Finance Committee on June 1st, 2021

[Andre Arbour]

That is correct.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

You said you haven't defined the term “under-serviced”. How do we determine what the scope of the problem or challenge is if we haven't defined the fundamental term that determines whether we have a problem in the first place?

[Andre Arbour]

I would draw a distinction between what is in the Telecommunications Act and what is in the government's overall strategy or what is in program criteria. Historically, the Telecommunications Act has been technologically neutral because technology changes over time. In terms of the government's strategy and program criteria, either at ISED or the CRTC, there's a clear benchmark.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

I'm glad to hear that, because one area all parliamentarians could probably agree on is that broadband is one of the most important investments we could make to drive productivity within our economy and improve the competitiveness of our economy. We are very much supportive of this investment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I see Mr. Falk's hand is up.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. I have a follow-up question as well.

It's one thing to fund the infrastructure and do the fibre optics or line-of-sight waves, but is there anything in the act or regulation that would prescribe what is considered a reasonable amount to pay for broadband service, for the service you're describing as 50 down and 10 up?

[Andre Arbour]

No, there is not—not in the act itself. The price charged, though, of course, is an important consideration in program criteria, and it is assessed as part of the broadband project applications.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

I know that anything is available at a cost. We can get 100% coverage, but the cost may be unaffordable, so that's—

[Andre Arbour]

Certainly, yes, if people cannot—I'm sorry.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

No, it's fine. I think you're probably going to answer it. If people can't afford it.... There's no use in having a hard infrastructure there if it's not affordable to connect and operate. There has to be a commitment, and some thresholds need to be established for what the rate will be to provide this amount of service in order for applicants to qualify for the funding. I know that's probably not your choice to make, but maybe you can chase it up the ladder.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

You can chase it up the ladder, Andre.

Ms. Jansen.

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

What happens when there's a difference or disagreement between the CRTC and the government as to which area is most underserved? Do they flip a coin? Who gets to decide it, since their criteria are different?

[Andre Arbour]

If I understand correctly, this would be if there are two projects from different proponents that are intending to serve the same area. This is something that occurs occasionally, not just between us and the CRTC. It is something that is able to be managed. It depends on the nature of the project, but ultimately, we all agree that funding duplicate infrastructure does not help us get toward our goals. We all work together to avoid that outcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

All right.

(Clauses 203 and 204 agreed to on division)

(On clause 205)

Thank you very much, Mr. Arbour.

We will turn to division 18, which deals with the Canada Small Business Financing Act. The lead on this one is Mr. Watton.

[Steve Watton, Manager, Policy, Canada Small Business Financing Program, Department of Industry]

I am Steve Watton. I'm with ISED. I'm here to speak to you about clauses 205 to 209, which deal with enhancements to the Canada small business financing program. The amendments are designed primarily to help more small businesses get access to the types of financing they need, in the amounts they need, to basically start up, innovate and scale up.

Subclause 205(1) is basically a clarifying amendment to the definition of a loan. It amends section 2 of the Canada Small Business Financing Act to specify that “loan” includes a line of credit and not just a term loan, which is under the normal program. It's just a clarification to be explicit in the act.

Subclauses 205(2) and (3) amend the definition of “small business” in section 2 of the Canada Small Business Financing Act. It's basically to remove the restriction that excludes not-for-profit, charitable and religious enterprises from accessing the program.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any questions?

Ms. Jansen.

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

I'm just wondering. We hear often what a terrible thing it is if small businesses incorporate. Is that part of the definition of a small business? Many people do incorporate for liability reasons and so forth.

[Steve Watton]

Yes, a small business can be an incorporated business, a sole proprietor or a partnership business. Actually, the vast majority of them are incorporated companies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Okay.

(Clause 205 agreed to on division)

(On clause 206)

Mr. Watton.

[Steve Watton]

Subclauses 206(1) and 206(2) basically deal with borrower eligibility, or who's eligible for the loans. Subclause 206(2) is a consequential amendment.

Subclause 206(1) amends subsection 4(2) of the Canada Small Business Financing Act to specify that in order to be eligible for a loan under the program, borrowers must have less than $1.15 million in outstanding loans. It was previously $1 million and is being increased as a result of the introduction of the line of credit facility.

Subclause 206(2) is basically a consequential amendment to the meaning of what's considered an outstanding loan amount. It just amends subsection 4(3) to specify that the meaning of the outstanding loan amount is the aggregate of the proposed loan and any principal amount that's already outstanding on previous loans, taking into consideration, of course, the higher threshold of $1.15 million.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

The rationale on the increase is simply to incorporate the line of credit portion. How long had this limit of $1 million been in place?

What I'm getting at, I guess, is whether or not there's any contemplation of an annual increase or an ongoing increase per business on the basis of inflation or as amounts go up over time. This had been described as in part a COVID liquidity measure to enable small businesses to have greater access to capital. Is there anything contemplated in the future around those limits, or is it just limited to the expansion due to the addition of credit lines?

[Steve Watton]

To answer your question, the $1-million maximum loan amount has been in place since 2015. It used to be $500,000, and it was increased to $1 million in 2015. That's primarily for real property loans, of which $350,000 is allowable for equipment and leasehold improvement purposes.

In this proposal the maximum loan amounts by loan classes are going to increase as well. The $1-million threshold has been there since 2015, and it's going to go to $1.15 million to accommodate the additional line of credit, but also the subthresholds within that $1 million are going to increase from $350,000 to $500,000 for purposes such as equipment and leasehold improvement.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Ms. Jansen.