Indeed, it must be in the public interest. First, the goal is to promote innovation in a number of key sectors that could benefit from that. A few key sectors jump to mind when I think about that, such as the financial, advanced manufacturing and clean energy sectors. There's a wide range of use cases that could be well served by a regulatory sandbox, as we have seen in many other countries.
When it comes to guardrails, it's important to highlight that the proposal is built on a high level of transparency. There are reporting requirements. Reports must go through Treasury Board and they must be made public. Nothing will be hidden. Everything that emerges from these regulatory sandboxes will be fully open and transparent so that the public can see what's happening and ask questions. The proposed process is transparent.
The whole point is to accelerate innovation in a rapidly evolving world. One example that comes to mind, which we see in other parts of the world, is the financial world, which is evolving rapidly due to new technologies, new payment methods and digital assets. However, the financial system's regulatory framework is not always conducive to innovation. Enabling innovation may be a win-win for innovative small businesses because it would allow them to experiment with innovative approaches without making heavy compliance investments upfront before they know whether the approach is viable. That is what makes this compelling.
Be that as it may, as I said, we are open to suggestions to ensure we strike a balance. This applies to my colleagues of all political stripes, be they from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or even the NDP, even though the party is not represented on this committee.