Finance Committee on April 18th, 2024

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

To get to my last question, you brought up the CEBA loans. We had the repayment deadline earlier this year, and I understand that about 80% of them were repaid by that deadline. With regard to the remainder that have kicked into other low-interest loans or refinancing, do you have a sense of which sectors of small businesses have the majority of outstanding CEBA loans?

[Daniel Kelly]

The sectors that we know are having the hardest time with repayment are retail, hospitality, service, arts and entertainment, travel and tourism. These are the sectors that, of course, endured the lockdown measures the longest and probably have the longest road to recovery.

I will say, though, that while it is good news that 80% of businesses repaid the CEBA loans by the deadline, the way that many of these businesses found the money to repay the bank was by taking out another bank loan or, in some cases, putting the CEBA loan on their credit card. About a quarter of those who were able to repay their CEBA loan—which is a good, positive thing because they got the forgivable portion—did so in an incredibly expensive way by borrowing to repay a loan. I liken that to taking money out on your Visa to pay your Mastercard bill. That's not a great success, from my perspective.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Weiler.

Now we'll welcome MP Ste-Marie. It's good to see you.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello to all my colleagues. I'm glad to be back with you.

Hello to all the witnesses as well, and thank you for being here.

My questions are for Mr. Kelly from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB.

My first question pertains to Bill C‑59, the massive budget implementation bill, not for this week's budget, but for last year's budget. That is what we are concerned with here today.

Does the CFIB have any comments on the changes the bill makes to the Competition Act? If so, what are they?

[Daniel Kelly]

We like some of the amendments to the competition laws in Canada. This is a big deal for small firms. There's been so much consolidation. Small firms feel like they have very little bargaining power with some of the large oligopolies and monopolies that exist in Canada, so it is good news that we are starting to strengthen competition laws across the country.

Modernizing the merger review regime, improving the effectiveness of some of the investigations of anti-competitive conduct, strengthening the enforcement against abuse of dominance by big companies and introducing right-to-repair rules are positive measures that we saw. These are fairly modest competition changes. These aren't big ones, but it is the first time in a long time that we've seen some additional teeth put in competition law in Canada, and that is a good thing.

We'll have to test this out and see how it works. We will, as an association, always give feedback to government and all opposition parties, like yours, as to how things are going.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you for your answer; it is very helpful.

You are hinting that the part of the bill dealing with competition could have gone further. Since we are working to strengthen the bill, what improvements would you suggest regarding the Competition Act?

[Daniel Kelly]

We have a more detailed submission, and I'll be very pleased to send it to the committee with some further recommendations on this front. However, I will say that the U.S., for example, has, in many respects, stronger competition rules than Canada does, so we've borrowed from a few of those approaches.

I apologize, but I don't have the details in front of me.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That's fine. We would be grateful if you could send them to us fairly quickly since we have to make any amendments soon.

Moreover, there are changes regarding the right to repair, which is also related to the Competition Act. Many businesses are telling us that the act could go further. They are concerned that some aspects of the way the right to repair is worded can be used as excuses by automobile manufacturers, for example, or other sectors that might say it is too complicated to change their ways of doing things. So the right to repair could remain limited.

Have you considered this issue? What are your thoughts on it?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Mr. Kelly, were you able to hear that?

[Daniel Kelly]

I'm sorry, but my French, Monsieur Ste-Marie, is not perfect. Unfortunately, the audio dropped off almost altogether over the last minute or so. The interpretation stopped, and then the audio stopped altogether.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

The interpreters were on the wrong channel.

We're going to ask MP Ste-Marie to repeat his question.

Let us know right away, Mr. Kelly, if you're hearing it.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I suspect it's a conspiracy by the big multinationals who oppose the right to repair, which undermines competition and the interests of SMEs.

[Daniel Kelly]

This is an issue we've heard about from several sectors of the economy. The right to repair—the right to access and understand things—for those doing the repair work and for the end-user is very important. With some of the market power that exists among some of the large guys, that isn't always provided.

I know the government has been making some changes in this area. I think it's trying to strike the right balance between proprietary information and the ability for customers and those doing repair work to have access to some of this needed information.

I think there is progress. With my level of detailed knowledge, I think we have some other views that I can include in the letter that I'll send to you.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Ste-Marie.

Now we'll go to MP Davies. This will be the last four minutes of questions for these two witnesses.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Allison, you wrote in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, “it is important to understand that the proportion of Canadians reporting not visiting a dentist because of the cost has increased from 17% in 2007–2009...to 28% in 2016”. It's interesting to note that that's the term of the last Conservative government. You also said:

Furthermore, in 2018, Statistics Canada reported that 36.4% of Canadians had no dental insurance...and Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) data indicate that in 2019 (i.e. the most recent “normal”, pre-pandemic year for such data), while total expenditure on dental care in Canada was $16.4 billion, only $1 billion (i.e. 6.2%) of that was publicly funded....

By establishing the CDCP, some nine million Canadians will be able to visit a dentist. What will be the long-term health and economic impacts of that program?

[Dr. Paul Allison]

In terms of health, lots of preventive measures could be put in place for kids and all age groups—seniors as well. We're going to prevent lots of diseases. That's going to reduce lots of costs related to people who couldn't otherwise afford to get to the dentist, as they won't be going to the ER, taking time from ERs and receiving painkillers and antibiotics. Often, antibiotics are not going to be helpful, so we're contributing to antimicrobial resistance, which is a major public health problem. Then there's the actual cost of that care. It's much better if those people who need urgent dental care are able to get to the dentist, dental hygienist and others who can provide it directly.

There are going to be lots of cost benefits, health benefits and social benefits from people not taking as much time off school and work.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

When my grandma said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, she may have been on to something.

[Dr. Paul Allison]

Absolutely.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Kelly, on February 27, 2024, the Calgary and Edmonton chambers of commerce issued a joint statement calling on the Government of Alberta to discuss the viability of a federal pharmacare plan in their province. They said:

With the ongoing labour shortage and need to attract talent, and the cost to employers for providing health-related benefits, along with the financial benefit of pooling resources across provinces, a national pharmacare program, if developed well, could benefit Alberta’s economy.

Do you agree with that statement?

[Daniel Kelly]

This has been a tricky issue. In member surveys, we get mixed views from small business owners. There's no question that many small firms struggle to have employee benefit plans that are anywhere close to being as generous as those for positions in the government or in large corporations, so there could be an equalizing effect with the creation of these programs. In some cases, employers are happy to dump their costs onto government, and I worry that this may happen, with some companies basically exiting the provision of coverage as the government picks up the tab.

The other big thing that business owners know is that with all of these major programmatic changes, there are new costs. We know that governments often look to small and medium-sized businesses to pick up these costs, as we've seen in recent days.

It isn't an easy calculation. In the last member survey that I showed, there was mixed support for the addition of a pharmacare program—

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Kelly, I have limited time.

You put a survey out in 2019 for the CFIB highlighting that 47% of business owners were in favour of introducing pharmacare, while only 27% expressed opposition. That's about a 2:1 margin. Is that correct? Is that what the survey showed?

[Daniel Kelly]

You have that survey in front of you, and I trust the data is correct. I would say that a 2:1 ratio is supportive. We don't have price tags in front of small business owners, so there is that.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you very much, MP Davies. That is it.

Thank you, Mr. Kelly and Dr. Allison, for your remarks, for your testimony and for answering the many questions you got. On behalf of the committee and committee members, it was much appreciated. We wish you the best with the rest of your day.

At this time, we're going to transition to our next panel of witnesses. We're suspended.