Finance Committee on May 28th, 2026

[Adriana Vega]

It is, yes.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

It is, and in your view, there's no reason to wait. There's no reason to drag our feet. We should join our near competitors if we want to be in a position to help consumers and attract greater capital.

[Adriana Vega]

That is correct.

I will just say, that is happening today. As I mentioned, the regulatory development is happening right now. The timelines are very ambitious. We have been very engaged with officials, because now that the legislation has passed, it is really in the hands of officials. The Bank of Canada has been very engaged with us, as well, to promote rollout.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Would you say you're satisfied with the pace? I'm a bit unclear with that last answer. You would say we've been kind of dragging our feet and there's inertia, but now you sound like you're satisfied.

[Adriana Vega]

We're at an inflection point right now. We really do see movement on this file. It is an ambitious timeline from this point forward.

I think our focus right now is going to be on not adding constraints as we roll this out, which could happen. We're observing that very closely. Don't try to add locks and constrain the rollout of open banking.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

I have a quick question for Ms. Bak, who's online.

You remarked—I think I heard you correctly—that Canadian capital is financing U.S. growth. Is this a new phenomenon? Is it something that has developed in the last decade or so, or is this normal?

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Give a very brief response, please.

[Céline Bak]

Private credit has existed for 40 years in the U.S. We haven't developed it in this country. As a result, asset allocations for private credit go to the U.S.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Great. Thank you very much, Mr. Williamson.

We will continue now with Mr. MacDonald for five minutes.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you to the witnesses.

My first question is for Ms. Hayes.

You mentioned in your opening statement that you did some work on the online harms act. I'm particularly interested in sextortion. Since being elected, I've been working to push forward legislation that will address that crime. We've presented Bill C-16, which deals with some of the components of the ability to regulate.

Can you speak to what government's role should be in dealing with the online harm that's coming to our children?

[Helen Alexandra Hayes]

Certainly. Thank you for your question.

I worked very closely on Bill C-63, the last online harms act, which was tabled in 2024. As part of my engagement on that file and my engagement right now on the impending online harms act, I have consistently advocated for what's called systems design change.

A major role that the government needs to play in regulating for online safety is to ensure that the architecture of digital platforms is addressed directly in regulation, to ensure that age-appropriate design is directed for major platforms and, to your point about sextortion, to scope in Snapchat as one of the regulated services. That was not the case in the prior legislation, and sextortion is largely carried out on Snap. In order to actually address that particular issue, we need to expand the definition of a “regulated service” under the new online harms act and ensure that Snap is covered.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thank you very much.

Further along that topic, Australia recently passed a bill that has an age restriction for the use of digital platforms. It's 16, I think. What's your viewpoint on that for Canada? Is that something we should be looking into?

[Helen Alexandra Hayes]

I disagree with a social media ban. I think it could be used as a temporary moratorium in order to compel platforms to basically create better systems design directly and then allow younger users back on platforms, but I think it's a temporary, band-aid solution.

What happens with a ban is that we end up basically regulating the user rather than the systems that are actually causing the harm. I would suggest, as I just mentioned, regulating instead the systems design to address the core issues like attention maximization and the spread of harmful content, instead of just regulating young users, which also, of course, raises a host of privacy concerns as well.

In the project that I mentioned in my opening remarks, Gen(Z)AI, we did this major consultation with thousands of young people across Canada. None of them suggested that a social media ban would be a good policy option for this. These were young people who wouldn't actually be subject to a ban. These were young people aged 17 to 23. The argument that they didn't want a ban just because they would be subject to it doesn't actually hold in this case.

I think it shows that young people realize that platforms have been left to make their own decisions, and now the government needs to act in a way that actually addresses the harm that's being caused by them.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Thanks very much. That's very informative.

For my second question, I'll go to the Council of Canadian Innovators.

Mr. Perry, I come from Atlantic Canada. We have a lot of small innovation companies. To Ms. Cobena's points, they struggle to scale, get capital and retain talent.

Could you summarize what the federal government can do? You had some recommendations, including on public procurement. Can you speak more on that or elaborate on how that would work? What do you envision?

[Daniel Perry]

That's a very timely question. Earlier this month, a number of our Atlantic members came to Ottawa for Atlantic day on the Hill, when we released our recent report focused on Atlantic Canadian members and what they need.

To your question, the procurement side is exactly what they need support with. The government, as an early adopter, can be an early validator for companies. A question that is often asked when a company goes to sell abroad or to another country is, “Are you currently selling to your home country's government?” When the answer is no, that raises some questions that are sometimes awkward and uncomfortable for our members to navigate. For better or for worse, Canada is starting to develop a reputation, and that question is not even asked, because other governments are aware that our government isn't buying from our most budding technology firms.

When we talk about buying Canadian, we really want to see the Canadian government lean into that and buy from companies that are truly Canadian. We have a lot of very talented companies in Atlantic Canada—I'm thinking about natural resources in particular—and we really need to tap into our homegrown talent. When we're asking for the government to buy Canadian, that is what we're looking to do. It's making sure our innovators are competitive in the process and that they get their opportunity.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Perry.

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

We will wrap up the first hour of the meeting with Mr. Barsalou‑Duval.

Mr. Barsalou‑Duval, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Vega, you made a good point earlier. You said that we had to be more open to new technologies and new businesses in the financial sector.

One of my colleagues also raised the fact that the financial sector is one of the most stable and sound in the world. It has survived crises more easily than other sectors. Despite all that, we constantly hear complaints about the extremely high fees charged by banking companies. That's a known fact. It's most likely due to a lack of competition. We get the feeling that the banks are constantly ripping us off.

How can we ensure that people trust these new financial sector businesses, given that they don't have physical offices and don't have as much accrued capital?

It can be hard to trust this kind of company and to put our financial assets or holdings in a company where you can't meet human beings, where there are no physical offices and whose name is barely known.

Are there ways to ensure that we can rely on these businesses, that we can be sure that they won't disappear overnight and that there won't be fraud?

[Adriana Vega]

Thank you for your question.

Confidence and trust in our ecosystem, and in the financial services space in general, are the baseline for folks to trust. It's our money, and there's a big attachment to it. In the fintech sector, we take that very seriously.

To give you an example of things that boost trust, our sector was a strong advocate for the Retail Payment Activities Act. It's probably a bit odd for a sector to come up to the government and say, “Regulate me. Give me a guideline, so that I'm regulated and I come under some sort of regulatory guidance and supervision.” I think the driver for that is very strongly because it helps incentivize trust—certainly with consumers. The consumer finds reassurance in seeing that you're regulated by this entity, but it also helps even business-to-business relationships.

Fintechs continue to this day to struggle to secure access to banking services. Oftentimes, their accounts will be closed, and there's really no recourse for fintechs—

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Ms. Vega. We're going to have to end it there. That concludes the time.

[Adriana Vega]

I'm sorry. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

On behalf of the committee, I would really like to thank all of our witnesses today for sharing their thoughts and their time with us.

We are going to have a brief suspension as we turn over for the final panel this morning.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

I call the meeting back to order.

I would like to begin by welcoming our next panel of witnesses.

From the Breakfast Club of Canada, we have Judith Barry, co-founder and director of government relations. From Celiac Canada, there's Melissa Secord, national executive director. From the Daily Bread Food Bank, we have Neil Hetherington, chief executive officer. From Right To Food, we have Jasmine Ramze Rezaee, director of policy and community action.

Before we begin, I would like to remind participants of the following points.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking.

I would like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either English or French. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance, in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

This is a reminder that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

You will each have five minutes for your opening remarks, after which we will open the floor to questions.

We will begin with Judith Barry, from the Breakfast Club of Canada.

[Judith Barry, Co-Founder, Director for Governmental Relations, Breakfast Club of Canada]

Thank you so very much, Chair Gould, vice-chairs and members of the FINA committee.

On behalf of the Breakfast Club, which I represent as co-founder, I am extremely pleased to be able to present the recommendations that were submitted in February in the brief for the adoption of Bill C‑15, as well as the recommendations of the Breakfast Club's most recent pre-budget 2026 brief.

The club's first recommendation is that the Government of Canada build on the recent adoption of the National School Food Program Act and recognize the program as a budget priority and a strategic investment for today’s families and for future generations.

Despite the impressive milestones achieved since the implementation of the national school food program in 2024, the current federal investment of $200 million per year impacts approximately 10% of the total school population in Canada and represents about 22¢ per student, per day, if universal participation is considered. Recent public statements have underscored that school food is a core value of the Government of Canada and a national priority, yet the above allocation per child, per day doesn't reflect this ambition. We believe the government can strengthen its position so that every school is equitably served by public funding in the years to come.

As shared in the recent BCC, Breakfast Club of Canada, briefs, a new independent cost-benefit analysis conducted by economists at AppEco confirms that for every dollar invested in school breakfast programs, society receives close to two dollars in return. The data clearly indicates that when children start their day nourished, the benefits extend far beyond the classroom and deliver lasting value for society. These returns are driven by three concrete, quantifiable impacts: increased disposable income for families, higher lifetime earnings linked to improved educational attainment, and reduced health care costs due to lower obesity rates. This study confirms that school food is not an expense but a fiscally responsible, socially impactful investment that delivers long-term returns that far outweigh the initial cost.

Across Canada, provinces, territories and municipalities are currently investing close to $400 million annually in school food programs to ensure the long-term sustainability and equitable expansion of these programs. It is essential that the federal government match this level of investment. Such a budget commitment would not only stabilize the school food program's ecosystem, which struggles to meet growing needs, but also maximize the national school food program's reach and impact while supporting families amid growing food affordability pressures.

The Breakfast Club's second recommendation is that the government make the school food infrastructure fund, established in 2024 with a $20-million investment, permanent. The initial investment really accelerated the impact and the implementation of sustainable distribution systems, which allowed the school nutrition ecosystem to access affordable food.

We believe that maintaining the fund and making it permanent will enable the ecosystem to meet the growing demand, while adapting to the challenges related to providing healthy local food at low cost.

The Breakfast Club's third recommendation is that the Government of Canada move forward with its commitment to invest in Canadian-made food in the school food program, prioritizing sustainable and locally sourced food systems that support Canadian producers.

In 2025, the Liberal Party of Canada committed $20 million to ensure that Canadian-made food is systematically offered within school food programs. We believe this investment should be reflected in budget 2026 to act as an intentional lever to connect school food programs with local producers, while promoting fresh, nutritious food in schools across Canada.

In this context, we believe the Breakfast Club of Canada and other operational catalysts can really contribute to helping the federal government achieve its mandate, because there are great partnerships with food industry partners, current influence on the transformation of recipes, and great operating group purchasing models that have been enabled through the years and experience.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you. We're going to stop there. That concludes your time.

We are going to continue now with Ms. Secord from Celiac Canada for five minutes.

[Melissa Secord, National Executive Director, Celiac Canada]

Thank you, Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to appear today.

My name is Melissa Secord. I'm the national executive director for Celiac Canada. We're the only national charity serving Canadians living with celiac disease.

Celiac disease is a genetic autoimmune disease that affects 1% of Canadians. When an individual with celiac disease consumes gluten, which is a group of proteins found in wheat, rye and barley, it triggers an immune response that causes severe damage to the small intestinal tract. This damage impedes the body's ability to absorb nutrients and can lead to a wide range of acute symptoms, including, but not limited to, severe gastrointestinal issues, extreme fatigue, migraines and joint pain. When it is left untreated, osteoporosis, anemia, neurological damage and certain cancers can occur.

Avoiding gluten for these individuals is not a dietary preference or a lifestyle trend, but a necessity to live healthily and symptom-free. At present, there is no pharmaceutical treatment, and the only accepted treatment is strict adherence to a medical nutrition therapy consisting of a gluten-free diet. Gluten-free food is our medicine, and it's extremely necessary to avoid frequent medical and hospital visits, and impacts on quality of life and work and school productivity.

As a national charity, Celiac Canada provides education, support, services, advocacy and research funding to improve diagnosis rates and health outcomes. By and large, the biggest challenge individuals face after diagnosis is the costs incurred through following the medical nutrition therapy. Statistics Canada reported that in April, the cost of food purchased from grocery stores rose 4.4% on a yearly basis in March 2026. On top of this, gluten-free staples, such as bread, cereals, pastas and soups, cost three to four times more than their regular counterparts, despite the growing demand for gluten-free options.

To provide credit where credit is due, Celiac Canada is very supportive of the federal government's Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help improve affordability. However, we feel the government still has work to do to support the rising food and medical treatment costs that are incurred by individuals with celiac disease.

Celiac disease is an eligible condition under the non-refundable medical expense tax credit. While well intentioned, the current process is extremely cumbersome. People diagnosed with celiac disease must keep hundreds of grocery receipts each year, complete complicated calculations comparing the cost and weight of gluten-free foods to regular products, and then determine how much is eaten by others in order to make the claim. The lengthy time this process takes for the average Canadian, paired with the level of math involved, poses a significant challenge to Canadians in poor health who have low literacy rates or little to no access to technology. Let's not forget that because this tax credit is non-refundable, the Canadians who need it the most, unfortunately, are unable to benefit. They receive no medical cost relief for the medical condition after being diagnosed, and they still have to incur the additional living expenses celiac disease incurs.

While the format of the tax credit might work for other health issues that have clear and sometimes one-time medical expenses that can be easily summarized annually, such as medical devices or prescription drugs, our illness does not have one clear annual medical cost that can be easily reported. For this reason, to reduce the red tape and to improve equity, we are recommending that the fall budget commit to replacing the current tax system with a simple, fully refundable annual medical tax credit benefit of approximately $1,000 per adult and $600 per child diagnosed with celiac disease.

Furthermore, as the government advances its new agriculture framework, there's an important opportunity to strengthen support for the gluten-free food sector. Supply chain disruptions and processing limitations have put pressures on farmers and food production, contributing to higher prices. What is needed are strategic educational investments, targeted incentives and capital equipment grants that can help improve food security, expand economic opportunities through exports and strengthen Canada's reputation as a trusted global supplier of safe gluten-free food. Together, these measures would provide meaningful support to Canadians while helping build a stronger and more resilient gluten-free food industry.

Thanks for the opportunity to present before this committee.