Government Operations Committee on Feb. 10th, 2026

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Sorry, I'm not hearing whether it would actually help small and medium-sized businesses.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

The answer is yes; it would certainly help SMEs.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

I understand—and I could be wrong—that the only concrete red tape reduction measure in the BIA is the creation of these exemptions for these big businesses. There's no other one. It's just that one. The rest is going to be sometime in the future in another budget. We just get this one.

When we see bankruptcies at such high levels right now, small businesses really need some relief. All we see is this fancy exemption for elite, large companies that are going to be doing who knows what.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

No, not at all. Take the example of the scientific research and experimental development tax credits, the much talked about SR and ED. You can visit Quebec to see the number of SMEs that are taking advantage of these tax credits. We have greatly streamlined—

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

This particular thing is not SR and ED. These are fancy exemptions that they've put in place.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

It's not the only element. You're taking just one element in the Budget Implementation Act, which is quite big.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

SR and ED has been around forever. This brand spanking new one—

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Yes, but look at the changes we're making to these tax credits to streamline the process for entrepreneurs. This is a direct response to the feedback we received from the Council of Canadian Innovators, for example, who told us we needed to change the way tax credits are allocated to give businesses predictability and increase the threshold. That's precisely what we're doing.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Why didn't you fix SR and ED in this, then? Why is that not in here?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Yes, we've fixed that in the budget.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Is it in this BIA?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Yes.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Okay.

My concern is around these very small companies that don't have the opportunities. They don't have legal teams. They don't have all these extra people. A lot of these things that you guys have put forward are about productivity that is going to get fixed 15 years from now—big projects.

I think the fastest way to actually make an impact on our GDP and on our productivity is exemptions for small and medium-sized businesses so that they can hire tomorrow—not in who knows how many years. It's the middle-class entrepreneur—the small and medium-sized business owner—who can make a decision tomorrow to hire someone. A lot of these things that you're putting forward have nothing to do with these small and medium-sized businesses, like the corner coffee shop.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're past our time.

It's Mr. Gasparro's round. If he's kind enough, he may allow some of his time for you to respond, Mr. Lightbound. I'm not sure Mr. Gasparro is.

The time is yours, sir.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Thanks. You'd be correct.

I want to come back to a line of questioning my colleague referenced. It was in regard to the Universal Postal Convention. You mentioned in your statement that the preferential rates for libraries have been in place since 1939. There's no plan to change them. You mentioned the no-rate postage for individuals who are blind. That's been in place since 1898.

Is that statutory in nature, or is it through the Universal Postal Convention that we are maintaining that public policy position?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

With respect to blind people, as I mentioned, since 1898, Canada had a clear obligation under the Universal Postal Convention, to which it is a signatory. It's not necessarily a statutory obligation, but nevertheless, we've had this obligation under a treaty that we have been a party to for more than 100 years.

When it comes to libraries, preferential rates for libraries were set out in law in 2013, while a private member's bill was adopted to enshrine this principle in the legislation. Prior to 2013, libraries enjoyed preferential Canada Post interlibrary loan rates since 1939. Even though we're making this change to give Canada Post more flexibility to set postage rates, it doesn't change anything to this public policy, which was in place before 2013, which has been in place since 1939, and that will not change.

Similarly, for example, members can mail letters to their constituents and constituents can communicate with their members for free, even though legal protection for this mail free of postage is not enshrined in legislation. This public policy has been in place for decades and will remain in place, even though, strictly speaking, it has no statutory protection.

I want to be very clear on that: These preferential rates for blind people have been in place for decades, the same way the free service for members has been in place, and it will remain in place after the adoption of the Budget Implementation Act.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Organizations and their lobbyists are calling for domestic statutory protection. It would, from your perspective, be redundant because of us signing on to this international obligation and the fact that it's, basically, been enshrined for decades.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Exactly.

The problem now is that as soon as it is enshrined in legislation, it will be tied to the process we had, which I explained in an earlier response, where it must be approved by the Governor in Council and published in the Canada Gazette. We're trying to get rid of this patent glacial pace by giving Canada Post more flexibility to set postage rates. However, this doesn't involve any changes to public policies that have governed the corporation for decades, which Canada is bound to under the universal Postal Union Convention, for libraries and for blind people. I can't say that enough.

We have received a great deal of input on this topic, and rightly so. I understand how much this service is essential for many Canadians across the country. It gives libraries, including smaller libraries in smaller communities, access to a large network at a lower cost. It gives blind people access to free Braille materials, which are often quite expensive. This free service is very important, and the proposed amendments will not change it in any way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

You have 40 seconds.

[Vince Gasparro, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Quickly, have any other stakeholder groups called for changes to the stamp rate process? I know you touched on this a little earlier. Obviously, the commissioner has, but remind me again. Has anyone else called for this?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Canada Post Corporation has been calling for this flexibility for some time, and so have unions because it's vital to Canada Post revenues, which are essential if the corporation is to get to some form of financial stability or profitability, or at least a break-even point. That was actually one of the elements in Commissioner Kaplan's report that the union and Canada Post management agree on. I believe it's crucial to implement this measure.

I want to mention in passing that there have been positive developments since the last time I appeared before the committee because the union and the corporation have reached an agreement. The agreement is yet to be ratified, but the parties had not reached agreement in a long time. That's a very positive step because it delivers predictability and stability for Canada Post, two elements that were clearly lacking at Canada Post and accelerated the loss of business volume.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad to see that you're open to our suggestions, Minister. It reminds me of a Quebec song that says something about feedback going down better if you buy the first round.

I want to cycle back to another grey area in connection to criteria for regulatory sandboxes. We've heard that the main criteria was that it has to be in the public interest. We asked for the definition of public interest, because that can be a qualitative judgment. However, there is no definition.

That could be cause for concern from a monitoring and independence standpoint, because, as we know, the minister may decide on the creation and content of a regulatory sandbox on their own, and this could drag out for three years.

What can we do now so that in three years' time, we don't end up saying that we should have done things differently? Where do things stand with the guardrail?

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

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.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.