minister, with the Prime Minister or in Beijing, if a Chinese company wants to come here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Hallan. That concludes your time.

We will continue with Mr. Leitão for six minutes.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. Welcome.

Deputy Minister, thank you for being with us as well.

It looks like we're off to a good start. I was going to ask you all kinds of questions, Minister. I had a whole scenario prepared, but instead I'm going to ask you to expand on the regulatory sandboxes you were talking about just now, when our colleague was constantly interrupting you.

That seems like a very important element to me, and you didn't have a chance to clarify it for all the Canadians watching us.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Leitão.

First of all, I want to thank you for your service. You're a distinguished economist. Canada should be happy to have someone like you serving the nation.

I'm trying to explain something. What I'm hearing is that our Conservative colleagues are trying to demonize one of the tools in the tool box used by all G7 and most OECD countries. This tool is known as a “regulatory sandbox”.

What is a regulatory sandbox? Anyone who innovates within that framework benefits from more relaxed rules for a limited time, as long as they continue to protect the environment and public safety. There are obviously a number of rules around that. Mr. Leitão, as a former Quebec finance minister, you'll understand this. This tool enables our innovators to innovate.

That's why I'm telling my Conservative colleagues to be cautious. When they talk to Canadian innovators, particularly those in the business sector, those innovators will tell them that, if other countries are doing it, Canada should be able to do the same thing to make that same space for itself.

If I'm honest, I just want to say one thing: Our Conservative friends are a little behind the times. This tool has been around for a long time. I chose a tool that has been around for decades. There's nothing new about what we're doing here. We're just talking about having a slightly broader regime because, when it comes to new technology and manufacturing and industrial innovations in the digital age, we sometimes need a more relaxed regulatory framework to test products. Once the product is certified and put into use, then, of course, it has to comply with all the other regulations.

I'm a bit surprised to hear the Conservatives say that this morning, because this is what the business community wants. Our innovators are telling us that, if we don't follow suit, they'll be at a disadvantage compared to other G7 and OECD countries, so I don't understand why the Conservatives would demonize a well-known tool.

I'm just telling my Conservative colleagues to go look at the OECD report on this tool. Look at it. I would be pleased to table that report if the committee would like to see what's being done in other G7 countries. When we discuss things in committee, it's important to inform Canadians and give them accurate information. There was an international survey that included European Union countries, South Korea, the United States, Brazil, Colombia, Singapore, the United Kingdom, France and Germany. We really are in good company with countries that recognize the value of having a special regime to allow for innovation.

Mr. Leitão, thank you for doing that. I'm ready to listen to my colleagues' comments, but I think we just need to put this in context. This isn't a new thing. It exists in every country on that list. It's also what Canadian innovators want. As they see it, if it's being done elsewhere, it should be done here as well, because otherwise they're at a disadvantage.

Thank you for allowing me to clarify the answer.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Minister.

I do think that was very important. You said you were surprised. I'm surprised, too, and disappointed, that our Conservative colleagues apparently chose not to listen to former prime minister Harper's recommendation. Just this week, he urged everyone to focus on the major challenges, set aside our minor differences and focus on the national interest. That's not the way things seem to be going.

I don't have much time left. At the beginning of your presentation, you talked about the macroeconomic environment that calls for significant government action. You also mentioned that our budget is all about investment and that we have the fiscal capacity to make it happen.

I only have 30 seconds left, but can you say a few words about that fiscal capacity? I'm sure we'll come back to it later.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I would just remind everyone that, at the IMF meeting, the managing director mentioned two countries that stand out: Germany and Canada. Both countries have AAA credit ratings. They stand out because they both have good fiscal capacity and they are using it wisely to stimulate economic growth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Leitão.

Mr. Ste‑Marie, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Minister and Deputy Minister, thank you very much for joining us here. There are many topics I would like to discuss with you this morning.

First, you offered to give the committee the review of other countries that have a regulatory sandbox system. I would appreciate your tabling that with the committee.

Now, to my first topic. This morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published a study on the fiscal implications of Canada's commitment to invest 5% of its GDP in NATO by the end of 2035. The PBO's findings are concerning. This would increase the deficit by $63 billion, which is 1.4 percentage points of GDP. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio would increase by 6.3 percentage points.

Can you comment on that?

What are you going to do about it?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I'll start by saying that it's nice to see you, Mr. Ste‑Marie. You're an excellent colleague. We've been working together for years. Thank you for being here this morning.

I haven't had a chance to look at that report yet. Knowing that I was coming to testify at the Standing Committee on Finance this morning, I devoted my energy to preparing the best possible answers to committee members' questions in order to move the study of the bill forward.

I haven't had a chance to look at it, but I know it's a good thing for the Minister of Finance to look at the documents and do a detailed analysis of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report may contain before commenting. I haven't had a chance to do that yet.

Nonetheless, I can say it's true that Canada must make a considerable effort, as must other NATO countries. Canada is no different. I hope, as you've seen in Quebec, particularly with Mr. Legault and the others, that it will be an economic lever.

We're talking about companies, such as Marmen and PRO‑B Group, that do business in my riding. However, small and medium-sized Quebec businesses are now developing the defence industry.

We're even seeing this in Saint‑Tite, where I made my finance minister shoes. Bottes Boulet is a small business that has been in operation since 1942 and employs 75 people. Bottes Boulet makes cowboy boots, but it also has a military and defence division. It makes boots for the RCMP and the military. This shows that plenty of opportunities are out there for businesses of all kinds.

If this is true for Bottes Boulet, a small business that has been around for decades, I think all companies should consider a business strategy with a defence component.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

The company certainly produces quality products.

My second topic has to do with a really technical issue. The budget is usually tabled in the spring. In addition, the House votes on the main estimates, which go through more or less automatically, in March. In June, we vote on the supplementary estimates (A), which are the measures that were announced in the budget.

Given that the budget was tabled in the fall, can you tell us if the main estimates the government will be introducing shortly will include the budget measures we would typically have voted on in June?