Finance Committee on Feb. 5th, 2026

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Thank you.

Minister, in your opening remarks, you asked for this bill to be passed swiftly, because of the measures that are being introduced. However, as you know well, there is a poison pill in this bill, in that you're asking for ministers to have the power to exempt entities, corporations or individuals from any federal law except for the Criminal Code.

Given the potential for abuse of this clause, would you consider removing it, so we can move on and review the rest of the bill in the spirit of collaboration and speed the passing of the bill?

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

Thank you for the question and thank you also for your contribution. You've been in the banking sector for many years. I'm reminded by your leader's letter to say, “Time to turn rhetoric into reality.”

Obviously, this provision was specifically asked for by the business sector in Canada, to put us at par with other G7 nations. I always have an open mind, but I'm always very conscious of the impact it would have on Canadian innovators and Canadian businesses, which want to have very constrained guardrails that you can put around things. If you have suggestions with respect to guardrails—

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

With all due respect, this is a legal sinkhole. There are no guardrails. You compare us to G7 countries. The G7 countries actually use regulators to run these regulatory sandboxes that you refer to. They rely on limited waivers, no action letters, supervised testing plans, and no broad ministerial powers that you are asking for. It's not an apples to apples comparison.

On the topic of the business community, I have a letter signed by 43 organizations that have serious concerns with this. They say:

Ministers would have radically new discretionary power to decide when and how federal legislation applies, and to whom. But laws should apply equally to all, regardless of status, wealth, or power.

They insisted that the federal government withdraw this undemocratic section of the bill.

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

Was that a question, or do you want me to comment on that?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Comment on that.

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

I would just say that there are clear time limits and there are clear exemptions. It has to be in the public interest. It has to preserve public health, public safety and the environment. We tried to mirror what was done in other G7 countries.

As I said, this is not something new. That's why I'm surprised. I respect the comments from the people who wrote the letter, but this is not a new tool. The OECD report, I think, dates back to—

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Minister, I just explained the differences. It does not concentrate the power on the ministers, which is what you're asking for. You, as minister, can choose the winners or losers. Entities and individuals would be inclined to lobby you personally, rather than look at the rule of law.

It is not a fair comparison with other G7 countries. Other G7 countries have regulators with very specific limitations. It's not the same. This is why it is called a Henry VIII provision.

Would you remove it because it has the potential for abuse?

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

We have a set of guardrails. If you think of other guardrails that you think would be in the public interest, we're always looking at issues in order to move forward with an open mind. I'm also—

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Minister, just to outline some of the risks, it would allow violation of the Conflict of Interest Act, and it would prevent citizens from seeking documents under the Access to Information Act and the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act.

There are a number of acts that could be violated at the prerogative of the minister. How is that reasonable?

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

I was just about to say that if you have suggestions with respect to guardrails....

I'm mindful of the people who wrote the letter, and I respect their view. I'm also mindful of all the innovators and even the Council of Canadian Innovators, who may have a view with respect to what I'm trying to achieve.

I'll be very transparent with you, as I should be in front of this committee. I'm trying to put Canadian innovators on par with other G7 countries, so we foster innovation in the country and don't hamper that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Ms. Cobena.

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

I'm open-minded if you have any thoughts.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We will continue with Mr. MacDonald for five minutes.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you to the minister and the deputy for attending today.

When I get home on the weekends, I get a very positive response to budget 2025 in Prince Edward Island. I've met with many groups that have been excited about the infrastructure investments that are in budget 2025. Community groups, municipalities and even the provincial Conservatives in PEI want this budget passed. They want to be able to apply to the programs in the budget.

One particular thing that I know we did last year, shortly after I was elected, was have stakeholder meetings across the country. You, Parliamentary Secretary Turnbull and Secretary of State Long went around to listen to Canadians.

One of the things you heard in P.E.I.—I was at the Charlottetown round table—was that we had to increase the capital gains exemption for small businesses. This particularly affects rural communities, because we have a lot of fishers, farmers and small businesses. The real benefit is that if we allow them to transition their business to the next generation, it keeps those businesses in our small rural communities. It drives our economy in an area like Cardigan, where I come from.

I wonder if you could elaborate on this $250,000 increase in the tax exemption. What will it do for those rural communities?

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

I want to say thank you for bringing the voice of rural Canada to this discussion, because I come from rural Canada as well, and I think it's important.

You talked about small and medium-sized businesses, which represent 98% of all the businesses in the country, so having tax measures—programs, grants, loans—that would fit them is particularly important for me to support.

You're quite right in that the capital gains tax exemption is a tool in the tool box that we have. There are many more. I spoke about the SR and ED tax credit earlier today, which is also an area where we work with a number of people in the private sector to ask how we can make it more efficient.

What I hear a lot from businesses, as I'm sure you do, is that what they want is stability and predictability, cutting red tape, making sure we're more efficient, having more predictability when it comes to project assessment, and certainly having programs that are fit for purpose in respect of a number of industries.

I think you mentioned the fishery industry, for example. There are a number of things that we have been contemplating to make sure that they have the tools. You may recall that, when I testified earlier this week about the measures in Bill C-19, there were a number of structural measures as well to support transformation: seafood transformation, fishery transformation and increasing the production of food in Canada. I think that's important for food security.

You're right. Regarding budget 2025, like you, in my experience going across the country, I think it speaks to seniors, it speaks to young people, it speaks to workers, and it speaks farmers, fishers and small businesses. I think they realize that the world is changing. A lot of questions I get from my colleagues are about where we are. I think Canadians can see the winds of change, and they see that this country is adapting. They see that this is a moment for us to come together. They see this as a moment to invest in our future and support Canadian for now.

That's why Bill C-19 was about a boost and a bridge. As I was saying before, this is a generational budget. If you look at the investments we're making, it's comparable to what you've seen in Germany. Germany is the largest economy in Europe. That's why I would say that this budget has been well received, not only in Canada but by investors around the world, who see Canada taking structural measures that will foster investments, growth and innovation.

Going back to the regulatory sandbox, you've heard my comments that this was a request by innovators in Canada. By definition, I have an open mind, but I'm also mindful of the other side of the coin, where people say that, on the one hand, we're being asked by Canadians to reduce red tape—by the opposition, and by us as well. On the other hand, when we try to make it easier for people to innovate, we get criticized, so you see the position I'm in today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

We will continue with Mr. Kelly for five minutes.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

Minister, in your opening statement, you referred to Canada as an energy superpower, and indeed we ought to be one, but your government, in November 2015, cancelled an existing Pacific pipeline. It was literally one of the first things the cabinet did when elected in 2015.

In 2018, you passed Bill C-69, which precluded any pipeline construction in Canada, and your government presided over a 10-year flight of capital from the energy industry.

In 2025, with the support of the opposition—which supported you because this is what it has come to—you did support extraordinary new powers. Since you won't get rid of the red tape, you have given yourself the power to cherry-pick which projects red tape would not apply to.

The Prime Minister said that new major nation-building projects would be built at speeds unimaginable. I could imagine a pipeline commencing production in, say, a year.

Could you tell me on what date a pipeline will be approved and construction begin?

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

What I would say is that you should just look at what we did with Trans Mountain. We are the government that made things happen because we built Trans Mountain. Actually, I was with the CEO of Trans Mountain.

When you talk about the year, I would just say that you should probably talk to the CEOs of the industry—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Okay. Since you won't answer the question, and you mentioned Trans Mountain, you chased private capital out of Canada, nationalized a project and then presided over a 500% increase in the cost of it once it was nationalized.

I'm going to ask you again, and I'd like you to answer the question. When—in what year—can Canadians expect construction on a pipeline to begin?

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

You seem more interested in the question than the answer. I was about to go with Trans Mountain. I was just with the CEO. When you suggest a timeline like that, I would say to talk to the CEOs of the companies. They would tell you that the measures we have taken—the Major Projects Office—are really making a difference.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Okay, no. I'm very much interested in your answer—

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London Centre, ON]

I have a point of order, Chair.

We want to hear the questions, and we're hearing the questions. We want to hear the answers.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

On the point of order—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

This isn't a point of order, Mr. Kelly.

You can continue.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Okay. We'll continue.

Minister, you have not answered my question. The reason I am interrupting you is that you're not answering the question.

Will you answer the question? In what year will pipeline construction begin?