Industry Committee on Feb. 5th, 2019

[Ryan Greer]

Yes. Principally, if you're going to impose costs on companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, carbon pricing is an efficient way to do it. We've always said that needs to be accompanied by a reduction in the regulatory burden and controls placed on those companies, if those are determined to be a less efficient way to do so.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes]

Would that 25% be what you're looking for, then?

[Ryan Greer]

There is no target associated with carbon pricing specifically.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes]

Are the 450 federal rules that were reduced earlier part of what you're looking for the government to do?

[Ryan Greer]

It's challenging, because at the same time as there are other rules being amended—issues such as the clean fuel standard and new methane regulations, which will impose very high costs on members and life-cycle accounting of fuel—there are a lot of unknowns and uncertainty. A lot of the focus has been on trying to understand what those costs will be, in addition to carbon pricing.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes]

I just want to put on the record a number of the initiatives we have done for businesses, such as allowing them to immediately write off the full cost of machinery and equipment used for manufacturing—allowing businesses to write off immediately the full cost of specified clean energy equipment—and, again, reducing those 450 federal rules that impose administrative burdens.

There are a number of initiatives that have been getting credit card companies to lower fees, etc., and of course our free trade agreement. Are we not doing a good job at communicating that? I heard that perhaps that is not getting communicated. How are these counteracting, as you put it, the cost and burden balance between the price on pollution—knowing that we need to go there, because everybody is advocating for it—and these initiatives we're taking to help small businesses grow?

[Ryan Greer]

There are a couple of things. First, I think this goes to what Laura was discussing, in terms of regulation in and regulation out. Without an accurate measure, it's incredibly difficult to determine where and how we're trending, other than what we hear anecdotally from our members, or through surveys, such as what the CFIB does.

One way to actually get a true picture of that is understanding it. In a complex operating environment, you're seeing a burden reduced in one area, but at the other side you're trying to understand what new costs will be imposed through any number of different regulatory initiatives under way in multiple departments at different levels of government. It's a lot for companies, and they sometimes feel besieged.

It's hard, especially for smaller members, to weigh in on those regulatory exercises, to let the department know that although the new initiative may seem innocuous in and of itself, it's the ton-of-feathers problem. It's being layered on top of all of these other ones that exist. For us, the big piece around determining how good a government is doing would be setting a measure that makes them publicly accountable, so that departments and the government itself can understand what progress they're making.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes]

Yes. Thank you.

I'm good, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

You have about one minute.

[Celina Caesar-Chavannes]

I have one minute?

Does anybody else have any other questions? I'm cool with my questions.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Sure.

I want to look at the CRA specifically as low-hanging fruit, if we can say that. If you were in charge of CRA for a couple of years, how would you handle dealing with all of those issues that we saw there? What would be the low-hanging fruit at CRA?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

It's funny, because to prepare for this.... CFIB has a counselling service and counsellors across the country respond to inquiries from our members. We do about 36,000 calls a year, and inquiries regarding the CRA account for probably one in every four of those calls. I had my colleague put together a list of specific examples, which I have here. CRA accounts for probably two-thirds of the list.

It isn't about one or two small things. Many different areas need to be looked at. When it comes to CRA, it can start with things as simple as better customer service, plain language on the website and clarity around what constitutes compliance.

Yes, we could also potentially simplify and reduce the rules, but with the CRA, it's often about communication. It's about business owners being more able to get the answers they need. It's up to them. They'll call CRA. They may be on hold for a while, although the CRA has just improved its system there. They get an answer, but there's no guarantee it's the right answer. They apply that. They're still in trouble. It's these kinds of things. It's really about simple, plain language.

Our members send us letters that they get from CRA, and we cannot understand what they're telling the business owner to do. Plain language, easier communication, the ability to go to them beyond just a phone call—if CRA advanced in those areas, it would probably reduce some of their burden by 25% or 30%.

[Ryan Greer]

I would just add, in agreement with all of those, that the chamber is releasing a report next week on the need to modernize our tax system. I think simplifying and modernizing the tax system itself would be a big help.

One of the other things we're going to recommend in the report is to provide small companies with a specialized case option to assist them with their unique issues. This would be helpful. You have too many small businesses that often have to spend limited resources on tax accountants and lawyers to resolve some of these unique issues. Sometimes it sounds like it's a defeat that we need to come up with these new concierge services to navigate the complexities. However, doing that, combined with actually trying to make the systems simpler themselves, would go a long way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

I do have another question, and then we're done.

B.C.—my home province—has been brought up numerous times for the work it's done to cut regulation and so on. Who would you recommend that we bring in to give us a lot more in-depth information on that?

[Laura Jones]

There are a number of people you could talk to in British Columbia, but I think the assistant deputy minister, Christine Little, would be a good person to bring in. She has a number of good staff. These are current staff. There are also staff who were there nearer the beginning, when they set up the model. That might be useful, as well, because there have been some changes, and there were some challenges at the beginning that were different from the challenges they face today.

I think it would be very good to hear from some of the people in government who are responsible. They'll tell you about the culture change that I'm talking about and how empowering it has been for them to be rewarded for making life easier for citizens—not just businesses, by the way. I think that's an artificial distinction. I really think that whatever you're going to do in this space, you should go broad.

There were a number of changes, and I've actually changed my own thinking around this. I used to say, “Oh, it's just a small business issue”, but a number of things they've done in British Columbia.... One of the things they recently did was to streamline, to get rid of a lot of, the red tape around what happens and all the reporting you have to do when a loved one dies. That's something that everyone can nod their head at. It affects you if you're a business owner, for sure. A lot of businesses are family businesses. It affects all citizens. It's really about improving the relationship between government and the citizens it serves. I think it would be great to bring some of them in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

Thank you very much.

Thank you to our witnesses today.

Before everybody goes, we have to pass a study budget, so everybody, please stay in your seats.

Thank you very much for coming. We're looking forward to continuing this study.

Mr. Sheehan, do you have a motion for us?

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

That's a good segue to the budget

I'd like to propose a budget in the amount of $13,800 for the study of the impact of Canada's regulatory structure on small business.

[The Chair, Liberal, Dan Ruimy]

It was emailed to all of you.

Is there any debate?

(Motion agreed to)

Thank you all very much. The meeting is adjourned.