Finance Committee on April 9th, 2024

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have a quick question for Mr. Ross.

How serious is the shortage of co-op housing across the country?

[Tim Ross]

The shortage of co-operative housing is quite dire, as it is for all types of housing supply. We have a housing supply crisis.

Housing co-operatives in Canada make up less than 1% of the housing market. A great deal of research suggests that, at a minimum, Canada needs to double the supply of community and co-operative housing to catch up with OECD comparators and help restore affordability for renters.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Just quickly on that point—I hate to interrupt, but my time is running out—did you make the federal government aware of the shortage of co-op housing? If so, how long ago did you do that?

[Tim Ross]

We have been very consistent in identifying the shortage of co-operative housing supply in Canada for decades now, actually. We have not seen a dedicated federal co-operative housing supply program since the early 1990s.

To add to the point about productivity, since you were quite interested in it earlier, we recently commissioned some research, which was completed by Deloitte, that shows a causal connection between increasing investment in community and co-operative housing supply and productivity gains. If we doubled the supply of community and co-op housing in Canada, we would see an astronomical jump in productivity amounting to between 5.7% and 9.3%. We've also found that this investment would be non-inflationary.

There are good gains from investment in co-op and community housing.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

That's very interesting.

I think I'm getting the hook, so we're on to the next member.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, we have to go on.

We're going to MP Weiler, please.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being with us today.

I would like to point out that this is not the fifth panel of witnesses we've heard from today as part of this study, but the sixth. We've heard a lot of interesting testimony.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Wow, that's even better.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

First, before getting into questions, I just thought I'd mention that in the first half of last year, Canada had the largest per capita foreign direct investment of any country in the world and was the third-largest in gross foreign direct investment. Of course, there is more we need to do to increase productivity in Canada and get more investment opportunities. I think a lot of the measures in Bill C-59 do just that.

I want to direct my questions to Ms. McNeece.

Thank you for your testimony to date, particularly some of the suggestions you brought forward.

Many changes are being made to the Competition Act as part of Bill C-59, including private litigation opportunities, a new variety of rights of action, lower leave tests for applications and the introduction of administrative monetary penalties with awards for private litigants. We know that a lot of these changes are being brought in because to date, the Competition Bureau has largely been the initiator of proceedings, but it only has so many resources to go around to do its work and it prioritizes cases of national importance.

Ms. McNeece, I was hoping you could share your thoughts on how these changes might improve competition in Canada overall.

[Kate McNeece]

I think that's a great question.

As Mr. Weiler said, there are a number of changes largely expanding the rights of private access to many of the different provisions under the act. The way our act is set up is it's relatively codified, so there are specific provisions for different types of conduct that could be seen as contrary to competition, and previously, only certain of those provisions have been subject to private rights of action for private litigants. They've been solely the purview of the commissioner in a number of cases, and by and large, Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 together have expanded private rights of action to most of those areas.

As I said in my opening statement, I think private rights of action are an important complement to the commissioner of competition's work. I think, as you say, the bureau is a body of limited resources and there are ways that private litigants can help fill the gap for our competition enforcement, so I'm generally in favour of a lot of these changes.

It's important that the leave test was somewhat lowered in order to make this more accessible, because I think the previous test was very difficult to overcome since all of a business had to be substantially affected rather than part of the business, as it is now. I think that makes a great deal of sense because certain businesses have multiple business lines, and I don't think they should be barred from potentially addressing a harm to one business line if it isn't in all of their business.

I'm generally in favour of the leave test. We'll have to see how it's interpreted. I think the public interest branch of the leave test is a new concept for Canadian competition law. I'd be looking to the Competition Bureau to consider how they might be supporting assessments that certain actions taken by private litigants may be in the public interest, or maybe there's some guidance from the tribunal, through either litigated cases or otherwise, as to how that will be interpreted in light of existing jurisprudence in analogous areas.

I think we're all very curious to see how that's going to work, but overall, I think this will increase the number of means that potentially affected parties may have for addressing competition concerns and, subject to the leave test and appropriate pleading standards, plucking out vexatious litigants. We don't want that, but I do think an expansion of private access is warranted and is a positive aspect of Bill C-59.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Yes, very much so, and I think I have some ideas for questions to ask the Competition Bureau when we have them appear before committee on this legislation.

Some of the other changes to this legislation revolve around the extension of the timelines for the review of mergers and the structural inference that you brought up earlier in your testimony. You mentioned the work that needs to be done to rightsize the merger control threshold. I was hoping you might speak a bit more to what you meant by that.

[Kate McNeece]

There are a couple of different topics. I'll take them in turn.

Bill C-59 does change the limitation period for mergers, specifically as it applies to mergers that are not notified to the commissioner. It extends that period from one year to three years, and I think there is some sense in doing so.

In my experience, bureau investigations for mergers that the bureau believes potentially harm competition or lead to an SPLC, which is the legal standard, take quite a bit of time. There's a lot of information gathering. There's a lot of analysis. There are a lot of submissions going back and forth and gathering of that sort of information. In a case where the limitation period is only one year for a non-notified merger, the bureau may simply not have time to conduct that analysis, which may lead to them rushing a case to the tribunal to try to catch it before the limitation period ends. That may not be the most efficient way to address these issues. They may also simply may run out of time.

It's not clear to me how many of those mergers have been missed, rushed or caught. I'd be interested in hearing about the magnitude of this issue, but to the extent that it is perceived as an issue, I think a three-year period is a sensible extension. It's bringing us back to what the limitation period was prior to the 2009 amendments to the act. We wouldn't want it to go too long because as time goes by, it's much harder to pin effects in a market to the merger itself rather than to other structural considerations. I wouldn't want to extend that, but I think that's a fairly limited and sensible amendment.

To my comments about the merger control thresholds, I don't think any merger control threshold is going to be perfect. If you're setting out asset- and revenue-based thresholds, or even the market share threshold that some jurisdictions have, you're always going to capture some mergers that are not problematic and you're always going to miss some mergers that are problematic.

What I would recommend is taking a look at that and trying to figure out whether our thresholds as they currently exist, the $93-million transaction-size threshold and the $400-million party-size threshold, are capturing many mergers. Are we missing a lot of mergers?

As I said in my statement, I think between 65% and 75% a year of the mergers that are notified to the Competition Bureau are non-complex or are characterized as not having any competition issues. With that number being so high, is there a way we can exclude certain non-problematic mergers from notification?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Ms. McNeece.

[Kate McNeece]

I don't have answers as to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you. You've gone over time.

Thank you, MP Weiler.

It's now over to MP Lemire.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I've just spent at least the last two years working in the sports area, and I've heard heartbreaking testimony about cases of abuse and mistreatment from numerous athletes. The latter have made clear just how much consultation means to the sports community as a whole. This translates into costs, but above all into the number of additional hours that have to be devoted to it. And that's not counting the consequences for the sports community, of course.

I think the tax exemption we're talking about for professional therapeutic counselling services is a measure that would be welcomed in the sports community.

However, in Quebec, for a therapeutic counselling professional to be able to exempt his or her services from taxes, he or she must ask another Canadian authority to confirm that he or she has the equivalent qualifications attested by his or her professional licence. This is a permit duly authorizing him to practise his profession in Quebec, and is issued by his professional order. However, to be tax-exempt at the federal level, another province must recognize it.

It's laborious and totally incomprehensible, and I'm sorry for the people listening to us.

This process amounts to asking Quebec professionals to go to New Brunswick, for example, to receive this attestation confirming that they are qualified to practise their profession in Quebec. I use New Brunswick as an example, because it's the only officially bilingual province, so it's the only way to get services in French. Yet this is work that the professional orders are already doing and it should be their sole responsibility, except that, obviously, it's cumbersome.

Do you think an amendment should be made to the bill to settle this situation once and for all and allow this recognition of practice of the profession in Quebec? It would be financially advantageous for you, the psychoeducators, and would make your services less expensive and, therefore, more accessible.

[Laurie Marquis]

That's a very pertinent question.

In fact, I think everyone in the psychoeducation community in Quebec agrees on this point, that we should facilitate access to tax exemption, but also facilitate recognition of psychoeducation across Canada.

As my colleague explained earlier, psychoeducation is a young Quebec profession. That's not to say that there aren't any psychoeducators in New Brunswick or Saskatchewan. In fact, there are many across Canada. However, you have to realize that, since there's one order in Quebec exclusively, it makes the job a little more difficult than if there were several orders across Canada.

This may be more opinion than fact, but we don't necessarily see the relevance of comparing ourselves to another province, when psychoeducation professionals in Quebec are quite competent and have expertise. So why wouldn't they have this expertise in Canada or in another province? It's still the same clinical process, which is very rigorous. In fact, psychoeducators are professionals who hold master's degrees. They have studied for five years at university. What's more, they have to complete 40 hours of training every two years. So we have an order that very rigorously ensures our competencies.

We therefore believe that the path should be made easier for us, at the very least to have this profession recognized throughout Canada. In addition to easing the path to tax exemption, it would smooth out many of the other hurdles we encounter in Canada, notably with regard to public and private insurance. We're also stuck on this front, given that the order is strictly Quebec-based.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Marquis. That's a great explanation. I really understand what's at stake in recognizing the profession and the repercussions of that.

We agree that those who go to see professionals have, at the very least, needs, even problems. They're suffering. They would like to be able to achieve better results or, in some cases, adapt to the school network, in the case of children.

Do you think it's right for the government, through a tax, to make money at the expense of people with such troubles?

[Laurie Marquis]

No, I don't think that's right.

In fact, our situation is similar to that of all professionals who are already exempt from taxes. Earlier, I mentioned a few titles, such as occupational therapists, psychologists and acupuncturists. Why are these exempt from taxes, when we have to charge them to our customers, who are also suffering? Waiting lists are so long these days for access to psychological services, or even psychoeducation. Sometimes, the tax, which is still a fair amount, will force people to postpone the service. When that happens, we don't do anything to prevent it.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I used the word “right”, but I could have used the word “ethical”, under the circumstances.

That said, in what you describe, I see a danger of inequity between professions, and even between workers within the same profession, because some may take steps in another province and, on their return, be able to bring down the costs for their services.

How is morale among your members? What's their reality? How many of your members are self-employed? What proportion work in the private sector and what proportion in the public sector? Can you tell us a little more about that?

[Laurie Marquis]

I don't have the figures to hand, but we have some in our brief. I can, however, answer half of your question.

We see that private practice is booming right now, given the increase in demand and the fact that many professionals can't keep up with the demand. Many professional psychoeducators have decided to move into the private sector, but many also work on the public side, as well as in schools.

I'd also like to add a nuance. Earlier, I said that sometimes psychoeducation is perfectly appropriate for a clinical case. Sometimes it's occupational therapy or psychology that's needed, but we have to recognize that, in some cases, it's psychoeducation. However, we're seeing a real brake on referring clients to our services.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you.

Please feel free to send us more information in writing, if you need to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'm sorry, but we're just over the time.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I was concluding, Mr. Chair, but I thought it was important to point out that it is possible to submit a supplemental response or any missing elements in writing. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Yes, thank you.

We will.

MP Davies, go ahead, please.