Industry Committee on May 3rd, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

I call this meeting to order. Good afternoon, everyone.

Welcome to meeting number 20 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Friday, April 8, 2022, the committee is meeting to study competitiveness in small and medium-sized enterprises.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the House order of November 25, 2021. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely by using the Zoom application.

Those who are here in Ottawa know the health rules in place, so govern yourselves accordingly.

Speaking of which, if I'm not mistaken, it's our first meeting as a committee at which we have witnesses present with us in Ottawa, so we're very happy to have you. Thank you very much. It's really great and much appreciated.

We also appreciate our witnesses with us today via Zoom.

Without further ado, we have, from Beer Canada, Luke Chapman, who is the vice-president of federal affairs.

From the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, we have Mark Agnew, senior vice-president of policy and government relations, and Alla Drigola Birk, senior director of parliamentary affairs and small and medium enterprises policy.

From the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, we have Corinne Pohlmann, senior vice-president, national affairs and partnerships.

From the Quebec Council of Employers, we have Karl Blackburn, president and chief executive officer, and Denis Hamel, vice-president of workforce development policies.

Finally, from Vivic Research, we will have Robin Shaban, senior economist, who will probably be able to join us a bit later.

I thank all the witnesses for being with us.

We will begin without further ado with Mr. Chapman, who is here with us in Ottawa.

Mr. Chapman, you have five minutes.

[Luke Chapman, Vice-President, Federal Affairs, Beer Canada]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman, honourable members, thank you for the invitation to appear this afternoon as part of the committee's study on the labour shortages and productivity of Canadian small and medium-sized enterprises.

My name is Luke Chapman, and I am VP of federal affairs for Beer Canada, a national trade association comprising 48 member brewing companies that account for 90% of the beer produced in this country. We are the sole national inclusive association representing Canadian brewers of all sizes and all regions. Our member brewing companies are heavily invested in Canada. Over 85% of the beer sold here is made here by Canadian workers using Canadian-grown agricultural ingredients.

Prior to the pandemic, brewers directly employed nearly 19,000 Canadians and the production and sale of beer supported 149,000 Canadian jobs, from the western Canadian farmer growing the high-quality malt barley required to produce beer, to the many businesses along the supply chain, including packaging and label manufacturers, to the restaurant staff that serve our beers to millions of adult drinkers across Canada.

Most of the well over 1,200 breweries operating in Canada are small, local family-owned and entrepreneurial businesses. For many of these smallest producers that depend on their on-site taprooms for sales, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was especially difficult.

Since early 2020, brewers of all sizes across Canada have been on a roller coaster ride. In a typical year, more than 20% of all beer in Canada is sold and consumed at restaurants, bars, festivals, concerts and other social events. With the COVID restrictions placed on these occasions, brewers had to adjust their business models to respond to a new reality—first, by producing hand sanitizers and then by shifting to canned beer production for home consumption.

Unfortunately, a temporary uptick in packaged beer sales for home consumption has not been enough to offset a drastic decline in the draft beer typically sold in restaurants, bars and other venues. As a result, over the past two years, total beer sales in Canada have declined by nearly 4%, or, to put it another way, by the equivalent of nearly 460 million fewer cans of beer sold in just a two-year period.

As brewers and our partners in the hospitality sector look to emerge and recover from the impacts of the pandemic, supply chain disruptions and delays are contributing to rising production costs, including historically high prices for key ingredients like barley and other cereal grains, as well as packaging materials, including cans and bottles. Already-high malted barley prices have jumped another $40 to $45 per tonne. Similarly, aluminum can prices are up 25% to 30% since the beginning of the year, with suppliers requesting exponentially larger minimum order sizes and order lead times.

Despite mitigation efforts by brewers, Canadian consumers and businesses that depend on beer sales for revenue, like restaurants and bars, are already experiencing the effects of the rising beer production costs, as retail beer prices have increased by 5% so far in 2022, alongside rising fuel and labour costs. New costs are on their way, including an estimated $75 million in industry-wide capital investments needed to respond to the government's ban on certain single-use plastics—specifically for our industry, the replacement of plastic ring carriers with alternative packaging types.

The Canadian brewing industry is fully committed to doing its part to support the government's effort to eliminate plastic waste, but brewers are being told to expect delays in the purchase and installation of the required new equipment due to global supply chain bottlenecks. It is imperative that the government account for these costs and challenges in finalizing its regulations banning certain single-use plastics by providing brewers with sufficient time, ideally three years to make the transition.

While some of these challenges facing brewing companies are outside the control of a national government like Canada's, in our view it is also imperative for the government to not further contribute to the problem. In this respect, the increases in federal beer excise duties in April 2020, 2021 and 2022 that were allowed to proceed were counterproductive and harmful, as brewers and our customers in the restaurant and bar business were struggling to keep their businesses afloat. Because these annual increases are automatically indexed to inflation, brewers and our partners in the restaurant and bar business are looking at a federal beer tax increase that could be as high as 6% to 7% next April, which represents an estimated $50 million in new beer taxes in just a one-year period.

This automatic approach to taxation is simply not sustainable over the long term. As a case in point, from 2017 to 2021, the federal government's excise duty revenues from beer grew by 24% according to the Public Accounts of Canada, during a period when beer sales declined by 6.5%.

Given these circumstances, we are requesting that this committee recommend the repeal of the automatic annual increases in beer excise duty rates that are being imposed without any debate or vote by members of Parliament. Eliminating future automatic annual federal beer tax increases will provide Canadian brewers of all sizes with much-needed additional cash flow to respond to the operational and market challenges at a critical time for the industry.

Thank you for your time and considering our comments.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chapman.

I now give the floor to Mr. Agnew and Ms. Birk, from the Canadian Chamber of Commerce.

[Mark Agnew, Senior Vice-President, Policy and Government Relations, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and honourable members. It's a pleasure to be here as part of the committee’s comprehensive study on small and medium-sized enterprise issues.

I'll split my time, as the chair identified, with my colleague Alla, who is joining me virtually as well.

I think it goes without saying that this study has come at a critical time for small and medium-sized businesses, which, as many of the members will know, are engines of job creation in communities both large and small all across the country.

Despite the important role SMEs play in the economy, it has been a very challenging period for them, whether we're talking about labour shortages, supply chain disruptions, debt management issues or the looming threat of cybersecurity concerns.

These challenges, I think it's fair to say, stem from both the direct impacts of the pandemic and pre-existing structural challenges that existed within the Canadian and global economies beforehand. Certainly the economy, which was not always the most conducive to business investment before the pandemic and created difficulties for SMEs, has unfortunately only compounded those problems, along with the debt management challenges facing those businesses.

We need tangible solutions for the business community, and I want to pick up on a few of those themes that have been identified in the committee's motion to begin this study.

The first one that I do want to speak to briefly is competition policy. The chamber supports efforts to ensure that Canada's competition policy is updated for the 21st century. However, certainly we're of the view that the government needs to launch a comprehensive, multistakeholder modernization process to engage the full suite of competition policy issues and put those on the table for consideration. Certainly the drip-feed approach of having issues come up and policies changed is not going to be one that's conducive for the business community and for understanding what the legal framework is in the competition policy landscape.

There are a number of changes in the budget implementation act. We've begun to hear from our members about those and what these mean for them, and certainly we would argue that an omnibus legislative approach is perhaps not the best vehicle for undertaking those changes to the Competition Act.

There are a number of things you talk about in the act, two of which I would initially put forward for this committee's awareness.

One is around the private right of access and ensuring that there is no proliferation of frivolous cases that could be brought forward by competitors, perhaps for strategic reasons.

As well as that, the changes that have been made to administrative monetary penalties represent a quantum leap in their severity, and they may pose a potentially chilling impact on business investment in Canada. Instead, we need to perhaps look at how more weight can be put on a proportional approach to how those fines are assessed on companies.

Competition Act changes are not going to be what make a difference at the end of the day in this inflationary environment, and we need to make sure that there are no knee-jerk reactions to how we go about updating Canada's competition policy. It is a fairly critical piece of legislation that impacts the business environment in a very real way for Canadian businesses both large and small, and across many sectors of the economy.

I'll now turn to my colleague Alla to talk about some of the other changes we'd like to put forward for the committee's consideration.

[Alla Drigola Birk, Senior Director, Parliamentary Affairs and Small and Medium Enterprises Policy, Canadian Chamber of Commerce]

Thank you, Mark.

Committee members, it's great to be here with you today.

While there has understandably been much focus on the effects of long COVID on the health of Canadians, today I would like to discuss the impact that “financial long COVID” has had on Canadian businesses.

Just like its medical counterpart, there is no short-term answer or looming relief. Moreover, small businesses in particular will take longer to recover; they have fewer resources, higher levels of pandemic debt and increased labour challenges.

To allow these businesses to begin to recover, introducing small-business-friendly measures is a necessary government action moving forward. These should include tax writeoffs for cybersecurity investment—

I'm sorry. I'm not sure if that was in French. Can I continue?

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Yes, you may continue. Would it be possible to bring the boom of your microphone up a little?

[Alla Drigola Birk]

Okay. Thank you.

These measures should include tax writeoffs for cybersecurity investment, waiving interest on all government-backed pandemic loans, including CEBA, BCAP and HASCAP, and encouraging domestic travel through new tax incentives on domestic tourism, travel and hospitality activities.

Next, we need to build a strong labour force that works for the Canadian economy. Simply put, Canada does not have enough workers to keep up with demand, and this structural labour deficit has no short-term fix.

The solution has to include elements such as reskilling and upskilling, but can also include more immediate solutions such as a streamlined temporary foreign worker program, a decrease in our refugee and immigration processing times and easier credential recognition in Canada for internationally trained professionals.

Finally, the government can ensure that small businesses have the tools for success through prioritizing the introduction and passage of severely needed updated privacy legislation. While the original version of the digital charter implementation act introduced in the previous Parliament was not perfect, outdated legislation risks holding Canadian businesses back among our international peers. It also encourages a patchwork approach at the subnational level.

As much as we all want to bounce back quickly, the road to recovery is a long one, made even longer by the lingering impacts of “financial long COVID” on small businesses.

Thank you, and we look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Madam Birk and Mr. Agnew.

We'll now go to Madam Pohlmann from CFIB.

[Corinne Pohlmann, Senior Vice-President, National Affairs and Partnerships, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

CFIB is a non-partisan, not-for-profit organization that represents 95,000 small and medium-sized businesses across Canada. We are also a research-based organization. We take our direction from our members through surveys. We conduct them on a regular basis. I have a deck that I hope was sent to all of you. I want to walk you through it and share some of that research with you.

First, as you may see on slide 3, we found that only 42% of small businesses are back to normal sales, 35% have no pandemic debt, and just 18% feel that they've recovered from pandemic stress. For many smaller businesses, the pandemic is far from over. We need governments to continue to recognize that smaller businesses have been, and continue to be, amongst the hardest hit.

While it is good news that restrictions have lifted, many are now facing other challenges, which have already been cited today. As you can see on slide 4, the biggest impacts right now are rising prices, supply chain challenges, increasing government costs and labour shortages. I'm going to touch on the impact of each of these and then share some recommendations at the end.

First, over 90% report that their costs have increased substantially since the pandemic began. More than three-quarters think this will not be a temporary issue, as you can see on slide 5. The costs that are having the biggest impact right now are fuel and energy costs, followed by wage costs, insurance, taxes and regulatory costs, and product input costs.

While fuel costs have been going up more generally, so has the carbon tax, which is having a significant impact on many small firms. It's important to keep in mind that the federal carbon backstop has had a disproportionate impact on small businesses, a fact also recognized in a recent report by the federal environment commissioner. We estimate that small businesses pay approximately 45% to 50% of the federal carbon backstop, and only 8% and 10% is returned to them in the form of programs that have never been accessible or available to smaller companies.

Another significant impact, of course, is labour shortages, as you can see on slide 7. More than one in two are affected by labour shortages, but this grows to almost two in three in Quebec and almost three in four businesses in the construction sector.

There are many ways that small businesses have tried to address the shortage of labour, but some have proven to be more effective than others. You can see this on slide 8. For example, 33% of small businesses have invested in automation, and 81% of those folks found it to be effective in helping them address their labour shortages. Similarly, about 16% have used the temporary foreign workers program, but more than half found it to be useful in addressing their labour shortages. Those were the two most effective methods used by small businesses. They were more effective than increasing wages or bringing more flexible hours to their employees.

Another big challenge is the supply chain. As you can see on slide 9, product distribution constraints were relatively stable between 2010 and 2020, with only about 8% of small businesses on average having to deal with it. However, this started to shift when the pandemic hit, jumping to 18% by April 2020 and reaching as high as 28% this past February.

To respond, 84% have had to increase prices to absorb their increased costs, 79% have had to deal with delays in receiving shipments, and one in two have had to increase the cost of shipping goods to their customers. Particularly worrisome is that more than one in five had to turn down sales or contracts due to a supply chain issue.

Finally, before I get to recommendations, I want to touch on regulations and red tape.

Our most recent research found that regulations cost Canadian businesses about $40 billion per year, $11.3 billion of which is considered red tape—that is, unnecessary, duplicative or redundant regulations. As you can see on slide 11, the regulatory costs have a disproportionate impact on the smallest businesses, with costs being almost seven times higher per employee when compared with the largest businesses. Regulations have not only an economic impact. They have a social impact as well. As you can see on slide 12, almost 90% said that excessive regulations add significant stress to their lives, and almost two-thirds would not advise their children to start a business given the burden of regulations.

Despite the lifting of pandemic restrictions, many small businesses continue to struggle as they face rising prices, supply chain challenges and labour shortages. About two-thirds still have on average about $160,000 in pandemic-related debt, just as the last of the government-related COVID supports shut down on May 7.

On the last two slides, you'll see a series of recommendations. I'll include a few here.

We would suggest that the government could put a moratorium on any costs to small businesses, such as maybe a freeze on CPP or EI or carbon tax for the moment, or offset those costs by introducing rebates for small businesses; lower credit card merchant fees, as promised in budgets 2021 and 2022; and help the hardest-hit small businesses deal with their debt by increasing the forgivable portion of their CEBA loans to 50% and extending the deadline to repay.

To help with labour shortages, create a pathway to permanent residency for temporary foreign workers. Provide tax credits that help stimulate automation, or quickly pass legislation to advance immediate expensing, as promised in budget 2021.

We recommend as well to introduce a payroll tax credit for new hires to offset the cost of training.

To address red tape, we believe that a policy of mutual recognition between all provinces could improve the flow of trade within Canada, and that the federal government could play a pivotal role in making that happen.

We recommend as well to improve the one-for-one rule within the Red Tape Reduction Act so that it applies not only to regulations but to legislation and policies as well.

I'll leave it there, but there are many other recommendations that I encourage you to take a look at. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Ms. Pohlmann.

I now give the floor to Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Hamel, from the Quebec Council of Employers.

[Karl Blackburn, President and Chief Executive Officer, Quebec Council of Employers]

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, good afternoon.

My name is Karl Blackburn, and I am president and chief executive officer of the Quebec Council of Employers. I am accompanied today by Mr. Denis Hamel, vice-president, workforce development policies.

I am an entrepreneur, the son of an entrepreneur and the grandson of an entrepreneur. Our organization, created in 1969, is a confederation of nearly 100 industry associations and a number of corporate members of all sizes and from all regions of Quebec, in both the private and parapublic sectors.

The labour shortage is clearly the major problem faced by employers. Over 6% of positions are currently vacant in Quebec. To illustrate the scope of the problem, I would say that there are more vacant positions in our province than employment insurance recipients. In a recent survey of our members, 94% currently feel they have a hiring issue, and nearly nine of 10 employers are concerned about the effects of the labour shortage on the quality, price and availability of the goods and services they offer.

They are right. Indeed, several recent studies demonstrate the major negative impact of the labour crisis and the high number of vacant positions on our economy: refusal of contracts, discontinuation of goods and services, displacement of production outside the country, delayed investments, reduced competitiveness, deterioration of the quality of goods or services, lost revenues for governments, and more. We are losing billions of dollars. For example, in Quebec’s manufacturing sector alone, which accounts for 13.5% of the province’s GDP, our colleagues at Manufacturiers et Exportateurs du Québec have estimated the losses due to the labour shortage at $18 billion over the last two years. I cannot imagine the loss of revenue across the country.

We know that, given our demographics, this shortage will continue until the end of the decade. Data from census 2021 released last week by Statistics Canada confirm that the working-age population in Canada has never been as old, with over one in five people—21.8%—being between 55 and 64 years old. That age group is larger than young adults between 15 and 24 years old. This large group of older workers will be retiring by 2030, thus exacerbating the labour shortage. There is an urgent need to act now, as our prosperity is being hindered by the labour shortage.

Employers are already making efforts, but with no success. These solutions include increased wages, additional benefits, hiring bonuses, the inclusion of original social activities and continued telework to expand the pool of potential employees. However, the number of vacant positions in Canada has doubled in one year, from 560,000 in the fourth quarter of 2020 to more than 915,000 at the end of 2021.

The labour shortage is an issue that affects all provinces and all economic sectors. It is creating a real crisis in the construction, manufacturing, retail, health care, and accommodation and food services industries, which account for over half of the total number of vacant positions. This is not just a problem for employers. Employees are also suffering, as the labour shortage leads to work overload and a lack of vacation or training. Moreover, for Canadians, the labour shortage results in service outages, delays in obtaining goods and services, closed restaurants and hotels that are operating at only half their capacity. No one wins from a labour shortage.

On a more positive note, the labour shortage must be an opportunity for businesses to adopt new solutions to support their long-term growth and productivity. I am thinking particularly of the adoption of new technologies, automation, and the development and integration of green technologies. To make this shift, increasingly qualified employees are needed, who are unfortunately not there.

In August 2021, we proposed 10 solutions to the labour shortage, as there is no one-size-fits-all solution to this problem. We called for labour market stakeholders to work together to find concrete short-term solutions to improve the literacy and numeracy of workers, increase on-the-job training, particularly through the employment insurance system, attract and retain experienced workers, support employers in their transition to diverse arrangements and practices, and modernize immigration programs to adapt them to this new reality.

We recognize the progress that has already been made by the federal government, particularly in terms of immigration. That said, the figures speak for themselves. This crisis is not over, and we must not give up. We must work together to find solutions as soon as possible.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Hamel and I are available to answer questions from the members of the committee.

Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much, Mr. Blackburn.

We welcome Ms. Shaban, from Vivic Research, who will be the last witness to give an opening statement.

Ms. Shaban, you have the floor.

[Robin Shaban, Senior Economist, Vivic Research]

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee. I appreciate the invitation to be here today.

My name is Robin Shaban. I'm the senior economist at Vivic Research, which is an economic consulting firm. I'm also a researcher on competition policy in Canada.

The focus of my contribution today is to discuss current debates on the purpose of the Competition Act as it relates to SMEs. This debate is highly relevant, given the announced review of the Competition Act.

The purpose statement of the act, which is section 1.1, states that the aim of the law “is to maintain and encourage competition in Canada” in order to, first, “promote the efficiency and adaptability of the Canadian economy”; second, “to expand opportunities for Canadian participation in world markets while at the same time recognizing the role of foreign competition in Canada”; third, “to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the Canadian economy”; and fourth, “to provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices.”

The question of what the stated purpose of the act ought to be is critical for two main reasons. First, from a legal perspective, the purpose statement of the act shapes how the Competition Tribunal and courts adjudicate competition cases. The purpose statement of the act determines which competitive harms are considered under the law.

The second reason the purpose statement is so critical is that it articulates the guiding rationale for the Competition Act. The stated purpose of the legislation guides policy-makers on what should be included in the legislation. Some have argued that the purpose statement of the act should be changed so our competition law's only objective is to promote efficiency in the Canadian economy, and that it should not have any particular regard for SMEs, or other stakeholders, for that matter.

A notable example of this argument is put forward by Professor Edward Iacobucci in a paper commissioned by Senator Wetston as part of a broader consultation on competition law reform. Professor Iacobucci argues that having multiple objectives for competition law—like creating equitable opportunities for SMEs to compete while also promoting economic efficiency—creates complications in the application of the law, since objectives may conflict with each other. Professor Iacobucci's solution to this problem is to have the government make economic efficiency the only concern of competition law.

In the Canadian context, efficiency has often been used to justify the law's permissiveness of market power and dominance, which can be detrimental to SMEs that are striving to break into new markets. The argument goes that other benefits that competition law can provide, like ensuring equitable opportunities for SMEs to participate in markets, should be the responsibility of other policy areas.

While this approach may be an elegant technical solution from a legal perspective, it sidesteps the root of the issue, which is that competition policy is inherently political. Different stakeholders will inevitably have different preferences for the law. Ignoring this reality doesn't make it go away; rather, it creates a broader economic policy framework that works against itself. If the government followed Professor Iacobucci's advice, on the one hand we would have a competition law that promotes economic efficiency without regard for, and potentially to the detriment of, SMEs. On the other hand, we have ISED spending billions to support SMEs. How much further could those dollars go if we had a competition law that supports SMEs, rather than ignoring or working against them?

Even with the competition law we have today, there is scope to do more to support SMEs. I and some colleagues—Vass Bednar and Ana Qarri—recently prepared a report for ISED that outlines opportunities for reform of the Competition Act that would benefit SMEs. Extending the timeline the bureau has to review mergers after they have closed would enable it to rectify so-called “killer acquisitions”, whereby incumbents buy out new entrants that may become competitors in the future.

In the report, we also recommend making changes to how anti-competitive conduct is evaluated under the law and adopting a more rules-based approach that would be more predictable to implement and would potentially allow the bureau to block anti-competitive behaviours more successfully.

Competition law should aim to promote fair commerce in the Canadian economy by acknowledging and balancing the needs of all stakeholders, including SMEs, large businesses, consumers, workers, government and citizens in general. It's through the balancing of these needs that we derive the modern purpose of the Competition Act and also ensure the act works with, not against, the policies we currently have in place to foster fair and competitive markets in Canada.

Thank you again, and I'm looking forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Joël Lightbound]

Thank you very much for your comments, which are very much appreciated.

We are ready to begin the first round of questions with Ms. Gray.

Ms. Gray, you have six minutes.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today.

My first questions will be for Beer Canada.

I really appreciate your comments on how the escalator excise tax is going to be affecting your industry. Now with inflation with us, I want to touch on the cost of shipping and transportation and how this is affecting your industry.

[Luke Chapman]

It's certainly a challenge, as I noted in my remarks.

In early 2022, beer prices have already increased by 5% compared to the same period in 2021. It's certainly a combination of things. We're dealing with historically high malt barley prices and historically high aluminum can prices. As well, we're getting close to historically high fuel prices and labour costs are rising, so it's a perfect storm. When we put on top of that these annual federal beer tax increases, it's been a very challenging time for brewers across the country.

I think the message we're trying to send to the government today, and throughout the coming months, is that there's an idea around consistent small increases every year, but I think we can all agree this is far from normal circumstances when you're dealing with 6% to 7% inflation. We're asking the government to acknowledge there's already a lot of stuff happening in our industry, and to maybe take a second look at these annual increases moving forward, leading up to April 1, 2023.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

The next thing I wanted to ask you about was interprovincial trade and reducing red tape. We know there are a lot of restrictions in Canada and there's a lot of inability for people to ship across provinces. I'm just wondering how important it is, from your perspective, for the federal government to get to the table to remove some of these interprovincial trade barriers.

[Luke Chapman]

Absolutely.

We at Beer Canada, and our member companies, are fully supportive of the elimination of barriers that make it difficult to move our products from province to province. I think beer is unique in many ways, and it's also unique in its physical characteristics. When you compare it to both wine and spirits, beer is a much bulkier, heavier product, so it is more costly to ship between provinces. We as an industry are certainly supportive of the federal government doing what it can to work with the provinces to eliminate some of those barriers and provide more opportunities to brewers.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

My next couple of questions are for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Actually, Ms. Pohlmann, you mentioned in your opening statement the one-for-one rule that formerly existed. As well, I note there was an advisory committee to help identify these barriers and I know that the CFIB was a representative on that committee. Is this committee still in place to advise the government?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

The committee that had been in place was dissolved. It's my understanding, though, that they are looking at reinstating the committee with potentially new members.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay. When, approximately, would that have been dissolved? Do you recall?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

I think it was the spring or summer of last year.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Okay.

The other thing I've noted is there used to be a scorecard that was publicized on red tape reduction across the country. It broke it down between departments. We haven't seen that posted online for a number of years. Do you know if that's still being done?

[Corinne Pohlmann]

The departments are still supposed to report the number of regulations each of them have and ones they've gotten rid of. If you go by department, you can sometimes see it, but it's certainly not updated for every department every year, as was originally the reason for it to be put into place. It does continue in some departments, but not in others.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Thank you very much.

I know the scorecard had a little bit of different information other than that. Hopefully they'll bring that back again, because it actually did go into a lot more detail and had a different lens.

The other thing I wanted to ask you about was credit card fees. We know that for a couple of years now the government has been talking about reducing these, and yet we haven't seen anything concrete. We know credit card fees really affect small businesses a lot, especially now, during a time when people are ordering online more often. I'm wondering if you have any input on that and if it's more important than ever to look at reducing credit card fees.