THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 10, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 9 a.m. [ET] to examine the subject matter of all of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome, honourable senators and viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca.
My name is Claude Carignan, and I am a senator from Quebec and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. I will now ask my fellow senators to introduce themselves.
Senator Forest: Good morning and welcome. My name is Éric Forest and I represent the Gulf senatorial division, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Good morning, my name is Sandra Pupatello, I’m a senator from Ontario.
Senator Hay: Good morning, I’m Katherine Hay from Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Good morning. I’m Clément Gignac and I represent the senatorial division of Kennebec, in Quebec.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Colin Deacon from Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Good morning. I’m Manuelle Oudar and I’m filling in for Senator Kingston today.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning, Krista Ross, New Brunswick.
Senator MacAdam: Jane MacAdam, Prince Edward Island.
Senator Marshall: Elizabeth Marshall, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: I’m Martine Hébert from Quebec.
The Chair: Today, we are continuing our study of the subject matter of all of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
For our first panel, we are pleased to have with us our friends from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Michael DeJong, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs; and Jenelle Power, Executive Director, Red Tape Reduction Office. They are here to discuss, in particular, the amendments proposed in the other place to Division 5 of Part 5 of the bill. Also with us are officials from the Department of Finance: Max Baylor, Director General, Business Income Tax Division; and Judith Hamel, Director General, Financial Services Division.
Do you have any opening remarks? Are you here just to answer questions? Just that is plenty. We will dive right into questions, then.
The time will be managed a bit differently with our first panel. Senators, please be advised that the clock in the room doesn’t work. Let’s try to wrap up the first panel by 9:55 a.m., to leave a five-minute window for the minister to join us. As everyone knows well, Minister Champagne enjoys greeting everyone, so we have to allow a bit of extra time when he is joining us. Let’s try to start our time with the minister at 10 o’clock on the button.
Let’s jump right in, then.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Welcome to all of our witnesses. My question is for Mr. Baylor because you appeared before the committee about a month ago. I wanted to pursue the same topic we spoke about before, and that’s with regard to some of the investment tax credits. I was especially interested in carbon capture and storage, and we spoke about that before.
I understood what you were explaining about the tax credits and how it works and how the half rates are now going to be full rates, et cetera.
Could you tell us a bit about more. This tax credit has been available for a number of years, and now it has been expanded, so it’s going to cost more. Is there any sort of evaluation to determine how effective that tax credit is? Because Senator Galvez when she was here, we were talking about four projects in Canada at the pilot level. Are we continuing funding pilots? Is there going to be some success in the future? Who does the evaluation? Is that your department, or how does it work?
Max Baylor, Director General, Business Income Tax Division, Department of Finance Canada: Yes, from a sort of process perspective, how it works is that, essentially, projects submit their project plans with NRCan and have to get them approved as per the guidelines. Once that happens, then they can submit a claim to the Canada Revenue Agency.
Senator Marshall: But who evaluates it? This has been ongoing for a number of years.
Mr. Baylor: Yes.
Senator Marshall: It just sounds like there are four pilots, and that’s it. Who determines whether the billions of dollars we’re putting into those tax credits are coming to fruition?
Mr. Baylor: Well, essentially, the answer is the taxpayers and the businesses themselves. They will make the investments based on, essentially, their plans, and once they start making those investments, then they submit the claim. To be clear, the payments are made out from the government on the investments based on the fact that the investments are made and are being claimed with the Canada Revenue Agency.
Senator Marshall: Who determines, oh, yes, this is very successful? I mean, they’re still all pilots.
Mr. Baylor: Yes. So, basically, it’s what is set out in the legislation. The legislation has set out a number of parameters and guidelines, essentially defining the equipment. Like I say, NRCan has to approve the project; it has to meet all the criteria to satisfy; obviously, it’s CCUS and it’s storing the way it’s supposed to. Then, based on that, the proponents will make the claims if they satisfy the legislated requirements, and then CRA would provide them the credit.
Senator Marshall: But I’m more interested in the results.
Mr. Baylor: Yes.
Senator Marshall: I understand the process for getting the money, but they got the money now. How do you determine they’ve been successful? Are you just paying them?
Mr. Baylor: What we’re going to start to see is the value of those claims and the amounts paid out. Now, at this point — and this is probably what you’re getting at — in terms of the information that has been released publicly and what the government has, there haven’t been investments at this stage, but we are seeing people starting to make those submissions to Natural Resources Canada, and that would eventually lead to claims being paid out.
We would see that in the public accounts that are reported and the data from the Canada Revenue Agency.
Senator Marshall: That doesn’t really answer my question, but my time is up.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you for being with us.
Here’s my first question. The government accepted amendments to make clear that certain laws cannot be waived, especially the Access to Information Act and the Conflict of Interest Act.
The Official Languages Act is not on that list, however, something the commissioner has criticized. In your view, would it be problematic if the Senate were to add the act to the list, to ensure that, under the sandbox, no one is exempt from the Official Languages Act, which is recognized across the country?
[English]
Jenelle Power, Executive Director, Red Tape Reduction Office, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you for the question. This is a list of a number of acts that are excluded, but it is not a complete list. There are other acts that cannot be used within the sandboxes. To be used for the sandboxes, you have to meet a number of criteria, including an exemption that has to be in place with the intention of changing a regulation in the future.
I want to clarify, just because it’s not on the list doesn’t mean that it is automatically one that could be considered for sandbox usage.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Are you saying the Official Languages Act is on the list or not?
Michael DeJong, Assistant Secretary, Regulatory Affairs, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: Thank you for your question.
I want to make clear that the Official Languages Act is applied for all the sandboxes. For instance, if the Minister of Transport decides to run a sandbox with respect to the rail sector, official languages rules and legislation are applicable in those circumstances.
Senator Forest: Does that mean that the Official Languages Act is formally considered one of the exception laws?
Mr. DeJong: Thank you for your question.
Currently, the Official Languages Act is not on the list of exceptions, but while departments are running sandboxes, all official languages rules must be applied.
Senator Forest: It’s not on the list, then, but it has to be applied? I still don’t quite understand.
The Chair: I understand. Same for me. Could you please clarify? I’m struggling to understand why. Are there other laws like that? The government put together a list of exceptions to exclude certain laws, and now you’re telling us that, even though the Official Languages Act isn’t on the list, it has to be applied. Are there other laws not on the list that you will be applying nevertheless? That doesn’t seem very clear.
My apologies, Senator Forest.
Senator Forest: No problem.
Mr. DeJong: Thank you for asking for clarification.
When a minister decides to run a sandbox, there are very specific requirements in the bill and the sandbox policy whereby the department must make sure that the exemption is solely within the minister’s mandate. If, for instance, the Transport Minister runs a sandbox for the rail sector, exemptions solely within the minister’s mandate are permitted. That means the minister cannot grant an exemption from the Official Languages Act or the official languages rules.
The Chair: I have a follow-up question.
Sorry, Senator Forest.
Since the environment isn’t within the minister’s mandate, could the minister exclude environmental rules?
Mr. DeJong: That’s correct. If the Transport Minister wants to run a sandbox, the minister cannot grant an exemption relating to environmental laws.
Senator Forest: That should be stated clearly; it should be indicated in the list. It’s a little unclear. It’s possible, it’s not possible — it’s not stated. We know, though, that the Conflict of Interest Act applies; it’s formally listed. There should be clarity on this.
My second question pertains to phosphate. The House of Commons added phosphate to the list of critical minerals, making it eligible for the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit. This measure will help First Phosphate, a Quebec mining company that produces high-purity phosphate to manufacture lithium-iron-phosphate batteries. That addition brings to mind a question. How does a mineral get added to the critical minerals list? Are there criteria, such as the purpose it serves or the product it will be used for? What are the criteria for determining whether something is a critical mineral and classifying it as such?
Mr. Baylor: Thank you. I can answer that.
With respect to expanding the list, the credit already covered an initial set of critical minerals. What the budget does is expand eligibility. It expanded eligibility to . . . . I’m looking for the page. Here it is. It says, “critical minerals necessary for defence, semiconductors, energy, and clean technologies.”
Those are the criteria. The 12 critical minerals that were added in the original budget were based on that definition.
Now, as for phosphate, it meets those criteria as well. Originally, since it was mainly used for fertilizer, the decision was made not to include it. However, I believe the issue was raised in the House of Commons, where the point was made that phosphate has that purpose.
As you pointed out, there are companies that make the type of battery that contains phosphate. Even though it was primarily used for fertilizer, there was a decision not to include it. Ultimately, the House of Commons decided to add it.
Senator Forest: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Ross: Good morning. I’m interested in asking a question about the regulatory sandbox. It’s something that’s recognized internationally as a red tape reduction and supporting innovation. I’m wondering if the changes that were made in the amendment have just simply added a tremendous amount of red tape to the rollout of this concept and being able to implement it. Can you give me your comments on that, and can you tell me if you think it’s a good balance between ensuring that Canadians are okay with these changes, or whether or not it’s become too confusing, as evidenced by some of the questions we’ve had?
Ms. Power: Thank you for the question. I would say that some of the amendments just give more precision to some of the original design elements. For example, in the original design, it was written that you needed to do public consultation in advance. Now, with the new legislation, it specifies you have to do that for at least 30 days. It is the same with having to make the decision public. It used to say, “As soon as is feasible.” The new regulation in the amendment states that it has to be done within 30 days. Some of those pieces are just additional precision or parameters for how you do it.
There are a couple of other additions that are additional steps that you do need to undertake to do a sandbox. You now have to table a report to Parliament within 90 days, and the minister needs to be available. For some of those pieces, there are additional steps with the amended design.
Senator Ross: Do you feel that that negates the positive aspects of implementing a sandbox?
Ms. Power: I would say it scopes it in. Probably the biggest change will be that it’s only for the financial tech and the clean technology sectors. The application is certainly more scoped in, and there are additional steps compared to the original legislation.
Senator Ross: Given these changes, are you hearing anything from industry about their concerns with the amendments, or are they being quiet at this time?
Ms. Power: I haven’t heard from the industries, particularly. I do know that most industries are quite supportive of the original design. We did do quite a bit of initial consultation, and they did see it as a really great tool for innovation and to move things quickly and to try things out in a quicker way than the full process, but we haven’t had any engagements since the amendments were adopted.
Senator Ross: Do you anticipate having engagement with industry and with the financial sector on these amendments and seeing what their concerns or thoughts are?
Ms. Power: We have ongoing conversations with industries. I’m meeting with industries weekly, so I anticipate we will hear from them. Once the legislation is finalized, we’ll try to figure out what our engagement plan would be going forward.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Hébert: Division 22 of Bill C-15 enacts the Canada Development Investment Corporation Act. This corporation operated under what is called the Canada Business Corporations Act for 44 years. Thank you to Senator Marshall for letting me know about this. Can you explain to me why a decision was made to create a specific act for this corporation? What are the associated budgets?
Judith Hamel, Director General, Financial Services Division, Department of Finance Canada: I don’t think we have the experts in the room with us today. I think we’ll take it off-line.
Senator Hébert: Yes, thank you. If we could also have the budgets, the staff that are allocated, if that changes the budgets attached to this corporation or not.
I have another question related to Senator Forest’s question about the regulatory sandbox.
Mr. DeJong, you clearly explained that ministers cannot intervene in their regulatory sandbox on laws that are not under their jurisdiction. Why, then, put in exemptions? If I’m the Minister of the Environment, and I can’t establish a regulatory sandbox and exclude something like the Privacy Act from my sandbox, then why are there exemptions? I’m trying to understand.
Mr. DeJong: Thank you for the question. I’d like to use an example.
[English]
In 2025, Transport Canada launched a regulatory sandbox on testing hydrogen-powered and battery-powered locomotives. Obviously, that is very important in terms of supporting Canada’s railways to introduce low-emission, clean technology. In this case, the regulatory requirements are currently geared toward conventional technologies, like diesel-powered locomotives. The exemption was specifically required to support testing and determining what the safety requirements would be for this new, clean technology.
During the launch of the sandbox, the parameters involved ensuring there would be appropriate oversight, inspections and crew training, but at all times the management of that regulatory sandbox still had to respect things like the Official Languages Act. So a minister who implements a regulatory sandbox must stay within their respective legislative mandate.
[Translation]
For example, for official languages, from time to time, the Minister of Canadian Heritage or the President of the Treasury Board puts forward a regulatory framework to strengthen official languages and protect the French language. In that case, the sandbox will provide an opportunity for experimentation.
[English]
It will help to find additional data and evidence in order to further advance and evolve regulations around official languages.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome to our witnesses.
My first question is for Ms. Hamel. It relates to consumer banking, also known as open banking, which allows individuals to share their financial data with providers. Amendments have been proposed. At the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, the entire division was examined, and amendments were made in the other place. I believe they were proposed by the Bloc Québécois, and they had to do with the handling of personal information.
Can you tell me a little bit about this amendment?
Ms. Hamel: Thank you for the question.
Indeed, the House of Commons adopted an amendment to Division 9, subsection 85(1), dealing specifically with consent. The amendment adds a provision specifying that the proposed legislation will not override any pre-existing federal or provincial laws or regulations on this matter, namely, on consent.
This amendment clarifies what was already understood in the legislative framework, that the Consumer-Driven Banking Act in no way restricts federal and provincial regulators from regulating businesses or institutions falling under their jurisdiction.
Senator Gignac: With that in mind, since regulations for the Canadian financial system are subject to both federal and provincial laws, what about the handling of complaints to avoid duplication between the federal and provincial governments, given that securities brokers and institutions such as Desjardins are subject to provincial regulation? I understand that this component was rejected in amendments and discussions in committee. Why didn’t we move forward with this recognition for the handling of complaints in order to avoid duplication?
Ms. Hamel: As I noted, the Consumer-Driven Banking Act does not override existing frameworks, whether provincial or federal. It is important to clarify that it only affects data sharing, and not the services offered or provided as a result of data transfer. It only concerns data sharing between entities. It sets out a common set of rules for participants in the framework. These common rules apply to all participants. If a provincial government, for entities under its jurisdiction, wants to add regulations, the regulations will apply.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Senator Dalphond: My question is the same as Senator Forest’s and Senator Hébert’s. Why was the act amended to add a list of statutes that cannot be excluded, but whose application is excluded? I’m talking about the amendment that was made to clause 208. Why add 13 specific statutes if the minister can’t touch them, unless they fall under his department’s jurisdiction?
Mr. DeJong: Thank you for the question.
[English]
There seems to be a misconception around the regulatory sandbox proposals. Based on some of the coverage around regulatory sandboxes, it seems that they gave the impression that there would be something undemocratic or a sweeping power associated with it. But the proposal is very clear that any regulatory sandbox must be under the sponsoring minister’s authority and has to be very narrow in focus. The example I used was specifically around changing from diesel fuel to hydrogen‑powered. But I think that misconception led to a sense of concern and, therefore, created a list of legislation specifically excluded from the authorities.
Senator Dalphond: It’s like the suspender and the belt. The belt was not necessary, but it was added.
Mr. DeJong: To your point, senator, the impact of that amendment will provide a sense of certainty and confirmation that regulatory sandboxes will not be applied under those statutes.
Senator Dalphond: Wouldn’t that be the effect of this addition? It would make the minister responsible for that sandbox, and if they were responsible for one of these bills, they can no longer exempt it?
Mr. DeJong: That’s correct.
Senator Dalphond: Okay. So it’s more than a misunderstanding. It’s taking away from the sandbox something that might have been in the sandbox for that minister.
Mr. DeJong: Right. Only for that minister. So, for example, in the event that the Official Languages Act were to be added to that list, that would remove the minister’s ability to use a regulatory sandbox to advance regulatory development and support innovation, as it related to official languages.
Senator Dalphond: So it’s more than the belt and the suspenders. It’s an additional restriction.
With regard to transparency, within 30 days, a report has to be published. Then the minister has to report to Parliament within 90 days and has to appear before a committee to explain?
Ms. Power: Yes, that’s correct. For the most part, they are about transparency, although there is the amendment that scopes it to just clean tech and finance tech, which is probably the biggest change.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I want to keep going on the sandbox initiative. I’m concerned about the changes that the opposition pushed in the House, and the reason I’m concerned about them is that they restrict the use and add red tape, which is the opposite of what we want to see. I come at it from the perspective of an entrepreneur. We are going to be restricting our ability to act in some of the most promising areas of innovation. Most areas of innovation don’t fit neatly into one regulator or one department. The greatest innovations cut across a lot of departments. The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans just recently published a report on a new area where Canada is a global leader and where we could move at an accelerated pace in carbon removal as it relates to oceans and has a great effect on ocean ecology and as a carbon removal technology to fight climate change. But that’s an area that falls under four different regulators and four different departments, and the regulators are already saying, okay, we need to go in and send our enforcement officers to shut this down until we’re comfortable. It’s a perfect place for a sandbox. But it would seem that these changes that have been promoted in the House and accepted by the House as a way to pass this bill will restrict that from occurring. For me, I find that very concerning because we seem to have undermined the purpose of this bill due to misinformation and misunderstanding. What do we do in that situation? What is your advice to our committee, who wants to see this area of innovation move ahead and has a very strong report out on the issue?
Ms. Power: Thanks for that example. It’s a really good one. It is a very complex regulatory system. Within the legislation, it does indicate that if there is an act that is under two ministers’ portfolios, both ministers can agree to make the exemption together. That may apply in this situation. I would say the example that you’re giving is maybe within the clean technology sector, so there is a possibility that that could still be a use case for the existing legislation. But certainly, the scope is now more narrow, and there are additional steps that any organization that wants to put in place a sandbox, if they would like to, needs to go through in terms of reporting and appearing at committees and those sorts of things.
Senator C. Deacon: Anything to add?
Mr. DeJong: Thank you for the question. I would agree entirely with Dr. Power’s assessment. I would also note that, as part of the Treasury Board Secretariat’s contribution to the red tape review, there was also a commitment made to looking at the fundamental tools surrounding our regulatory development process. Although regulatory sandboxes, as proposed, do continue to offer promise in terms of supporting innovation, competitiveness and economic growth, it is not our only opportunity. There will be other opportunities to look at the fundamental tools of our regulatory system and to explore other ways that we can reduce barriers to innovation and support next steps.
Senator C. Deacon: Quick follow up? Thank you very much. My concern is that this is one area that falls under four different departments that have discrete roles. Even though it’s a clean technology and would qualify, it seems that the red tape added to the Red Tape Reduction Act will prevent us from moving. Is there any other mechanism that you would see available to us? That’s why this Red Tape Reduction Act — the sandbox initiative — was put forward. It’s for this sort of purpose.
Mr. DeJong: Thank you again, senator, for the question. It’s a thoughtful point. I would certainly acknowledge the feedback around the amendments. I would note that they are intended to support a sense of certainty, clarity, transparency and parliamentary oversight.
I would also note that there are a number of other measures outside of the regulatory sandbox proposal that regulators are consistently moving toward adopting in order to speed up processes and to support economic growth. Incorporation by reference is an increasingly used tool to support regulatory development and enable situations where multiple regulators are playing in the same area. That can be an increasing use of standards, and incorporation by reference can be a way of advancing swift progress.
Senator C. Deacon: Maybe the Standards Council of Canada’s standard on regulatory sandboxes could be helpful in that regard. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Deacon.
Senator MacAdam: With regard to amendments made to clause 208 on the Red Tape Reduction Act. They require the minister who exempts an entity from an act of Parliament to conduct public consultations for at least 30 days with interested parties, including experts and entities in the sector concerned, and that the president of the Treasury Board approve the exemption.
I’m wondering if you could just elaborate a bit to clarify what is meant in this amendment with regards to public consultations of at least 30 days. Do meetings have to be held for 30 days, or is 30 days the whole timeline of the process, getting comments and feedback? How do you close the loop on these consultations? Who decides that the consultations are extensive enough and that any kind of feedback given has been adequately taken into consideration?
Also, can you clarify the approval process? It talks about the president of the Treasury Board approving the exemption. Is this something new being layered on top of a ministers’ approval?
Ms. Power: Thank you for the question. The addition to having the president of the Treasury Board to also approve is new. In the previous version, it was only the minister for whom it was their portfolio that would have to approve. Now it’s also the president, so there is a two-step approval process.
With regard to the consultation, as I mentioned previously, the consultation piece was always there. There is now an additional requirement for it to be a minimum of 30 days. It’s deliberately that. It really is up to the regulator to determine how extensive they need to be with their consultations. There are a lot of regulators, and they know their stakeholders best. We don’t want to be too prescriptive in terms of exactly how they do that. They often do a mix of online and in-person consultations, but it would depend on the situation.
Within the policy for the sandboxes, we also provide a little bit more precision in terms of what that actually requires. For example, it does say that you need to consult with any of the implicated stakeholders. You also need to consult with any implicated jurisdictions, so if it has an impact on a province or a municipality, the regulators need to talk to them as well. Also, they need to consult with Indigenous Peoples. It’s a little bit more definitive in terms of who you need to consider, but not the scope in terms of how long or the way in which they deliver them.
I think you had a third piece around the reporting of the minister. That is also a new piece. The minister would have to — within 90 days of making a decision public — be available to come to speak to Parliament. They also have to publish a report. That is an additional transparency measure that was added with the amendment. It wasn’t in the original design.
Senator MacAdam: Okay, thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: My question is for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat and will focus specifically on Division 6 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, the early retirement program, which will allow public servants to leave the public service without a reduction in their pension. At the same time, the bill creates a number of major new programs and organizations that require leading-edge expertise as well as a committed public service.
The budget does talk about reducing staff through increased attrition, but it also states that Treasury Board will have to ensure the maintenance of essential services and business continuity. It will have to develop criteria to that end. I’d like you to tell us about the five criteria you’re considering putting in place. What exactly will they be?
[English]
Ms. Power: Unfortunately, senator, I don’t think we are able to speak to that. It’s outside of our area of responsibility within the Treasury Board.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: I was anticipating that answer, unfortunately. On the Treasury Board website, you list four responsibilities: spending oversight, administrative leadership — I’ll tell you about that, since we’re talking about a productivity task force — your responsibility as an employer and regulatory oversight. You have very strong performance indicators. I won’t speak to the results today. That’s for another day.
Regarding your administrative leadership responsibility, the budget included excerpts indicating that you had to determine criteria for the continuation of services for the programs that are planned. I would like to hear what you have to say about the recommendations on your website regarding productivity task forces, more specifically the recommendations that you have not taken into account. Your website indicates that Treasury Board of Canada does not take recommendations into account because of other government priorities. One of the recommendations you decided not to consider was to measure productivity across the entire Canadian public sector.
So why did Treasury Board of Canada decide to reject that recommendation, namely, to measure productivity across the entire public sector?
Mr. DeJong: If I understand correctly, senator, with respect, Ms. Power and I are part of the regulatory sector at Treasury Board, and we can answer questions exclusively in the regulatory area or questions about sandboxes.
Senator Oudar: When it comes to sandboxes and regulations, aren’t effectiveness and productivity essential? Don’t your Treasury Board colleagues need to talk to you about the productivity criteria required to ensure the effectiveness of these sandboxes? You don’t work in silos at Treasury Board. Don’t you talk to your minister and make sure that your organization applies these sandboxes consistently?
[English]
Mr. DeJong: The intention for regulatory sandboxes are, indeed, to support competitiveness, innovation and economic growth. So, we would be able to work with our colleagues in terms of looking at key performance indicators and other criteria in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of these.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Yes, this plays an important role, Mr. Chair, for consistency purposes.
[English]
Senator Pupatello: Good morning. There were a number of investment tax credits that were identified in the budget, and we spoke this morning already of the critical minerals and the activity there that we’re hoping for.
This morning’s The Globe and Mail identified a story that has been an ongoing discussion around our capability and processing of those very same critical minerals. It’s one thing to have the minerals, and it’s another to go get them, but if we’re still reliant on outside countries to process them, how far are we actually getting down the road of self-determination in our manufacturing?
Can you identify which of the tax credits — because a number of them were added, enhanced or continued in this budget — are specifically meant to encourage additional processing of those minerals?
Mr. Baylor: Absolutely. Maybe the key one — and to your point — that is in existence and being modified in this bill is the Clean Technology Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit, which has a critical mineral component to it, and it has six critical minerals that were already included, and this budget extends that capacity. It’s basically for the extraction and processing of those critical minerals. I can talk a bit to those in terms of the list.
The initial list was lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, graphite and rare-earth elements. Basically, the budget extended those to antimony, indium, gallium, germanium and scandium. The purpose of these is very much to encourage the extraction and processing of critical minerals. Again, this bill touches on them. This is more on the exploration side, but the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit is being extended. That’s the 15% tax credit that goes to people that invest in the shares of these exploration companies. That’s broad. Then the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit, which focuses on critical minerals, is also being extended to the 13 critical minerals that we discussed previously.
Senator Pupatello: Just a final comment, perhaps. That story was interesting to me, because it suggested that while we’re cleaning up the tailings ponds from all of the mining that we have been doing, we’re actually able to extract some key minerals that the manufacturers are looking for. It has a double benefit of cleaning and restoring the environment and getting us the minerals that we require.
Does any of what we’re talking about in tax credits or incentives deal with the ability of companies to do that?
Mr. Baylor: There is a recycling component to some of these, yes.
To be precise, we would have to look at exactly the type of extraction processing that we’re talking about, but we did look at a recycling component, and some of these are focused on byproducts and co-products as well. When these things are split up, or when you’re recycling and extracting and processing, from that point, under certain conditions, that would apply.
Now, exactly in what specific conditions, it would have to be case by case, and we would have to look at that individually.
Senator Pupatello: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Is there anybody here this morning with an area that has some involvement with the Alto corporation and high-speed rail? Is there anybody here that can speak to that?
My next question, then, is for the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. A lot of the Crown corporations don’t have their own enabling legislation, so they operate under part 10 of the Financial Administration Act. Can you clarify who falls under part 10, and how do we find out who falls under part 10?
It’s a very confusing area, and I haven’t been able to get a good explanation. Are you able to address that question?
Mr. DeJong: Thank you for the question, but, respectfully, unfortunately, our area of expertise and what we’re able to speak to today refer exclusively within the regulatory domain.
Senator Marshall: I have no further questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Other questions?
[Translation]
I have a question about the credit for critical minerals. I imagine that there may be very low-grade critical minerals that, as a whole, would count as non-critical minerals. How do you assess this? Are there target or preferred grade percentages? Do you need to demonstrate that you have identified this? If you expand the list, I imagine that many mines in Canada could have minimal grades of any of these minerals. How do you proceed?
Mr. Baylor: A technical study must be carried out at the start to clearly identify that these critical minerals appear on the list.
The Chair: You have the core samples with the early tests. Will you then determine whether the tax credit applies in order to proceed?
Mr. Baylor: Exactly.
The Chair: Thank you. That was my question.
Senator Dalphond: I want to follow up on the chair’s question. Is there a minimum? Does it have to be the mine’s main operation? If you have a mine that extracts iron, but it turns out that something else accounts for 3% of the quantity extracted, do you qualify at that point?
Mr. Baylor: Perhaps I can get back to you to clarify. It’s 50% or 90%.
Senator Dalphond: Should this constitute the main operation for it to be directed towards this critical material?
Mr. Baylor: That’s the idea. I can get back to you.
Senator Dalphond: This was already being done. However, wasn’t it being piled up behind the plant, because it was a residue?
Mr. Baylor: Exactly. When we talk about exploration, we’re talking about the critical mineral exploration tax credit. It must be, as I said, either predominantly or entirely —
Senator Dalphond: Just for exploration or for mining too?
Mr. Baylor: If we’re talking about minerals, it’s really just for exploration. Let’s be clear. These are flow-through shares that give you the right to transfer exploration expenses. As I said earlier, when you explore, a study must be carried out beforehand to say that you’re exploring this area for these minerals.
Senator Dalphond: Are we encouraging mineral claims? We want these people to carry out exploration. Then, if something looks profitable, the credit will have run out. After that, will it be sold to the operator?
Mr. Baylor: It will be sold to the investor. After that, the investor will receive the exploration expenses and can deduct them, since the company can’t deduct them. The investor will receive a tax credit on these transferred deductions. That’s basically it.
The Chair: I think that we’ve raised some issues.
Senator Forest: The phosphate case that I spoke about earlier is quite a challenge. Phosphate is used extensively in agriculture compared with critical minerals. How will you sort this all out?
Mr. Baylor: We’re not talking about the end use here, but rather about exploration, at the time of exploration.
Senator Forest: Will one hundred per cent of the phosphate exploration be considered?
Mr. Baylor: What you do with the phosphate afterwards isn’t the issue.
Senator Hébert: It’s a bit along these lines.
I would like to go back in time a bit. How can you determine a percentage at the time of exploration, since you’re exploring?
Mr. Baylor: That’s my understanding. I’m not an expert. I’ll be careful. As I said, listen, we can get back to you regarding the criteria. I see that you have a number of questions about this. There are established criteria. It’s basically an engineering study. Engineers, when they do studies before exploring . . . . Obviously, before exploring, the companies, the firms — my understanding, I’m not an expert — have a good idea of what they’ll find. So, based on these studies, they attest that they’re mainly exploring for these critical minerals.
The Chair: Take the example of an abandoned mine. I have one in my area. I think that it’s niobium. We know that it exists and that mining techniques have improved. It wasn’t profitable before, but it has become profitable. Does the company have access to a credit to restart the mine, or will people say that it doesn’t constitute exploration?
Mr. Baylor: If the exploration expenses —
The Chair: No. However, we know that it exists, but it was abandoned.
Mr. Baylor: So, if additional exploration expenses must be incurred, yes. If you’re past that stage, at that point, it could fall under another credit.
The Chair: Okay.
Senator Forest: It’s important to clarify this. I gather that, in the case of exploration, you don’t ask about usage. You explore, and then the credits apply to the entire exploration activity. Is that right?
Mr. Baylor: Absolutely. We can basically give the committee the criteria.
The Chair: It isn’t that you want to start a mine, but you would like to help people who want to get a mine up and running.
Mr. Baylor: No, but it’s in the tax rules, just to make things clear to the senators.
Senator Forest: We want our mines to rock.
The Chair: Thank you.
Honourable senators, for our second panel, we’re pleased to welcome this morning the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Finance and National Revenue. He’s joined by Nick Leswick, Deputy Minister, Department of Finance Canada.
Minister, I’ve been informed that you would like to speak for about five or six minutes. We’ll then have some questions for you.
The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance and National Revenue: Thank you, colleagues, for inviting me to join you this morning.
As you know, last fall, I had the honour of tabling Budget 2025. The budget set out an ambitious plan for the country, designed to capitalize on Canada’s many strengths and to address the challenges of these exceptional times. We’re indeed living in an exceptional time in world history. Bill C-15, or Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, is the main legislative instrument for implementing this program.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the senators for all their hard work in studying this bill. Thank you for doing such a thorough job. I heard that a number of testimonies and meetings have focused on this topic, so thank you. Canadians expect each and every one of us to take swift and serious action given the circumstances that we’re facing in the global economy.
I’m pleased to be here today to give you a brief overview — obviously, in the space of a few minutes, we can give only an overview of a generational plan — and to introduce the key measures contained in the budget.
[English]
Faced with a dramatic rupture of the global rules-based order that kept Canada prosperous for decades, our government is embracing the world as it is, not as we wish it to be. With that come new opportunities to fundamentally shift how we trade, how we influence and how we build strength at home.
When I was recently with the Prime Minister abroad, we always said, “Strong at home and strategic abroad.” That’s really what you see in the budget.
Quite simply, Canada has what the world needs, and I can assure you that, coming from various missions, the world wants what Canada has to offer. We have an abundance of both conventional and clean energy as well as a highly educated workforce. You represent different regions of the country, so you know that. We have well-established diplomatic relationships that span the entire world. We offer peace, order and good governance. We have fiscal firepower, which was restated by the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, recently, and the ability to unlock generational investments that will help create good-paying jobs and build a prosperous economy for decades to come.
[Translation]
To address the challenges of our time, Budget 2025 offers a historic investment strategy that protects and transforms our industries, strengthens our economy and empowers Canadians. Our government is committed to delivering major projects for Canadians at a scale and speed not seen in generations.
From housing, infrastructure and defence to productivity and competitiveness, our plan puts Canadian workers front and centre and the national interest at the core of every decision that we make. This plan also defends our sovereignty through historic investments in national defence, security and the capabilities that we need to protect Canadians and certainly to ensure our sovereignty in Northern Canada.
[English]
As such, it is my earnest belief that Budget 2025 — and by extension, the budget implementation act, which I am here this morning here with our deputy minister to present — is the plan our country needs to leverage these enviable assets, shape our economy and secure our future. In other words, it’s the right plan at the right time.
[Translation]
To supercharge investment in research and development, Bill C-15 will enhance the scientific research and experimental development tax benefits. We’re doubling the enhanced credit expenditure limit from $3 million to $6 million, while extending eligibility to Canadian small- and medium-sized businesses and restoring capital expenditures as eligible costs.
This measure will be paired with a productivity superdeduction, which will reduce Canada’s marginal effective tax rate, or METR, by more than two percentage points. This makes Canada the G7 country with the most competitive tax system for new business investments. As a result, businesses can invest and grow more easily. This sends a clear message to investors. Canada is the destination of choice for growth and one of the best places in the world to invest. I can assure you, honourable senators, that after meeting with funds in Australia and investors in India, the eyes of the world are on Canada in such an uncertain world.
To keep the Canadian economy successful and thriving, we know that the key to competitiveness and long-term growth lies in being a low-carbon economy leader. The climate competitiveness strategy our government proposed in Budget 2025 will stimulate the investments needed for Canadian businesses to be competitive — and most importantly, thrive — in a net-zero future.
As part of this strategy, Bill C-15 includes measures to introduce the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit to support technologies and the power grid, as well as to expand the existing suite of clean economy investment tax credits.
[English]
While we leverage Canada’s many strengths to build a strong and resilient economy, we are also focused on making our economy fairer for all Canadians, no matter their circumstances, through important tax reforms. Bill C-15 introduces targeted reforms to support those that power our economy and our communities.
As an example, Bill C-15 will both exempt the Canada Disability Benefit from income calculations and expand the disability supports deduction.
Bill C-15 will also introduce something I’m very proud of, and I’m sure you would be as well, which is a temporary tax credit for personal support workers, which will provide up to $1,100 per year to eligible workers across the nation, tangibly recognizing their vital contribution to our communities. We’ve seen it during COVID-19, but we should always remember that they play a vital role in our communities.
While unlocking investments that will help build the strongest economy in the G7 — that’s our north star — we are also putting in place more targeted measures to immediately help Canadians. To keep our financial sector at the cutting edge, Bill C-15 will advance the government’s commitment to open banking. I think that is something, Mr. Chair, that you are certainly very open to looking at.
By completing the consumer-driven banking framework, we are giving Canadians more choices, lower costs and greater control over their own financial data.
[Translation]
In order to make all these critical investments in our workers, businesses and infrastructure, our government is cutting back on public administration operations. To achieve that, we’re reducing red tape and adopting AI on a large scale.
[English]
Mr. Chair, we are also right-sizing the government as part of our Comprehensive Expenditure Review, primarily through attrition and voluntary departures. These efforts will save Canada $13 billion annually by 2028-29. Combined with other savings and revenues, this represents $60 billion over five years, ensuring a more efficient, productive and effective public service.
In conclusion, taken together, the measures contained in Budget 2025 and Bill C-15 are part of one single vision for the Canadian economy; one that is rooted in confidence in our country and confidence in Canadians. By making these generational investments today, we are securing the prosperity of Canadians for decades to come because we believe in Canadians and the extraordinary opportunities that Canada offers to each and every one of us.
With that, Mr. Chair, I’m more than happy to answer questions from colleagues.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. We will now proceed to questions.
[English]
Senator Marshall: Thank you, minister, for being here and also to your deputy minister. I want to talk about Division 38 of Part 5 and your request for an increase in the debt ceiling of $2 trillion to $2.5 trillion. It was already increased $300 billion just 18 months ago, and now you’re asking for approval to increase that limit by another $400 billion. Actually, your debt next year, if you don’t get the increase, is pushing up against your current ceiling, and it’s eating into your $100-billion buffer. You’re very tight there with regard to your borrowing.
Your spending is accelerating, your debt-servicing costs are increasing, your debt is exploding and your financial projections aren’t credible. My question is: How are you going to bring your spending under control?
Mr. Champagne: Senator, first of all, thank you for the question. I would just say maybe a few people in the world might disagree with how you portray Canada’s finances. I wish you would be at the G7 meetings that I attend because colleagues would really want to be in Canada’s position I can assure you.
Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio, has a triple-A credit rating, and there is only Germany in that position with Canada. Canada was applauded, you may have seen, at the last IMF meeting. The managing director singled out 2 countries in the world — not 5, not 10. She said there are really two countries in the G7 who have the fiscal power to make generational investments. If you look at the plan of Canada and the one of Germany, you will see similarities. The German plan is seen as the mother of all infrastructure plans in the G7. They invest in housing, infrastructure, competitiveness and defence. If you compare to the German plan, you will see that Canada’s is actually a more ambitious plan to invest in infrastructure —
Senator Marshall: I’m using your numbers, minister, and your financial projections aren’t credible. I’m using the numbers you’re providing.
Mr. Champagne: I may have a slightly different view than you, senator, on that. I would say even former parliamentary budget officers have praised the sustainability of Canada’s finances.
Like I said, when you’re blessed with a triple-A credit rating in the G7, when you have the lowest net debt-to-GDP, when you have one of the lowest deficits to GDP, I can assure you, senator — I really wish you would be with me on these calls because you would see how much colleagues are looking to Canada as the North Star with respect to governance, to our finances and to our strategic investments.
And it’s not just me. Just look at the market. You and I may disagree, but one thing we may not disagree on is that the market has confidence in Canada because that speaks for itself. The market has confidence.
Senator Marshall: Can I ask one follow-up question? Are you telling us here today that you aren’t going to do anything with regard to trying to control your spending, trying to control the debt, trying to control the debt servicing? Are you saying that, no, we’re well and away, let’s keep going?
Mr. Champagne: No, I would say, senator, I’m sure you would have seen in the budget we achieved $60 billion of savings. If you compare this to what former Prime Minister Mulroney and former Prime Minister Chrétien did, it is comparable in terms of scale to what previous governments have done —
Senator Marshall: But minister —
Mr. Champagne: Do you want me to continue?
Senator Marshall: The savings haven’t materialized yet, and I doubt very much those savings are going to materialize.
Mr. Champagne: I have more faith in Canadians than you have, Senator. I have more faith in Canadians. Canadians are people who are able to meet the moment. The people you and I represent understand we live in a very uncertain world. The events of the last few days have highlighted that. The world is praising Canada for its governance, for its fiscal sustainability and for its ability to do things. We’re a nation that does big things. I would have more faith in our civil service perhaps than you express in terms of their ability to deliver the savings that we have identified. I have faith in people.
Senator Marshall: It’s not the civil servants. You’re the Minister of Finance —
The Chair: Sorry, Senator Marshall.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Thank you, minister. It’s always a pleasure.
Knowing your commitment to building an efficient organization and cooperating with all partners, my question is this: Bill C-15 amends the Consumer-Driven Banking Act, which was passed not so long ago on April 24, 2024. The Government of Quebec wrote to you on February 19 to raise important regulatory enforcement issues affecting Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction. According to Quebec, the act could completely contradict its provisions and make it impossible for a business operating there to comply with both sets of rules. Was Quebec consulted on this? Is work being done to harmonize these regulations? In my opinion, when it comes to efficiency, our rules should be harmonized as much as possible.
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator.
You raise an important point. I’m working hand in hand with Minister Girard, an exceptional colleague of mine.
Yes, he wrote to me on February 19. We obviously took Quebec’s position into consideration. In the proposed amendments to Bill C-15, a specific amendment was made to very clearly express the legislator’s intention to preserve the prerogatives of the Government of Quebec and the Quebec legislation.
We want a national framework, but obviously we also want to respect Quebec jurisdictions. So, not only was it expressed, but in Bill C-15, an amendment was proposed and adopted in committee expressly to ensure that Quebec’s position is clearly and very precisely stated.
Senator Forest: Again, according to Quebec, in terms of liability, no serious review has been done to determine whether the proposed rules adequately align with the general civil liability provisions that apply, such as the one introduced in the Consumer Protection Act, P-40.1, and the one about holding deposit accounts.
I understand that there is still work to be done on harmonization, as you say. Are negotiations about that continuing with the province?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you for bringing that up.
Federal-provincial relations have indeed taken a historic turn. We’re working together. Many federal-provincial meetings are being held, both between the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers, and between the finance ministers. At a time like this in history, people expect us to work closely together. That’s exactly what we’re doing.
In Quebec’s case, not only have we taken its concerns seriously, there have been discussions within the public service, but this amendment was adopted to explicitly state in the bill the legislator’s intention to respect the powers and jurisdictions of the Government of Quebec. That said, we’re continuing to work hand in hand with our colleagues in Quebec and across the country.
Senator Forest: Mr. Chair, if I may, I would like to table Minister Girard’s letter to help us continue our study and to stay focused on their concerns.
[English]
Senator Hay: Minister, nice to see you. I do love the North Star, that is for sure. I want to focus today on what you said: “Stronger at home.” Budget 2025 highlights investments in innovation, emerging technologies and artificial intelligence, which is terrific. Canada was a global leader in AI research and talent, supported by the Pan-Canadian Artificial Intelligence Strategy, but many stakeholders, people and start-ups in Canada note that we still struggle to scale companies and infrastructure domestically and keep companies in Canada once they begin to scale and thrive.
Minister, I guess my question is: What is Canada’s “play to win” strategy to ensure that Budget 2025 helps Canadian companies scale here at home and translate our leadership into long-term economic growth right here in Canada and then globally?
Mr. Champagne: That is a very good question, senator. I’m glad that you are highlighting that because productivity and competitiveness have been at the heart of the Canadian public debate since I was able to write and read, and that would go back a few decades. That’s why in Budget 2025 we doubled down on that because we know this is ensuring the prosperity of the country.
I would note that the productivity super-deduction, for example, is one of the key elements to incentivize Canadian companies to invest more. We have a suite of products — and I would say tools in a tool box — to support innovation.
You’re quite right, Canadians should know, because there are many Canadians watching at home, but in many ways AI has been invented in Canada. I mean, we have two of the global leaders in AI who received a Nobel Prize for their work. But you’re right that initial science and research have migrated into commercialization in other places.
Now, how we go better from the idea to the product and the commercialization of that is something we are addressing.
Clearly, the suite of tax credits we provide is probably the most generous in the G7. As I said, the marginal effective tax rate in Canada now for new investment is the lowest in the G7, lower than in the United States after the One, Big, Beautiful Bill. It’s about 3% or 4% lower. Canada is one of the most attractive jurisdictions.
At the same time, you remember when I was Minister of Industry, we did a big push to support our fundamental research and applied research in the country to the granting councils and the work we’ve been doing, because our universities are among the top in the world. One of the strengths of Canada is the talented workforce we have. We have the most educated workforce in the world, and that gives us an edge in the economy of the 21st century, when talent is king. Resources will be important, energy will be important, but people are key to all of that.
Therefore, to your point, we’ve been working, and we’ve also been trying to champion. Something that Canada has not been doing enough of, in my view, is championing our Canadian companies. When we have missions abroad, we make a point of championing our Canadian companies so that the world can discover them. I think about the Cohere’s of the world, for example, in AI; Xanadu in quantum, and Coveo. There are a number of companies which are flagship computer-generated imagery, or CGI companies, not only in our country but around the world. We’ve been making a point to really showcase them around the world and to help them build partnerships.
Senator Ross: Thank you, minister, for joining us at our committee today.
Recently, this committee has been studying the use of large omnibus bills to include non-financial matters in bills like the BIA. Although we’re here to discuss Bill C-15, which does include many non-financial matters, I also draw your attention to the recent Bill C-4 on affordability, which included the unrelated Part 4.
Is this a practice that you plan to continue, and can you help us understand why this has been the practice?
Mr. Champagne: I’ll comment on two things. First, you will appreciate that the operations of government are more complex today than they have been in the past in the sense that when you have a legislative vehicle, you have to use it to the best extent possible.
I appreciate your concern. I’ve been a member of Parliament for 10 years, so I’ve seen different versions of that.
With respect to Bill C-4, Part 4, this was just to clarify the intent of the House. The House has been clear many times about what the House intends, in a unanimous fashion, to clarify the state of law in the country. That’s why in Bill C-4, there was a Part 4 because it was the unanimous desire of every member of Parliament to clarify that there would be a single framework around the country when it comes to privacy and elections, and the House has been expressing its will in a very clear way and, I think, providing legal clarity, because you avoid litigation when you provide clarity, when the legislature is very clear on that. I think we’ve been unanimous in saying what the intent of the legislature is with respect to Part 4 of Bill C-4.
Senator Ross: Given that response, do you plan to continue to bring things that are not related to a specific bill? In that instance, perhaps that could have been a separate bill or brought up with something that it was related to, such as the privacy bill that we’ve been hearing will be forthcoming. Moving forward, what is your intent?
Mr. Champagne: Again, on Bill C-4, I’ve been a member of Parliament for 10 years, and it’s rare you have unanimity in the House. Trust me, I have not seen that very often. That must send a strong signal to Canadians and everyone else that when the House is unanimous — no single member has objected — it is sending a very strong signal about the will of Parliament with respect to that.
If you’re talking about Bill C-4 —
Senator Ross: The question is: Do you plan to continue to add non-financial matters into financial bills?
Mr. Champagne: I’m very conscious of the omnibus nature of these things. As I said, the operations of governments are complex. Some of the time, we need to use a legislative vehicle to achieve the intended purpose.
I would say the state of the world today requires us to act swiftly to protect Canadians, to protect our sovereignty and to protect our interests. I can assure you that every time something is in a bill, it is always in the public interest to defend, empower and build for Canada. Canadians expect us to act very quickly. The state of the world requires us to be acting with eyes wide open, in seriousness and swiftly in many ways to protect Canadians.
You can see in the bill there are a number of things that will make Canada more competitive. In a world like that, if you and I were to go on the street and ask Canadians, they expect us to use smartly, wisely and seriously the legislative vehicle we have to further the interests in a world that is changing fast.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Good morning and thank you, minister, for being with us.
At the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy, which I have the honour of chairing, we focused on the sections of Bill C-15 pertaining to the Consumer‑Driven Banking Act. Generally speaking, the committee members were pleased with the bill and encouraged us to move forward. However, as my colleague Senator Forest mentioned, the Quebec Minister of Finance sent you a letter saying that he had significant concerns — to put it politely — with these changes. This letter reached us after we finished our committee work.
You responded with the amendment about protecting personal information. However, what about the handling of complaints? The Autorité des marchés financiers, or AMF, has jurisdiction over this. There are concerns in Quebec about the potential for duplication in this regard. Would you be open to a letter of intent or amendments in that regard?
Mr. Champagne: First of all, thank you, Senator Gignac, for all the work you do, not only as an economist, but also as chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy. It’s a very important committee.
As I said, we’re working hand in hand. The years of conflict between Ottawa and Quebec City are behind us. We’re working together collaboratively and strategically. Look, like me, Quebec’s Minister of Finance realizes what kind of a world we live in today and understands our desire and our duty to work hand in hand. I can tell you that we’re constantly discussing things.
Obviously, we took the content of the letter very seriously. That’s why, as you saw, there was an amendment.
In terms of complaints, we are open to the Quebec government’s perspective on this matter. We’ll have a chance to talk about it, since we’ll be having a meeting of finance ministers from all tiers of government in the coming months, if memory serves. We’ll have the opportunity to discuss this to ensure that federal legislation aligns well with Quebec legislation.
We have expressly recognized Quebec’s jurisdictions in the act, because the intention was not only to state this publicly, but to specifically incorporate it into the act. That’s why we included an amendment to Bill C-15.
Senator Gignac: Minister, we’re going to move on to another topic.
Our committee has had the opportunity to welcome the leaders of the First Nations Finance Authority. In your budget, you allude to providing this authority with new monetization tools. However, there’s nothing in Bill C-15 to grant powers to indigenous businesses.
My question is: When can we expect the law concerning Indigenous businesses to be amended so that the government walks the talk? You talked about it in the budget, but what we understood is that there’s nothing they can actually implement.
Mr. Champagne: I’d like to come back to the question your colleague Senator Ross asked earlier. Yes, this is Budget Implementation act, No. 1. There will be act No. 2. As you well know, things will come up in future budget implementation acts. The intent is very clear in Budget 2025, but the implementation is still to come.
This is also part of the consultations. When we talk about First Nations, we have always been committed, both in the House and in the Senate, to ensuring that First Nations’ voices are heard in the implementation of the objectives we have developed together with them. This will come in a future piece of legislation that we will need to introduce.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much, minister, for always coming to answer our questions.
[English]
Our eyes are wide open, but it’s not enough to read the 600 pages. We also had to follow what your chamber was doing with the budget. We know there was some pressure for you to make amendments with respect to regulatory sandboxes and red tape reduction. Now, you have 13 laws listed there. However, there are two very important laws that are not on this list, which are the Canada Labour Code and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. How are you going to ensure the rights and freedoms necessary to protect workers and the environment? Because, as you said, a healthy environment is the foundation for a healthy and sustainable economy. Who will the minister consult? Could you keep it short? I have another question.
Mr. Champagne: That’s a good question. We spent a lot of time on guardrails with respect to what we call the regulatory sandbox. By the way, this is not new. This exists in all G7 countries. We are just catching up with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD. There is a lot of discussion. Just so we’re clear, I have a list of all the countries who have a similar framework based on the OECD report. This is something that has existed for a long time.
We were trying to upgrade and remove some of the red tape. We have accepted that our colleagues and the opposition wanted to put up more guardrails. We have listed a number of them. I just want to be clear to Canadians that these exemptions would be for very limited sectors. We talked about clean technology and financial technology. Then, you have a number of guardrails. Specifically, we have listed a number of acts that would still apply. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list. Obviously, the minister will have to use good judgment when they apply these very limited exemptions.
Just so you know, this was an ask from the innovators in Canada. This was an ask from people who said, “Allow us to be competitive compared to other jurisdictions.” Because if they don’t do it here, they will do it somewhere else.
Senator Galvez: That gives me a segue to my second question. Our prime minister is going around the world to solicit investments. We all agree that we need more competitiveness, productivity and to scale up innovation.
But in the budget, this innovation, productivity and competitiveness that have been found and supported are in a sector that is sunsetting. That productivity and innovation are now transitioning to electrification or the low-carbon economy. The other part of the question is: Why are we not asking our big financial institutions, pension plans, the banks and insurance companies, to contribute more to this transition?
Mr. Champagne: I think they will, senator. I can tell you, coming back from meetings with what they call “the super,” which is also the pension fund in Australia, that there is a lot of desire to be part of it. Canada has the most extensive suite of clean economy tax credits. This is not lost on them. They realize that an investment in Canada, whether it’s in the Clean Technology Investment Tax Credit, clean electricity or the Clean Hydrogen Investment Tax Credit. We have a suite of tax credits that really make Canada the best place to invest in the world when you want to be part of a new economy.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Thank you, minister, for being with us today.
I have two questions that are related because they have the same effect: trying to rewrite history, the retroactive effect that goes back a long way, such as the year 2000 for Bill C-4.
In Section 19 of Bill C-15, I’m particularly interested in the situation of veterans, those who are entitled to reimbursements for medical care, which are calculated based on the lowest rate in any province in Canada. Under the Interpretation Act, the definition of “province” is supposed to include the territories. However, they want to change the law to state that it doesn’t include the territories in order to put an end to a class-action suit filed by veterans seeking reimbursement for overpayments made when the Northwest Territories rate was used instead of the lowest provincial rate. According to Clause 6075 of the bill, this will apply retroactively to July 15, 1998. The Veterans Ombud has urged you, written to the government, and said, “Don’t do this, it’s not fair, it’s not right.”
Why is the government not heeding this request from veterans? How many millions of dollars are we talking about here?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you for the question.
First, I think that all Canadians and certainly members of Parliament, including senators, have enormous respect for all those who serve in uniform, our veterans, and all those who serve in our Canadian Armed Forces.
All we’re doing is clarifying the legislator’s intent. As a lawyer, when it comes to legal matters, I think it’s always important to seek to clarify the legislator’s intent precisely to avoid litigation. The legislator’s intent has always been that the definition of “province” includes the provinces in this case. That’s also how the department applied it. I think that clarifying the legislator’s intent promotes legal stability. There’s the Interpretation Act, so that’s one thing, but there’s also the legislator’s intent. What that part is saying is that this was always the intention. The courts are being told, “Please note that the legislator’s intent has always been for this to be limited to the provinces.” That was the legislator’s intent at the time, and it still is today. That’s being clarified, which sends a clear signal.
As a lawyer, I think that it’s always desirable to remove legal uncertainty —
Senator Dalphond: I’m going to interrupt you because time is running out, if I may.
The bottom line is that you’re saying that there was a miscalculation or a misunderstanding of the act at the time. They’re suing us for the same thing, and you’re saying that we have a useful weapon as defendants: the law will be changed, and they won’t be right.
That’s what’s unfair to Canadians and the public, to say that if there’s a mistake in the act, if the work was done wrong, and people then sue the government to correct the situation, perhaps things can be changed for the future, but why go back to 1998?
Mr. Champagne: I’m speaking from a legal perspective. The choice of words wasn’t a mistake. That’s how the legislator intended it, interpreted it and applied it. Obviously, it’s necessary to defer to the legislator in these matters.
I believe that legal predictability is always desirable when it comes to interpretation. What we’re saying is that that’s how the legislator wrote it and applied it, and that this has always been its intent. Saying that this was the legislator’s intent at the time and that it’s being reaffirmed today, as has been done in Bill C-4, clarifies the matter for all the courts.
Senator Dalphond: In Bill C-4, I think we all agree that there should be a national program and that it won’t be up to the provinces to determine how political parties operate. However, why isn’t the government prepared to commit to saying that political parties will soon have their own specific privacy regime, one that will be guaranteed by law?
The Chair: You have two seconds to answer.
Mr. Champagne: Mr. Chair, in two seconds, I can’t do justice to Senator Dalphond, who asked an important question.
As for Bill C-4, I believe there have been representations to the effect that, yes, people want a national regime that will protect privacy, but that it’s in the national interest to have one single regime rather than one per province or territory. I think that was the House’s intention.
[English]
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you, minister and deputy minister, for being with us today.
I want to focus on a zero-cost initiative in the budget. It’s related to some changes that were made and promoted by the opposition party to the Red Tape Reduction Act and, specifically, to sandboxes. Adding red tape is what seemed to happen, and the scope was limited. It went exactly in the wrong direction, I think. I think it’s part of a misunderstanding about the purpose of sandboxes. They are there for agility, not for deregulation. The purpose is to say, “How can we keep up with the changes around us in the world?”
I want to focus on the cabinet directive on regulation, which allows for incorporation by reference across the government of consensus-based standards. There is the Standards Council of Canada’s consensus-based standard on the design implementation and evaluation of regulatory sandboxes.
Would that provide an ability to move — because we spoke with the Treasury Board officials, and they really described where we’re at now is not providing an opportunity for us to implement sandboxes in areas that are most innovative because it’s limited to one department, one minister, and doesn’t allow us, with a lot of innovations, to cut across those silos to move ahead.
I’m just wondering, with further cuts to the public service imminent, I would think — based on our financial situation and the limited capacity of our regulators to keep up these changes in traditional means — would this opportunity of using the cabinet directive on regulation, and incorporating standards by reference, allow for a broader use of sandboxes? Again, control. This is not a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, Senator Deacon. Maybe a member of the opposition would think that I have asked you to ask the question. I am so happy because you speak the truth.
I mean, honestly, we were just updating Canada to international standards. I hope that when the Council of Canadian Innovators, and others, have questions, they will ask the opposition why, when we were trying to reduce red tape, we have added a number of rules that will make a very discrete tool in the toolbox have many more caveats.
At the time, this was asked of the government because they said, if we don’t do it here, we’ll do it somewhere else. There was a question about promoting Canadian companies and scaling.
Now, I have to accept we’re a minority Parliament; the House has spoken. We have added a number of rules that are going to make use of that, I think, less attractive because there are a lot of things to go through. That being said, that’s the will of the House. People will have to adjust to the reality. But you’re right, we have really limited the tool to environmental innovation and financial innovation. So that was already very limited in terms of the use of that.
We have tried to use best practices, seen in other OECD countries. Now, the opposition has deemed it appropriate to add additional guardrails such as reports to Parliament and other measures. I respect that. This is where we are.
But I think if there is some explaining to do, they will have to go to the opposition to see the wisdom of putting all of that. Some of the guardrails I would certainly subscribe are warranted. However, some will make it more cumbersome than perhaps we had initially anticipated. But this is the nature of where we are today. But certainly —
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator MacAdam: Thank you, Minister, for being here this morning. I have been asking officials coming before this committee, for a number of years, about a comprehensive review of the tax system. A comprehensive review has not happened in decades. Budget 2025 does not include a commitment to a more comprehensive review. The government promised, as part of its election, to have an expert review of the corporate tax system, but it’s also absent from the budget.
In a report last week, the C.D. Howe Institute actually argued that Canada needs a much broader and more comprehensive tax reform effort.
I’m wondering if you could speak to that in terms of whether the government has plans to look at a comprehensive review, or comprehensive tax reform?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you very much. It’s a very important question. I mean, we have started to look at removing a number of boutique tax credits, as I would describe them, to try to make the tax code simpler. It is a worthwhile endeavour.
I would just say, with the state of the world as we speak, there are a number of priorities we need to address in the level of uncertainty and complexity that we see in the world today. We need to focus on building resiliency. You have seen the recent events of the last few days. There are a lot of things going on at the same time.
It is certainly a goal, but when you’re in government, it’s all about focus, priority and execution. I would say, for now, we have been focused on building the strongest economy in the G7, ensuring the sovereignty of Canada and making sure that we will be resilient, whatever may happen in the world. Because, as the Prime Minister said, let’s focus on what we can control; build one Canadian economy; remove interprovincial barriers; and have projects of national interest.
So, on the one hand, it’s a goal; on the other hand, as the Minister of Finance, I need to be in sync with everything that is happening in the world, and make sure we focus and prioritize the work we have to do to empower Canadians, protect Canadians and build the Canadian economy.
Senator MacAdam: Don’t you think tax reform in and of itself contributes to or could contribute to a stronger and more resilient economy? To me it all goes together, but I do agree, it’s a large project.
Mr. Champagne: Your point is very valid. I would say, yes, the challenge is in the very complex, uncertain and fast-changing world.
We have a number of priorities that we need to address in order to make Canada resilient. Like I said, it’s still a goal. The question is about focus and priorities. I think the events of the last few days have shown that, for any G7 minister these days, every day we need to look at the state of the world, work together to make sure that we provide stability and confidence to consumers and investors, and make sure we take structural steps together to ensure that not only our domestic economy but the world economy will be fine.
Senator MacAdam: A recent report by the International Monetary Fund was supportive of your government’s move toward higher public investment, but also said a clear debt to GDP anchor should remain central to Canada’s fiscal framework, and it’s not there. Can you just tell me why that’s not — why you’ve dropped that as one of the fiscal anchors of government?
Mr. Champagne: I’m happy that you referred to the IMF report. I think they praised Canada time and time again with respect to our fiscal capacity and our discipline.
I would say we have fiscal anchors that are in the budget, and even former parliamentary budget officers have said that balancing operating revenues with expenses is a very significant anchor by itself. The fact that we’re spending less to invest more gives market confidence that Canada is on the right track.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Welcome, minister. I’m very pleased to have you with us.
I’m going to talk about an issue you have fought against, which is the Driver Inc. scheme. Thank you for the statements you made on that before Christmas. I hope the changes will come.
I had to work on this issue when I was president of CNESST. As you know, this scheme deprives workers of social protection. There have been dramatic consequences for almost 15 years now.
Since 2011, the federal government has allowed a loophole by letting truck drivers be classified as self-employed on the T4A slip, even though they are really employees. This led to a lack of training, an increase in accidents, and workers who were unskilled and deprived of social protection. You’re aware of that, and I’d like to thank you for your statements. Money is going to be invested: You mentioned $77 million over four years, plus $19 million a year to the CRA to combat this scheme.
I’m going to bring up some questions on retroactivity. In terms of the future, it won’t be possible to classify truck drivers that way anymore. However, as for the past, do you plan to go as far back as 2011? Has the tax limitation period been lifted, since this is a matter of fraud? Will these offending companies no longer be able to bid on public contracts? I’d like to hear you speak to the consequences.
We’ll talk about the future, but right now I’d like to talk about what has happened over the past 15 years, to hear what you have to say about the consequences not only for businesses, but also for workers, since that hasn’t been discussed.
Mr. Champagne: First of all, thank you for raising this issue, since it’s a public safety issue.
When it comes to public safety, it’s important to act firmly and quickly. I think we have done so, just as we did with extortion in another case. We took strong and decisive action.
I was going to say that this was a scourge that had to be stopped. We did what we could with the Canada Revenue Agency to resolve the issue. At the time, there was a moratorium that had unfortunate consequences. Things had to be set right. We did so.
When it comes to taxes, I’d like for us to get back to you in writing, if you don’t mind, senator, because people at home want more clarity. We have to be very precise about the statements we make when it comes to taxes. That’s something I have learned, you know. I’d like to answer you in writing, then, so I can give very specific answers to your statements and provide more clarity to employers, employees and operators in the field. We can table all of that with the committee.
The Chair: That will be available on the committee’s website for those who are interested.
Mr. Champagne: Perfect.
The Chair: There are nine seconds left, so we will go to —
Senator Oudar: I would just like to talk about the links with the provinces; it’s important.
The Chair: Senator Oudar, I understand, but your time is up. Sorry.
Senator Hébert: Thank you for being here, minister. As an economist, I can only applaud all the efforts the government is making to strengthen the Canadian economy. We’re headed in the right direction on many fronts.
I want to go back to the sandboxes. Amendments were made that provided guardrails, as you mentioned, so things went from a sort of wide-open beach to something more restrictive. Sandboxes were also restricted to two sectors: environmental and financial technologies. I get the impression that we’re now dealing with a small bucket of sand rather than a regulatory sandbox.
You just came back from the G7. You mentioned the OECD countries that have these systems. I worry that several other sectors are strategic for Canada at the moment: defence, as you mentioned; mining exploration and energy, in particular. Do you think the fact that this provision’s scope has been narrowed so much undermines our ability to attract investment and our competitiveness at a time when agility is crucial in Canada’s strategic sectors?
Mr. Champagne: Senator, you have said everything I’m thinking. Indeed, the scope had to be narrowed out of necessity, through amendments, since compromises have to be made in a minority Parliament. That’s why I was surprised by the public debate around it.
Mr. Chair, it’s rare that I take the liberty of suggesting that senators conduct studies, but it might be worth it for the Senate to do one. You know, in the public sphere, this was seen as a new measure, something unique to Canada, and I would like to tell you that my international colleagues were surprised by that. It isn’t as if we just invented hot water; this measure has been around for many years in most OECD and G7 countries. It’s a measure that promotes innovation by small- and medium-sized businesses.
You’re right, this measure had to be restricted with a number of limits, since that’s what the opposition asked for. Under the circumstances, we had to move forward. I think that even for you and perhaps also for the Senate, Mr. Chair, a joint study could be done with the House.
The Chair: You say we didn’t invent hot water. Don’t ask us to do a hot water study.
Mr. Champagne: No, but perhaps we can bring it back to lukewarm, because in this case, the water is a bit hot. We could look at how other countries do things and draw inspiration from them.
Senator Hébert: Have you assessed what the potential impacts would be in terms of making us less attractive for investment going forward? The investments we need for our infrastructure and our energy sources are very real and concrete. Do you have any studies on that?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, senator.
I’m looking at a list of European Union and other countries that all have frameworks for this: Korea, the U.S., Brazil, Colombia, Singapore, the U.K., France, Germany and Mauritius. In Canada, we have a framework, but it is quite limited. As the chair was saying, and I agree, this is nothing new. It was seen and perhaps even perceived in the public sphere as something new. That’s when I said that we’re trying to modernize the Canadian framework to get there, because the fact is, as you put it so well, that if it doesn’t happen here, it will happen elsewhere. I have a list of countries where it is done.
It would therefore be a good idea to do a joint study with the House to see if we can look at what is being done, in a calm, principled and serious manner, and try to demystify the issue, which has taken on rather unusual proportions in Canada compared to what is being done in the other G7 countries.
The Chair: Minister, you are looking for money all over. We’ve seen you travel around the world with the Prime Minister, particularly to Tokyo and Sydney. You mentioned Australian pension funds. I would now suggest you travel to Meadowlands Drive in Ottawa. The Canada Pension Plan has $780 billion, but only 13% of that is invested in Canada. On Sherbrooke Street in Montreal, PSP Investments, a Crown agency, has $300 billion, with just 20% of that amount being invested in Canada. If investing in Canada is that good, as we all believe it is, don’t you think Canadian pensioners should benefit from these exceptional returns through Canadian pension funds?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m sure many people are listening to you with great interest.
I think the tone and tenor have changed in this country. The Prime Minister was clear about the fact that we’re building, we’re developing new projects and we’ve set up the Major Projects Office. I can tell you —
The Chair: I understand from your answer that you don’t intend to put in place anything, no limits or incentives, to force or more strongly urge pension funds to invest in Canada?
Mr. Champagne: What I’m saying is that pension funds see the value in Canada investing more in Canada. I went to see them and talked to them. This is one of the first times, to my knowledge, that the so-called “Maple Eight,” or “Maple Nine” with the Caisse representatives, were with us. I think people are discovering the value of this because of the stability, predictability and rule of law in this country with the Major Projects Office.
I’m moving fast, but one of the issues was that Canada also had to develop a project list. Australia has had a project list for a long time. It allows for transparency and clarity. The funds want to know what the projects are. I think that not only Canadian funds, but also, for example, Australian and Middle Eastern funds are strongly interested in Canada.
The Chair: Speaking of projects, let’s talk about high-speed rail, or HSR. The HSR route goes through the bottom of your riding: Sainte-Marthe-du-Cap, Champlain, Batiscan and Sainte-Anne-de-la-Pérade. Your bill takes away recourse from the people who are affected and from the Canadian Transportation Agency, in addition to limiting rights for future expropriated people. How do you explain that to your constituents?
Mr. Champagne: You forgot Trois-Rivières, which is also in my riding.
The Chair: Sainte-Marthe-du-Cap, the Sainte-Marthe area, Saint-Louis-de-France —
Mr. Champagne: Those are two districts: Sainte-Marthe, so Trois-Rivières. I am also one of the members for Trois-Rivières, and people are very happy. I’ve been in politics for 10 years, and people have been asking for it for 10 years. Now we are delivering the goods.
The Chair: — Batiscan, Sainte-Anne, Champlain.
Mr. Champagne: Sorry, you’re talking about the others. We’ve modernized the act, but we’ve drawn heavily on what’s being done in Quebec. You will see that the legislative provisions introduced in Bill C-15 modernize the framework, and that it was based on best practices at the provincial level.
The Chair: Why remove recourse from the Transportation Agency?
Mr. Champagne: I’d say that it is in the spirit of modernizing the act, coordinating and aligning with what is already done in Quebec.
The Chair: Have your constituents been made aware of this?
Mr. Champagne: We have been competing at every meeting for a high-speed train that stops at Trois-Rivières for 10 years. It has been the number one issue for the region’s chamber of commerce since I started in 2015, and it had been before I arrived. The major step we managed to take, I was about to say you and I, is we got the train through Trois-Rivières, and you know that it wasn’t necessarily done at the time. This is a great achievement for the people of Mauricie and Centre-du-Québec.
The Chair: Thank you. Do you have a few minutes more?
Mr. Champagne: I’m enjoying myself here with you.
[English]
Senator Al Zaibak: Minister, welcome back. I’m always pleased to see you with us.
My question relates to your plan to reduce the deficit. If I read it right, the budget projects that the federal government’s deficit will decline from $78 billion in 2025-26 to $56.6 billion in 2029-30. What are the main measures in Bill C-15 that will reduce the deficit over the next four years, in terms of both spending and revenue?
Mr. Champagne: Thank you very much. I heard music, so I thought people were happy about the budget projection, senator. Senator Forest was so eager and enthusiastic about the budget.
Now, I want to say thank you. It’s two things. It’s spending less and investing more. We’ve been very clear that we needed to put the house in order. I think Canadians expect that. I mean, Canadians have been tightening their belts for quite some time, and they expect the federal government to do the same.
The exercise we did to find $60 billion in savings is very serious. We’ve done that in six months, and what we have tabled compares well with what former Prime Minister Harper and former Prime Minister Chrétien did during their times. You can see that the scale of what we’re doing is ambitious but also serious. We need to put the house in order.
The compounded annual growth rate of some of the programs was not sustainable. We have to bring that back to a more sustainable level. That’s one thing.
The other thing is to generate growth. That’s why this is an investment budget. We say that the investments we’re planning in the budget will result in $1 trillion in investment. Coming back from a mission with the prime minister around the world, I can see that that the world is interested in Canada. I can tell from my G7 calls, when you look at the events of the world today, that Canada is seen as a very stable and predictable energy supplier to the world. This morning, some countries were texting me to ask for more resources, because now, with the geopolitical challenges and our ability to export from both the East Coast or the West Coast, there is a lot of interest in our resources.
[Translation]
Senator Henkel: Thank you, minister, for being with us. I have two questions. I hope you can answer them succinctly.
First, in 2025, fraudsters cheated Canadians of over $704 million, according to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. They very often use payments or bank transfers. What bothers me the most is that Canada is now seen as the Eldorado of fraud. During the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Commerce and the Economy’s study of Bill C-15, it was determined that the measures in Division 16 were woefully inadequate for this purpose, but they continue to place the lion’s share of the responsibility on consumers.
However, despite the concerns, no substantial amendments were included when the bill was studied in the House of Commons. Why? Why isn’t the government addressing this issue more decisively? How can it justify maintaining such a limited framework when it is clearly an issue of national security, but also of national well-being?
Mr. Champagne: I take this very seriously.
First of all, thank you, senator, for focusing on this.
As you’ve seen, we took robust and rapid measures to address extortion. That’s one aspect.
The other aspect is the Financial Crimes Agency that is being set up. I insisted that it be done quickly. You’re right: We need more tools in our tool box to combat money laundering, extortion and terrorist financing, and ensure that we protect Canadians at the same time. More vulnerable populations are often the ones that are affected.
That’s why what I announced in terms of extortion is just the beginning. The Financial Crime Agency will give us even more tools in our tool box to combat the various forms of extortion. It takes different forms. We have had meetings with the U.S. Treasury, the FBI and the Guardia di Finanza in Italy to look at best practices around the world and set up an agency that could protect Canadian consumers while fighting crime.
Senator Henkel: Something can be done quickly.
The Chair: Thank you, minister, for your generosity. It’s rare for me to be so strict. I apologize, but I took into account the fact that everyone wanted to ask you questions. You were fair and gave us an extra five minutes. Thank you very much. It’s always a pleasure.
That brings this session to a close. We’ll see you tomorrow at 6:45 p.m.
(The committee adjourned.)