Finance Committee on Feb. 23rd, 2026

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Is this the clause or the amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

It's BQ-8. I'm sorry.

Does BQ-8 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

Thank you. I apologize, guys.

Shall clause 198 carry?

(Clause 198 agreed to on division)

Shall clause 199 carry?

Mr. Davies.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Chair, I think this is understood, but I didn't hear you say it. Was NDP-2 made redundant by the adoption?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

That's correct. It was identical to BQ-8.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Got it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Going back to clause 199, does clause 199 carry?

(Clause 199 agreed to on division)

We're on division 3, “Build Canada Homes”.

(Clauses 200 to 202 agreed to on division)

(On clause 203)

We're moving now to division 5, “Red Tape Reduction Act”, and clause 203.

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

As I briefly mentioned to you on the break, as a member of Parliament here in this place on behalf of the Green Party of Canada, I've been subjected to special rules since Stephen Harper developed a special motion out of the PMO. Every PMO since then has insisted on telling every committee to pass said motion at the beginning of every session after every election. First, Mr. Harper created it. Then Mr. Trudeau asked every committee to just pass it automatically without thinking about it or debating it, and certainly without speaking to the members of Parliament on whom it has an immediate impact. The same thing has happened now, under the current Prime Minister, after the April election.

I need to put on the record again that what the committee passed after the election—and every committee was asked to pass an identical motion—makes a mockery of the notion that the committee is the master of its own process. When I complain to the Speaker that my rights are infringed and I raise a question of privilege on that point, the Speaker always says, “Well, the committee is the master of its own process.” The Speaker has no role over protecting my rights.

I'm not allowed to vote on my amendments and I'm not allowed to withdraw my amendments. Under the process by which we are now operating, my amendments here today are deemed moved, and I have no power or control to speak, other than to speak briefly to each amendment. If this committee had not passed the motion, it would have left me with rights at report stage in the full chamber, able to put forward amendments—substantive amendments—at report stage in the whole chamber. As it is, this is prejudicial to the rights of smaller parties and to MPs for smaller parties. It means I can't be in the House right now debating Bill C-20, because I must be here for the brief opportunity to speak to my amendments.

I'll do so now. I appreciate being able to put on the record that my protest remains in place and that this procedure by every committee needs to be examined. I don't imagine any of my friends around the table knew that in passing this motion, you were reducing the reduced rights I already have.

Now I will go to the amendment, which is critical.

Amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act in Bill C-15 have achieved and attracted much public attention. They're fundamentally offensive to democracy across Canada and to laws that are already carried.

In the Red Tape Reduction Act amendments found under division 5 in this over 600-page omnibus budget bill, we have something that is extraordinary. It's never been introduced in any bill in this Parliament before. It's similar to changes made in Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act, in that it presumes that a government can decide, in passing a law, to break other laws that are already in place. In Bill C-5, it was cabinet as a whole. The Governor in Council could decide that a project was a project of national significance.

I won't go back into Bill C-5, but Bill C-15, in this section under division 5, proposes to say that an individual cabinet member can decide at their personal discretion, without mandatory statutory guidelines or criteria, that it is in the public interest that an entity defined as a person or persons, an association or a corporation may be exempted from any law within their general sphere of jurisdiction as a minister if they decide it's in the public interest and the benefits outweigh the risks.

We were told—this committee was told—by witnesses representing the Treasury Board that these so-called regulatory sandboxes are entirely normal. They're routine. They pat us on the head and tell us there's nothing to worry about here.

I've had a very interesting adventure in learning about regulatory sandboxes, because they're hardly routine. They're not typical in Canadian law. They go back to decisions made under the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority back in 2017. They go back to the Monetary Authority of Singapore in 2016. What they're about is creating innovation opportunities for financial products, for things in the financial sector.

However, this application, as it's being put forward in Bill C-15, is far broader than innovations in financial services or financial products. As we read, we see the entities, the scope of activities and the allowance to pursue innovation in the discretion of a single minister are far broader than what's found in other countries.

In an attempt to respect what the government is trying to do here, I bring forward the first of two amendments to this section, PV-1. This is an attempt to simply ensure that in the opening statements of what the mandate is, why we're doing this and what it's all about, we confine the application of these regulatory sandboxes to “genuine innovation within the financial sector while protecting public” interest. This adheres to what we were told is routine in other countries.

A regulatory sandbox as a concept is not intended to say that you can reduce, as Mike Harris did in Ontario in his common-sense revolution in going after red tape, the protections for public water supplies, which led to the deaths in Walkerton. It can't be that broad. It should be restricted to the historical, traditional use of the term “regulatory sandbox”: to financial innovations and innovations within the financial sector.

That's PV-1.

In the interest of Canadians from coast to coast who are watching this and hoping that this isn't about to happen in an omnibus budget bill, and to all friends around the table regardless of party, please, this is a respectful amendment to respect what the government is trying to do but to restrict the scope of its application.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Davies, do you want to comment on this?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I was going to speak to this, but I'll do it once in response to Ms. May's amendment, with which I heartily agree.

In our system of government, Parliament is supreme. That is the foundation of our constitutional system. It's also Parliament's responsibility to scrutinize spending and the activities of the executive branch of government.

In my view, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that Bill C-15 contains a serious threat to Canada's democratic foundations. As Ms. May just pointed out, part 5, division 5, clauses 203 to 209, would give federal ministers sweeping powers—what are colloquially now known as the Henry the VIII powers—to exempt any individual, corporation, partnership, association or organization from the application of any federal law or regulation, with the exception of the Criminal Code. This means that things like labour standards, health and safety rules, environmental protections, indigenous rights, privacy laws and many more could be set aside at a minister's discretion. In our view, these powers undermine the separation of powers by allowing the executive to override laws adopted by Parliament, without transparency or accountability.

Legal experts have been clear that this is not regulatory sandboxing, as Ms. May has just eloquently pointed out. It is a dramatic departure from the narrow, transparent sandbox models used elsewhere in Canadian and international law.

The bill introduces vague justifications like “competitiveness” and “economic growth”, terms that are so broad that they could be used to suspend almost any law or regulation. These provisions, in the New Democrats' view, do not streamline regulation. They erode the rule of law and create a two-tier system where laws passed by Parliament can be suspended for political convenience, even if they might be otherwise meritorious.

Finally, the government, in our view, has failed to justify why it needs these powers. If the current government truly believes that these extraordinary powers are necessary, it should introduce stand-alone legislation that can be studied in depth and debated thoroughly to make sure that the regulatory sandbox provisions are carefully crafted in public by parliamentarians, not buried in a 600-page omnibus budget bill or perhaps negotiated in backrooms, which may be the case right now.

To conclude, in order to protect democratic governance, the rule of law, the constitutional order and parliamentary supremacy, division 5 of part 5 must, in our respectful submission, be removed from Bill C-15.

Thank you for your time, colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Davies.

Is there any further comment on this?

Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I certainly agree with my colleague Don Davies that division 5 of part 5 should not have been in here. Again, to my friends on the Liberal benches, what I've tried to do here, rather than delete the whole section, is say that if you're going to introduce the concept of a regulatory sandbox and the furtherance of innovation, bracket it by talking about genuine innovation in financial services, and don't make it so broad that it could affect health and safety.

When a minister is making this decision in the absence of any consultation or public process, how are they to weigh the benefits versus the risks? The benefits will only accrue to the applicant who's asking to be exempted from a law. The risks will be widely felt by Canadians—maybe from coast to coast—by indigenous communities and by an environment that can't speak up for itself.

This is a significant overreach, and I beg my colleagues to please accept my amendments, which are put forward as something of a compromise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you.

Shall PV-1 carry?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Shame on you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Shall clause 203 carry?

(Clause 203 agreed to: yeas 4; nays 2)

(Clauses 204 to 207 agreed to on division)

(On clause 208)

For clause 208, we have Ms. May.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

To the points that Don Davies made, this is one of the reasons that, on principle, omnibus budget bills of over 600 pages that are improperly studied are offensive on their face.

This amendment relates to changes that are being proposed to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, an act that was initially brought in at first reading by former prime minister Brian Mulroney's administration and carried and brought forward under the government of Jean Chrétien. It has existed as Canadian law for a number of years. The equivalency provisions were brought in to further ensure that there was agreement and coordination between the provinces and the federal government.

What has happened is that the amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in this omnibus budget bill are significant and have raised concerns from environmental law groups across the country, because the equivalency provisions would essentially be extended without review under the version of the act brought forward at first reading.

PV‑3 proposes the following: “An agreement made under subsection (3) terminates seven years after the date on which it comes into force or may be terminated earlier by either party giving the other at least three”.

It's an attempt to hang on to the principle of what was in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act before Bill C-15, which had not included in the budget itself—which I voted for—the notion that this was going to be included in an implementation act. This is new and it's offensive, and this amendment is an attempt to pull back enough to respect the principles of the act, while at the same time allowing a lessening of the strictures of the equivalency agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

If PV-2 is adopted, CPC-3 cannot be moved due to a line conflict.

Shall PV-2 carry?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I thought we were at PV‑3. Are we debating PV‑2 now?

I spoke to the wrong amendment. I'm so sorry, Madam Chair.

PV‑2 is based on the same principle—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Ms. May, we've already moved the motion, so we'll have to move on. I'm sorry about that.

Shall PV-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

There's a Conservative amendment being proposed.

Ms. Cobena, go ahead.

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

Madam Chair, if I may, in the interest of time, I will be speaking to CPC-1, CPC-2, CPC-3, CPC-4 and CPC-5. Is that okay with you? It's just to save time in making some remarks on the changes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Sure. You can speak to them all now, but we'll still have to vote on them individually.

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

Individually, yes, but this is in terms of my remarks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

They all need to be moved individually each time. You can have your opening remarks, if you like, but you still have to move them.

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

That sounds good. Thank you.

I am pleased to put forward amendments to division 5 of part 5 of this bill. As you all know, as it is currently written, this provision grants individual cabinet ministers the extraordinary power to exempt hand-picked individuals or entities from any federal law, with the exception of the Criminal Code. This is an immense concentration of power. It is clear that this concern has been widespread and consistent, and I judge that by the number of petitions, emails, letters, calls and messages I have received.

The amendments that I am moving today seek to strike a balance among innovation, accountability and democratic safeguards. It preserves the ability to create regulatory sandboxes that will support innovation in the clean-tech and fintech sectors.

Specifically, the amendments introduce seven key protections: first, a mandatory 30-day consultation prior to making the exemption; second, equal rules that apply to all participants within the sector, not only the hand-picked companies; third, dual approval by both a cabinet minister and the President of the Treasury Board; fourth, mandatory public consultation of voters within 30 days; fifth, a full report to Parliament within 90 days explaining the rationale and assessing whether permanent legislative changes are warranted; sixth, a requirement that ministers appear before committee when requested to explain the sandbox; and seventh, clear limits on what can never be exempted, including foundational statutes such as the Conflict of Interest Act, the Access to Information Act, the Auditor General Act and other core accountability, safety and national interest laws.

While I would have preferred that this provision be removed from the budget implementation act entirely, given the importance of this provision, I believe that these amendments present a balanced and responsible path forward. They meet the urgency of this moment while preserving the accountability, transparency and democratic standards Canadians expect.

I trust that my colleagues here today can see that these amendments are being presented in good faith, that they are thoughtful and that they are substantive changes that strengthen this bill. They offer us an opportunity to show Canadians—the Canadians we serve—that we can work together responsibly and constructively in the best interests of our country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Monsieur Leitão.