Bill C-56

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act

Part 1 amends the Excise Tax Act in order to implement a temporary enhancement to the GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing.
Part 2 amends the Competition Act to, among other things,
(a) establish a framework for an inquiry to be conducted into the state of competition in a market or industry;
(b) permit the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders even if none of the parties to an agreement or arrangement — a significant purpose of which is to prevent or lessen competition in any market — are competitors; and
(c) repeal the exceptions in sections 90.1 and 96 of the Act involving efficiency gains.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Guelph.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

I would like to explain why it is so important that we work together to pass this bill. This bill includes urgent measures to make life more affordable for Canadians, including removing the GST on the construction of new apartment buildings, which would help get more rental homes built faster.

The bill would also enhance competition across the economy, with a focus on the grocery sector to help stabilize food prices for Canadians.

Specifically, this legislation would increase the GST rental rebate from 36% to 100% and remove the existing GST rental rebate phase-out thresholds for new rental housing projects. That means for a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, our plan would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is about encouraging developers to build homes that otherwise would not get built. It is a game-changer for housing in our country. Mike Moffatt, one of Canada's leading housing experts, called this “a fantastic transformative step.” and Toronto's former chief city planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, said that this measure could be “the beginning of a sea change."

This is the newest measure in our ambitious housing plan, one that is about building more homes faster, cracking down on unfair practices by investors and ensuring that Canadians can afford a safe place to call home. Our plan includes the new tax-free first home savings account, which is already helping tens of thousands of Canadians save up to $40,000 tax-free toward that first down payment. Our plan also includes the $4 billion race-to-the-top housing accelerator fund, which is already breaking down barriers and encouraging municipalities to build more homes.

With Bill C-56, we are doing even more with provinces like Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia already following our lead by eliminating provincial taxes on new rentals. We will build even more of the rental homes that Canadians need.

This bill also seeks to amend the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau so that it can investigate price gouging and price fixing.

It would put an end to anti-competitive mergers that drive up prices and limit Canadians' choices. It would also enable the Competition Bureau to ensure that big grocery stores cannot prevent smaller competitors from opening stores nearby. Our government is relentlessly focused on building an economy with stable prices, steady growth, and abundant, well-paying, middle-class jobs.

There are currently 980,000 more Canadians in the job market than before the pandemic. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that, on average, Canada will see the strongest economic growth in the G7 this year and next. DBRS Morningstar also confirmed our AAA credit rating earlier this month.

Since we were elected, 2.3 million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty. In 2015, 14.5% of Canadians were living in poverty. By 2021, that number had dropped to 7.4%. Our affordable Canada-wide early learning and child care system is supporting a record labour force participation rate of 85.7% for working-age women. It is also helping to grow the economy and make life more affordable for families from coast to coast to coast.

Furthermore, whether by enhancing the Canada workers benefit or by creating the Canada child benefit or the new Canada dental care plan, we have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians rely on, while ensuring that Canada maintains the lowest deficit and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

We are working hard for Canadians, but we know we have more work to do. Bill C-56 will deliver real, concrete solutions. More competition will help with the sticker shock at the grocery checkout counter. Eliminating the GST on rental housing will get more homes built faster, so that more Canadians have an affordable place to call home.

Bill C-56 is an important step in our plan to continue delivering on what matters most to Canadians, and I encourage my colleagues to support its swift passage.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the finance minister said that interest rates would stay low for a very long time. Then she dumped hundreds of billions of dollars of fuel on the inflationary fire, giving Canadians the most rapid interest rate hikes seen in the last three decades.

In November she said she would balance the budget and would be careful not to pour fuel on the inflationary fire that she started. She then turned around and dumped a $63 billion jerry can on it.

Two months ago, she was doing victory laps, saying that she stopped inflation. It has gone up 43% since then.

Now her deficits have fuelled inflation and put Canadians most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. When will she balance the budget so Canadians will not lose their homes?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the question has absolutely nothing to do with the legislation we are presenting. However, let me take a moment to clarify some of the incorrect assertions embedded within it.

It is really important to be honest and truthful with Canadians. The truth is that Canada has an AAA credit rating, which was reaffirmed by DBRS Morningstar this month. It is also important to be clear with Canadians that we have the lowest deficit in the G7 and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio. Those are the facts. Everything else is a partisan muddying of the waters.

When it comes to our legislation, it speaks to the immediate needs of Canadians today: getting more rental housing built now and bringing more competition into the economy, including the grocery sector, to keep prices down.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on her speech, which seemed to be full of good intentions.

The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, released some alarming and very troubling statistics. By 2030, Quebec will need 1.1 million housing units. It will be the hardest-hit region of Canada. The Government of Quebec also released some statistics. Homelessness has gone up 44% in the past five years. Those are the numbers. We are in the midst of a housing crisis, but for the past six months, the federal government has been withholding $900 million and taking a paternalistic and irresponsible attitude. In the midst of a housing crisis, the cities, which the federal government is once again accusing of dragging their feet, are unable to submit applications to build new housing projects.

I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to explain to us today why the government has been withholding money for new housing projects for six months, if housing is truly one of its priorities.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague from the Bloc Québécois that there really is a housing crisis. That is why we introduced our bill last week, the first week after the summer break. We are absolutely certain that this bill is urgent. We agree that there needs to be more housing. We agree that more rental housing needs to be built and that it must be done quickly.

I hope that every member in the House, including the members of the Bloc Québécois, will support us because I agree with them that Quebec also needs more housing and more rental housing.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are very aware of the fact that we need non-market solutions, as well as market solutions, in order to address the housing crisis. The minister, in her remarks, mentioned three planks of the government's housing plan: a tax-free savings account for down payments; the housing accelerator fund, which talks a little bit about affordability but does not talk about social housing or make affordability a requirement of the program; and this bill's GST measure. All these things have in common that they are largely market-based initiatives.

The NDP has called for a non-profit acquisition fund and a replenishment of the coinvestment fund. These are things that really ought to happen hand in hand with any market-based measures. Therefore, what measures is the government planning on presenting this fall alongside the legislation that will lead to the creation of new social and affordable housing units in Canada?

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Elmwood—Transcona for the work that he has been doing alongside our government, together with me, on the housing crisis. I believe that this measure of lifting the GST on all rental construction would help all Canadians with housing, including affordable housing. The fact is that we need to add to supply. That is what this measure would do, and this would have a positive impact on everyone who rents, as well as on people looking to buy.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House for the first time this session to discuss the very important bill that we have in front of us.

This summer, I spoke to many constituents of mine in Guelph who had concerns about the price of housing, the price of groceries and big business taking over the marketplace in many areas. I am really pleased that the first piece of legislation of the session that we have in front of us to talk about is Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

The government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in these times of high inflation. Many measures that we have been introducing have been to help people who are unfairly affected by the inflationary winds that are blowing globally right now. We need to do more than we have been doing in terms of targeted support. The bill in front of us today addresses what we could do to help build more rental housing, as well as to try to curb the inflation that we see in the grocery market in particular.

Families across the country are relying on parliamentarians to do what we can to help with measures such as those we have outlined in Bill C-56 and the ensuing debate that we will have.

Making housing more affordable is something that we need to look at, including where the federal government can influence the activities within the marketplace, so that young people, young Canadians, have the dream of owning a home again. Right now, it is increasingly out of reach, and paying for rent has become more expensive across the country. This is really affecting younger Canadians, as well as people who are just trying to get their foot into the market.

The housing crisis has an impact on our economy. When people are not succeeding, our economy does not succeed. Without more homes in our communities, it is difficult for businesses to attract the workers they need to grow and succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, it means less money is being spent in our communities for necessities such as groceries. This has a direct impact on small business.

Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rental rebate on new purpose-built rental housing; this would encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects for which construction began on or after September 14, 2023, and on or before December 31, 2030, with construction completed before 2036.

Working on the supply is an important part of what the federal government could do to help. For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, for a developer, the enhanced GST rental rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief to incent the developer to make the numbers work. This tool could help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need and that families want to live in. This, in turn, would open up the opportunity for renters to have a reduction in the cost they are paying for the units that are constructed.

The measure also removes a restriction on the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations, could build or purchase purpose-built rental housing and be permitted to claim 100% of the enhanced GST rental rebate.

The government is also calling on provinces that currently apply provincial sales tax or the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax to rental housing to join us by matching our rebate for new rental housing. It was very encouraging to hear that Ontario, the province where my riding exists, will be participating in this program.

We are also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments near public transit in order to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. I know that Guelph has worked hard on this application. We have had many community discussions around this, but sometimes the numbers just do not work. In those cases, programs such as the one we are initiating today, through this bill, would help the numbers to work.

Launched in March 2023, the housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities, towns and indigenous governments unlock new housing supply, targeting about 100,000 units across the country; speed up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems; introduce zoning reforms to build more density; and incentive development close to public transit. Last week, the government announced that London, Ontario is the first city to benefit from this fund. Of course, Guelph is watching that very closely. The fund also supports the development of complete low-carbon and climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive, equitable and diverse. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster so we can reduce the cost of housing for everyone.

We are also looking at how we can help Canadians with their grocery bills, and we need to stabilize the price of groceries in Canada. Through the one-time grocery rebate in July, we delivered targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who need it the most. It was up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and up to $234 for single Canadians without children, including seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew that more needed to be done to address the rising cost of groceries. The interim measure was really to address the increase in groceries and not actually the groceries' being purchased at a higher price every week. This is why we are taking immediate steps to enhance competition across the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, to help stabilize costs for middle-class Canadians.

Through Bill C-56, the government would be introducing a first set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act, intended to provide the Competition Bureau with powers to compel the production of information in order to conduct effective and complete market studies and to remove the inefficiencies defence, which is currently allowing anti-competitive mergers to happen if the corporate efficiencies are being used as a reason for them to go forward. Canadian customers would still pay higher prices even if these efficiencies are realized. The bill would empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular, in situations where larger grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

This bill would build on our other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians. These include delivering the automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit, starting July 2023, to provide $1,518 total for eligible single workers and $2,616 for an eligible family, split among three advance payments and the final payment after a person has completed their 2023 tax return. We are also supporting three and a half million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,437 per child under the age of six and $6,275 per child for children aged six through 17. Increasing old age security is another measure we have taken, including indexing that to inflation. We have also reduced fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, moving towards the cost of $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories already reaching that goal.

We are looking at what we can do to influence the market to help people who are facing these costs. We are working on helping Canadians put food on their table, pay the rent and be successful within their communities. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family. Making life more affordable is a key part of that.

I urge hon. members to support this legislation, and I am open to questions.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was very honoured in June 2022 to host a round table on housing in Calgary, where I welcomed such individuals as Craig Dickie from Anthem United; Kory Zwack from Calgary Housing; Michele Ward from Homes by Avi; Cliff Stevenson and Jackie Stewart, both from BILD Calgary; and Brian Hahn from BILD Calgary. I apologize; Cliff Stevenson is from CREA. Of course, there was my favourite councillor, Dan McLean, from ward 13. To share with my colleague, since we are both working on solutions together to solve the housing crisis, the problems identified at that time included lack of supply due to land release, approval timing and not enough lead time or certainty for those who wish to build homes. There was also the cost of utilities, with the carbon tax now really adding to that.

I would like to ask my colleague why the government always does too little too late.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, we have had similar discussions in Guelph, with round tables that have the service providers, the builders and the community agencies focused on housing solutions. In fact, similar to Calgary, we have identified supply as being one of the major issues, as well as approval. How can we speed up the approvals process? The housing accelerator fund will be addressing the approvals process by providing funds for communities to increase their support for the approvals process. This bill in particular is looking at supply. In particular within that, it is looking at supply of rental housing, and within rental housing, making sure that 30% of the rental housing is affordable.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I did not have a chance to ask the Minister of Finance a question earlier when she made her speech. Since my colleague across the way is from the same party, I assume he may be able to answer my question.

In her speech, the Minister of Finance mentioned that the proposed cut to the GST on housing construction with the rebate system would help lower the cost of building a housing unit. For example, for a housing unit valued at $500,000, the rebate would be $25,000.

The cost of building a home will be reduced for the person building it, but after that, the housing unit will be sold to the person who will start renting it out.

What incentive does that person have to lower the rent if the market price remains the same? We know that if the market price for rent is $2,000 to $3,000—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Guelph.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, reducing the cost of a $500,000 unit by $25,000 would really give a developer the opportunity to move forward with plans it has to create more supply. Creating more supply in a marketplace such as ours would reduce the cost, because of supply and demand. We have a demand that is right now not being met by supply. If we meet supply with more units, automatically the market would adjust itself accordingly.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, from my colleague's previous work on the industry committee, he knows there would be some improvements in the bill from the competition bureau. The concern I have that I would like the member to talk a bit about is whether he thinks the bill goes far enough. Would we see some improvements? As he knows, grocery CEOs fixed the price of bread and had to be caught. They have also ended pandemic pay, all at the same time. Technically they did not violate the law, but they got together and almost colluded to do it at the same time. Last, most recently, the CEOs met with the minister privately, but I am not sure how successful that is going to be, because most recently the competition bureau has been ordered to pay nine million dollars just doing its job challenging the Shaw-Rogers merger.

Does my colleague have confidence that the bill would actually resolve some long-standing challenges?

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, the review we have done, starting in 2022, has been a public consultation on the Competition Act. A couple of things we heard about are finding their way into this bill, but there is a lot more on the website to show the other things we have heard that we need to address with future legislation.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to request unanimous consent to split my time with the hon. member for Calgary Forest Lawn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

That is okay, Madam Speaker. I have all the time in the world today.

Canadians pay some of the most punishing prices in the world at the grocery store. Canadians pays double the rent they did only a few years ago. Canadians have it really tough, and inflation is the culprit, fuelled by the government's reckless spending and a punitive carbon tax. It has increased prices significantly over the past year, almost 18% for groceries alone. Inflation is rising in faster in Canada than in the United States, and has risen over 43% in the last two months. This is after the government said it was gone.

It is also a story about a lack of competition and competition laws to look after the consumer, the people, and to boost competition in the industry. After eight years of the Liberal government, we are finally seeing some results. We are finally seeing some competition law changes in a government bill. I will be the first to admit this is a really good idea, especially to eliminate the efficiencies defence, which, of course, right now allows any companies to merge if they find efficiencies. A lot of times those have been in job losses. Superior Propane used it not just once but three times because it is such a good law.

I say it was a great idea, because it was actually my idea. For the first reading of the efficiencies defence in Bill C-339, I read in the House on June 8, and we were supposed to go to debate in November, but I digress. This is a great idea, and I give credit to the government where credit is due for taking this great idea. It is a good start. That is combined with the Leader of the Opposition's idea only a few weeks ago to eliminate the GST in purpose-built rental housing, which is a great idea. I want to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his first piece of government legislation. Just wait until we form government. It is going to be something.

This is a big one. As much as we can shrug and say this bill would do some of what we want to do to tackle grocery prices in Canada, this bill misses one of the biggest, most pressing actions of all, which is to remove the carbon tax, which is added for farmers with no rebate. The median price is $150,000 per farm. Where does that price go? It gets added to what the consumer pays. What about the carbon tax for the trucker who picks up the food from the farm? Where does that price go? There is no rebate; it gets added to what the consumer pays. The carbon price is added on the cold storage facility that stores the food. Where does that carbon tax go? It gets added to what the consumer pays.

Where does the carbon tax to the grocery store go? It is added on what the consumer, who drives to the grocery store and picks up the groceries, pays. The carbon tax adds cost after cost to what the consumer pays. It punishes farmers and consumers. At the end of the day, when we look at what is missing from this bill, when talking about trying to tackle grocery prices, we are missing the deletion of the carbon tax, which is something that the Conservatives really support.

Additionally, Canadians can buy food across Canada from really only five competitors. Let me tell everyone this right now. If anyone has ever visited No Frills, Provigo, Zehrs, Fortinos, Valu-mart, Dominion, Superstore or Shoppers Drug Mart, they have shopped at Loblaws. For those who have ever gone to Farm Boy, Lawtons, Foodland or Longo's, and my favourite, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, which is not independent, they are all owned by Sobeys. Those who have ever gone to Jean Coutu, Super C, Food Basics or Brunet have gone to Metro.

Three Canadian competitors plus Walmart and Costco makes five competitors controlling 80% of all the grocery retail in Canada. By comparison, Americans have 10. At least they have dealt with it. The Americans are not perfect, but at least they are there. When we compare Canadian grocery prices to American ones, the Americans have no carbon tax, there are more competitors and the prices are lower. If Canadians are buying $40 or $50 worth of groceries, Americans are paying only $25 to $30. Sometimes it is really great to have these American neighbours so we can compare what they have and what we do not have.

How big is Loblaws? Let us talk about that for a moment. This is really neat to me. Loblaws sells 62% of Coca-Cola in Canada. Let us think about that for a minute. Loblaws is so big that it controls the whole market for Coca-Cola.

Why is that important? Take an independent like Freson Bros. Freson Bros. is Canada's largest independent grocer in the great province of Alberta and they have independent grocers. Freson Bros. is so great. As an independent supplier in rural Canada, they have Red Seal butchers and Red Seal bakers.

They employ really great individuals in their local independent stores. These are really, truly independent stores that pay good wages in rural areas, and yet they have to pay more for Coca-Cola because Loblaws holds the monopoly.

That is what monopolies do. They hold dominance and they control prices. When one has less choice as a consumer, then the monopolies win. If it was not for Coca-Cola having dominance through Loblaws, maybe that would be something that we could pay less for.

That example can be used over and over again when it comes to products that consumers try to buy every day in their stores. We call it abuse of dominance and it is prevalent among our big five major grocers.

Worst of all, Canadians are paying increases on food that is actually shrinking. Shrinkflation is the phenomenon of buying products that are actually decreasing in size. A lot of Canadians are not even aware of this. When one goes to the grocery store and one buys a pack of, let us say, granola bars for our children, normally there would have been six in a box. Consumers are now finding that there are five.

When parents go to put those granola bars in their students' lunches, they are paying a little bit more for a product that is smaller. That phenomenon is shrinkflation. That is coming because of inflation, because of this dominance of monopolies.

All the while, Canadians are seeing food prices that are actually going up. Food prices in all of Canada, this year, increased 6.8%, almost 7%. The two-year increase is 17%. Meat had a 6.5% increase this year. Over two years, it was 13.5%. Eggs increased around 3% this year. Over two years, it was 20%. Breakfast cereals increased 10% this year. Over two years, it was 25%. Fresh vegetables increased 9% this year. Over two years, it was 19%. Coffee, and we all need coffee, especially, sometimes, in the House, increased 8% over one year. Over two years, it was 24%.

Food purchases by restaurants increased 8% this year in costs, and 14% over two years. Think of a lot of these restaurants, these small, independent local businesses that took on loans during the pandemic and now have to try to pass these costs off to consumers. It is really difficult for consumers who want to go out for a meal.

From seed to source in Canada, there is also little choice. We talk about what has come into Canada. We talk about the growing influence of Walmart and Costco. Decisions made by the Competition Bureau over the last 20 or 30 years allowed, in one instance, one grocery store to buy another; and allowed a major chain, Amazon, to buy Whole Foods, which I think will have a dominant effect in the future, even though it has decreased stores lately.

We think of where we have Amazon warehouses. If we look at the next 50 years, we may not even be using grocery stores any more. When we look at automation and the increase of innovation, grocery delivery could be all in the form of warehousing. When we look at what that impact of Amazon, an American company, not a Canadian company, has, it is pretty significant, when we look at what it could mean over the next 20 or 30 years.

When we look at the consolidation, the actual competition laws that exist, yes, we have had some pretty bad decisions by the Competition Bureau, but it was all the result of a bad Competition Act.

We allowed Sobeys to buy IGA. This one is amazing to me. The Independent Grocers Association should be independent and was formed as being independent. Sobeys now owns IGAs. They say half are independent. I do not really believe that. They are owned by a major corporation.

Metro bought A&P. Loblaws bought Shoppers Drug Mart. I think, at the time, when the Competition Bureau looked at it, it said, look, we have a pharmacy, we are not going to have an impact for consumers.

Now, as we look at it, Shoppers Drug Marts, which are open sometimes to midnight, are the only grocery store in some of these rural towns across Canada. What I am hearing is that they are making as much as 20% profit on fresh produce. Let us think about the costs already. Again, it is based on supply and demand, but we allowed this under our laws. We allowed Loblaws to buy Shoppers Drug Mart. Sobeys bought Longo's. It bought Farm Boy, and again, there is less independence. We have allowed this through our existing competition law.

The result has been that if one walks into any store, it is an illusion that it is not part of the big three. It is also a consolidation that gives Canadians little choice. We talk about freedom. It is the freedom of Canadians to decide where their money is going to go, where their paycheques are going to go. The illusion has been, through this lack of competition, that Canadians have choice.

The reality is that Canadians have little choice. Even with the Loblaws brand of Your Independent Grocer, it is no more independent than any other grocery store or any other business.

I want to tell a little story also about Kleenex in Canada. We can no longer buy Kleenex in Canada. Is that not sad? At the end of the day, Kleenex is beholden to the big brands. Loblaws, for instance, because it has a monopoly, decides where it wants to put certain brands. It says to suppliers that if they are going to lower prices, this is where they need to lower them to. If they are going to drop five or 10 cents, this is where it is at. Right now, that is held by Kruger paper in Canada, and that is the Scotties brand, with the funky boxes and great colours.

The problem with that and the story of Kleenex leaving Canada is this. As we did last week, we have a “perp” walk and bring all the five grocers in. The government officials told them to lower prices and that they are going to impose a tax on them. We know that, with these companies being big conglomerates and publicly traded companies, a tax will only go to the consumer. We know this in a capitalist society. It is simple economics. Everyone knows this. The conglomerates put pressure then on the manufacturers.

Let me say this. I have a Kruger paper manufacturing facility in Quinte West in my riding, which employs 120 employees. If the companies feel the pressure to decrease prices, they start to find savings in other areas of that business, which means layoffs and shorting shifts, hurting Canadian workers. That is the power that these big monopolies have. With respect to competition laws and how we have to fix them, we need to fix the dominance that these big monopolies have. It is Kleenex today and we do not want it to be Kruger tomorrow. That is really important. Big players cannot control smaller players. We have to make sure small players have their say when it comes to the Canadian economy because then it is really the consumer who has the say.

I want to talk about shrinkflation. It is really fascinating. It is the process of shrinking product sizes while keeping the prices the same or even increasing them. In essence, people are getting less for the same amount of money. This trend is becoming more prevalent in the grocery industry and its consequences ripple through our households.

Let us start with the grocery stores themselves. As people walk through the aisles, they might notice that their favourite products do not seem as big as they used to be. A cereal box, a bag of chips or a carton of ice cream all appear slightly smaller. Manufacturers are reducing the quantity of the product. It is often in subtle ways, like reducing the number of cookies in a pack or slimming down the width of a candy bar. I have some examples of this. A year ago, a jar of Nutella was 400 grams and now it is 375 grams, which is a 6.3% reduction. Campbell's Chunky soup was 540 millilitres and now it is 515 millilitres, which is a 5% reduction. Crispers used to be 175 grams and is now 145 grams, which I noticed the other day when I was picking up some groceries for my children for school. This is a reduction of 17%.

. With respect to a family on a budget, I talked to somebody the other day who said that for their family, because of the increases in rent and mortgage and bringing home less of a paycheque, they make a dinner for the family and they make something else for their children. They cannot afford to give the same meal to the children as they do for their family, and it might be a grilled cheese sandwich. Even with Kraft Singles, before, a package was 24 slices and now it is 22 slices. When people are making lunch or dinner for their family, that is a big deal; It is a reduction of 9%.

We have Chewy granola bars. A box used to contain six bars and now it contains five bars. A bag of Tim Hortons fine-ground original blend coffee used to be 1,000 grams and now it is 930 grams, which is a reduction of 7%. That is pretty sad.

When I talk about a box of granola bars that went from six bars to five bars, there is something else significant that happens with that reduction. That is the imposition of a new tax, called the snack tax, that goes onto everyday grocery items. Not a lot of Canadians know this, but there is a snack tax that goes on many items like cookies, chips, ice cream or granola bars, which maybe sometimes is the only thing we can put in our child's lunch bags. When the manufacturer uses shrinkflation and decreases prices, that snack tax is automatically implemented. This means that because of inflation, because of dominance of our monopolies and now because manufacturers are shrinking their products, we actually have government tax going on some of these items in the grocery stores. The government is now making money on items because of inflation and that is really sad.

When we take this to committee, this is something we are obviously going to study. I know my colleague before me from the NDP talked about some other elements. How sad is it that the government is making money on certain elements of what is happening in the grocery store? That is what is happening when it comes to shrinkflation.

When it comes to looking after the consumer, who looks after rent and groceries, we certainly have a lot of ideas we need to implement that are going to help the consumer. A lot of these ideas came from this side of the House but also from a lot of great committee work from members on this side of the House. We need to be very cognizant when we are putting all this forward that we are doing the best we can for consumers, the families who every day need to make decisions for their households at the grocery store.

This bill is equivalent to the shrug emoji. We can support it, but it needs a lot more to actually make grocery prices affordable in Canada. After eight years, the tired Liberal government is out of ideas. There are a few good ideas in here thanks to Conservatives, but it fails for the most part to follow through with better ideas to address the major oligopoly in Canada, which gives Canadians little choice and has them paying more at the grocery store for less.

Shrinkflation and the taxes that follow are eating more of Canadians' paycheques. The carbon tax takes a chunk from farmers, those who deliver the food and of course the consumers who buy the food.

Competition Act changes are good, but we must go further to stop the abusive dominance provisions that exist in the Competition Act. The provisions that are the most prevalent include those that allow monopolies to take advantage of Canadians, of consumers, and most importantly, of manufacturers and farmers in the whole process.

Most of all, we need more competition in Canada from food manufacturers and farmers to ensure Canadians have freedom of choice. When they have freedom of choice, they will decide best where to put their money, where to put their hard-earned paycheques. We need more competition to bring lower prices home for Canadians and their families.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, there were a couple of things I was listening for but did not hear, so maybe the hon. member can help clarify them for me. One is in terms of external competition. In August, Saudi Arabia cut a million barrels a day of oil out of production, which was about a 20% cut of the supply of oil. When one reduces supply, one increases prices, and that is what we are seeing now with nine billion barrels a day as current production driving up the price of oil. I did not hear much about external competitive factors.

Also, I was really hoping to hear something about the Competition Bureau and the role that independent organization plays in Canada to enforce the act we are discussing, as well as how having an independent review is such an important part of the process. Quite often I hear the other side saying it is all the government's fault, but really we have an independent review through the Competition Bureau. Maybe he could discuss that.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, to the first question, if we just cut the carbon tax, it would at least eliminate 14¢ or 15¢ right now and about 60¢ later, so that is a good idea. We are full of great ideas.

Second, yes, the Competition Bureau is important, but it needs to have the right laws in order to enforce them. Right now, we look at different examples, but the Rogers-Shaw merger for one, was allowed to go forward. By the way, it would have gone forward regardless because of the efficiencies defence.

The Competition Bureau needs to have the right tools and the right powers in order to look at competition and to stop some of the mergers I mentioned that happened in the grocery industry. Five or six of those mergers probably should never have been able to happen, so much so that we had an Independent Grocers Association owned by a major monopoly in Canada. How bad is it than an independent grocer is not independent at all? We need to strength those laws and we look forward to making those changes.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was refreshing to hear the Conservatives finally identify that corporate greed is driving inflation when it comes to food prices. We saw Conservatives in Great Britain, for example, charge an excess profit tax on the outrageous amounts of excess profits on oil and gas.

Here in Canada we have excess profits on oil and gas, at the grocery store and at the big banks. We cannot even get Liberals in Canada to charge an excess profit tax. In fact, what I heard from my colleague is the need for improvement when it comes to competition in the Competition Act. I am hoping he will support our leader, who has tabled a bill that would ensure we have a comprehensive package to break apart monopolies and improve competition.

When he talked about the carbon tax, greedflation is about 20-fold the impact on grocery store prices compared to the carbon tax. Will my colleague support our leader's bill for the NDP and will he support an excess profit tax on these corporations?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, a tax is a tax, and a tax that is imposed on companies is always passed onto consumers. We want to ensure there is no more tax.

When it comes to an example of that, we just have to look to the utility sector in Great Britain in the late nineties when there was a windfall tax imposed on the utility companies. In the studies that came out 10 years later, every company that had a windfall tax increased their prices and those who bore those prices were the middle class. The middle class will always pay the higher prices imposed by any windfall tax or tax in general.

We on this side of the House are for no new taxes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we heard it here first. History was made when someone entered a shrug emoji into the Hansard. I commend the hon. member for that.

I want to talk about process for a second. The government tables legislation twice per year as major money bills. For some reason, the government is now touting this bill as a marquis bill that would make a massive difference in the lives of consumers, except it neglected to do it a few months ago in the budget. What has changed? Maybe a couple of members of Parliament put ideas forward. In fact, one was from the NDP and the other two were from Conservative members, which the government stole.

Could the hon. member talk about the process? Why was this not in the budget? How are Canadians supposed to believe that the government will have solutions to problems it did not believe existed until a week ago?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree. After eight years of the government we see that it is out of ideas. Obviously, we are waiting for the next government and the next prime minister of Canada for those ideas. Where was the government eight years ago when it had all the opportunities? Every year there is a new budget and new measures announced.

Four years ago, the government was denying there was a problem with inflation, even though this side of the House was proclaiming what would certainly happen. We speak with Canadians. We are the ones who have spoken about the issues that have come up. The government is just catching up, but it is too little too late. We look forward to forming government and being able to fix these problems once and for all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the member's very last comments. He said that the Conservatives were looking forward to forming government to fix the problems, but in a good portion of his speech he talked about Loblaws and Shoppers. All one has to do is google that merger. Who do members think was in government when that happened? When those two giants merged, everyone was saying that it was going to be like the Walmart of Canada. When that came to be, it was under Stephen Harper. I do not mean to pop the member opposite's bubble, but at times the Conservative Party needs a reality check.

My question is on the other aspect of the bill, which the member did not spend much time on, and that is with respect to the need for Canada to increase our rental housing stock. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on why we are now witnessing provinces coming on board and duplicating what we are doing at the national level with respect to giving that tax break so we can see more apartments being built. Is it not a good thing to see the provinces on side?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, first, Sobeys bought Farm Boy and Metro bought Jean Coutu. That was done under the Liberal government. I love how the Liberals try to blame everything on us when it is happening under their watch. They are the ones in government right now.

Our leader has some great speeches, and I know members are going to hear a lot of good speeches today on our housing measures, and, of course, removing the GST from purpose-built rentals. There are a lot of great changes our leader has come up with that the government has not. I am sure we are going to be talking about those great ideas.

We do not focus on building penthouses, but making sure we are building affordable housing. This means that the everyday Canadians, whose paycheques are stretched and are unable to buy things at the grocery store, will be able to afford an apartment. We are focused on everyday Canadians.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member touched briefly on the compounding effect of the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very different than the GST. The GST has input tax credits and the tax itself, so the consumer only ends up paying a one-time 5% tax. However, the carbon tax is a compounding tax: tax on the carbon tax, then carbon tax on carbon tax. Could the member explain a bit more on how that has a very damaging effect on Canadians and really propels inflation?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has a very profound effect. We just have to talk to the manufacturers and farmers who have had it implemented upon them.

The Canadian public only sees the rebate, which they still pay more of on their side, but farmers, manufacturers, truckers, cold storage facilities and grocery stores do not get a rebate at all with the carbon tax. Every time that cost is imposed on a business, it has no choice but to pass it down to the consumer. When that is done one, two, three, four or five times, the result is seeing that price increase five times. The consumer pays it. At the end of the day, Canadians are suffering.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches from the Conservatives, who seem to delight in reminding us that removing the GST from housing was their idea. Whether the idea came from the Conservatives or the Liberals, ultimately, will it actually make a difference?

I sincerely wonder, because in the end, the money will not go back into the pockets of those who rent housing, but rather into the pockets of those who build it. This sends a message to builders that they will be able to build homes for less. As the Minister of Finance said, it will cost them $25,000 less to build a $500,000 building. If the building is valued at $800,000 on the market, why would someone sell it for $25,000 less? It will be sold at the same price and the builder will simply make more profit.

I am having a hard time understanding how this magic solution will suddenly solve the problem.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all know about the housing crisis we are in. It is the worst in the world. I know all of us, as parliamentarians, want to fix that. We all agree that we need more supply, and I think the debate in the House is how to get more supply.

How do we work with those municipalities and the provinces in getting more supply? There will be different ideologies on how to do that. Taking the GST off of purpose-built rentals is a great idea, as is working with municipalities to make sure we get permits approved faster. That is what our leader is all about, and it is a great idea. Let us work together to make sure we get houses built so Canadians can finally afford a home.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Shefford.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House?

It is agreed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want you to know that I am very critical of this bill. Obviously, it does not set out any harmful measures. It sets out some mini-measures and some relatively important things. It is clearly not a panacea, but we will support it because we cannot be against it. However, when I read the bill, I could not help but be very critical of it for the following reasons.

We are dealing with a government that is incapable of thinking long term or seeing past the end of its nose. We have been in a housing crisis for two, five, 10, 15, 20 years, yet never has there been any long-term action except for a failed national housing strategy. We are in a situation where food prices have increased exponentially. Still, it took a Liberal caucus meeting where backbenchers were probably so angry at the government that something had to be done.

What was the centrepiece of its action? No joke, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry decided he was going to do something. He decided he was going to call up the people who represent 80% of Canada's grocery retail market for a meeting. He picked up the telephone and then realized there were only five of them: three big chains, Costco and Walmart. It took him 30 seconds to make the calls.

Economics teaches us that industries find ways to concentrate. Some are more complex than others. However, when there are so few players controlling the grocery market that they could all tee off together, the industry concentration is obvious. The Conservatives are no better. Concentration has been an issue for years. Everything had to blow up before the Minister of Industry decided to invite them over for a coffee. There are so few of them that they would only need one Nespresso pod.

What has happened since 1986? Steinberg and A&P closed down. Loblaws acquired Provigo. Sobeys acquired IGA. Metro acquired Adonis. In the 1980s, there were 13 grocery chains. That was already a small number, but now we are down to three. Now we have to include Walmart and Costco to say there is some competition. The Minister of Industry was never interested in this. It is funny: The Liberals are suddenly seeing that an election may be looming. It is funny: All of a sudden they are seeing their poll results. It took polls for them to realize that their constituents would like to eat three meals a day.

This serves as a very sobering reminder of how out of touch the Liberals are. I would remind the House, however, that this all began under the Conservatives, and no one did anything. We know what happened. Are the Bloc Québécois members the only ones saying this? Not necessarily, although we have been proposing measures for 20 years to improve competition and ensure that consumers come first. The Competition Bureau is also saying these things. More and more mergers and acquisitions are happening. No one is stopping them. The profit margin on products is increasing.

What does that mean? It means that it costs companies less thanks to economies of scale and additional savings when they merge. At the same time, they are charging more for their products. Between those two things, they are earning an excess of profits due to a lack of competition. These people are lining their pockets. No matter what the Conservatives say, it is not the result of free enterprise and the genius of capitalism. It is the result of less competition.

We therefore need to seriously rethink how this market is organized, because a market that works is one where consumers can go and see a competitor, where people can say that if the price is too high at company A, they will go and purchase from company B. Those companies would then have to compete with one another. This is no longer the case in Canada. When five individuals sitting in a room control 80% of the market, we no longer have a healthy grocery market.

As I said, Bill C‑56 proposes measures that the Bloc Québécois has been requesting, not for two years, not for five years or eight years, not just since the Liberals came to power, but for 20 years. That is a verifiable fact. We care about the middle class and purchasing power, even between election periods.

There are some good things in this bill. It gives the commissioner real investigative powers. Instead of just conducting small studies and giving his opinion, as he is currently being forced to do, he will be able to compel people to testify. He will be able to ask for documents. A competition bureau needs to be able to investigate. In Canada, the commissioner's powers are limited.

The bill broadens the range of anti-competitive activities. Right now, we have a model that is unique in the world, but we are not the best country in the world. Members know what I think about that. When companies want to merge, the Competition Bureau lets them as long as doing so will generate efficiency gains, because that will lower costs.

However, the commissioner cannot say that the result will be less competition and therefore fewer reductions, higher prices and more money in the pockets of company shareholders because of a lack of competition. The commissioner cannot prevent that. Today, we will be able to take a step toward doing so. That is good, but it is just a start.

We will support the bill, but we are not commending the government for this, far from it. The government is congratulating itself on this. However, the members on the other side of the House have some soul-searching to do, as do the Conservatives. There is still a lot of work to be done. We need to review the notion of abuse of dominance. We need to prevent the big players from abusing their large share of the market. That is just a start. This bill is disappointing, but we cannot be against it.

Let us talk about housing. Right now, there is a flaw in the market: It is not housing the poorest. That is a serious problem. Canada is still part of the G7. The market is not housing the poorest. The market is not building co‑operative housing. The market did not build the Centre d'hébergement multiservice de Mirabel, which helps people who hit a rough patch, such as a separation or substance abuse problems. The market is not putting people back to work, and that is what is needed. While we should be talking about this, while it should be our primary concern, while there are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec, while there are people sleeping in tents, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are in a kind of intellectual symbiosis all of a sudden. They have become buddies. They are both attacking municipalities.

Instead of helping to release the $900 million for Quebec, they go on about the national housing strategy because Ottawa wants to put a Canadian flag on the corner of the cheque. Suddenly, there are too many regulations. They are against protecting farmland, even though food is supposedly important to them. They are against protecting our architectural heritage. They are against harmoniously organizing our municipalities. They are against housing.

In the meantime, this is what is going on in my riding. When land was expropriated to build the Mirabel airport in the 1970s, the stolen land eventually had to be returned. At the time, airport easements were implemented. Today, there is one runway. At the time, there were plans for six. Today, for much of the land in Mirabel, which is zoned residential, federal regulations prevent the municipality of Mirabel from building housing, from housing people.

It is funny. The federal government does not care about those regulations. They are within its jurisdiction. Rather than doing what it needs to do, it is going after mayors. It is going after municipal consultants and cities. When Mirabel made the request in 2007, it never heard back. It never heard back in 2014, either. In 2022, at committee with the minister and again with the deputy minister, not a word came from Ottawa. I wrote to the Minister of Transport about this over the weekend. I urge him to review those easements.

The problem is, Quebec is being blackmailed by Ottawa, which is imposing conditions on releasing the funds. Meanwhile, real people, real families are on the street, living in tents or giving birth in their cars.

I want to say one last thing. We need to think about the demand. It takes four seconds to increase an immigration target, but it takes time to build housing. Even if the federal government's plan to eliminate the GST worked, it applies to housing starts in 2030, which will not be complete until 2035. The National Bank and the TD Bank have the same message: The immigration plan is poorly thought out. As usual and as with the GST rebate, no studies were done. That is what we were told at the briefing. We were told that the market is buckling under the demand.

That is because the Liberals are always busy coming up with stunts to win votes. They continue to invite the grocery stores, increase immigration targets, come up with poor plans for housing, impose conditions and turn a blind eye to their own federal regulations that hinder the creation of housing. With the attitude of this government and the Conservatives, I predict that this crisis will be even worse in 10 years.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I do not think that spending literally billions of dollars is a political stunt. It is a reality.

I do not believe that the first-ever national housing strategy is a political stunt. I believe these are attempts by the government to ensure that we are able to address this as best we can. The national government needs to play a strong leadership role. We can understand the issues out there that need to be dealt with. However, other levels of government are also required to be equally engaged.

For the first time in a generation, we are seeing different levels of government coming together to address this issue. When the member talks about homelessness that on the streets, it is more than just having a shelter. There are all sorts of issues around that.

There is no one level of government that needs to be engaged, and not only governments, but also non-profits and other stakeholders, are needed to resolve the issue of housing before us. Would the member not agree with that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us deal with the parliamentary secretary the way we have to deal with the Conservatives on social media, in other words, let us set the record straight.

When it comes to the $900 million in the national housing strategy that is stuck in Ottawa's coffers—it is in fact stuck in Ottawa's coffers—if it were not for the Bloc Québécois bringing this up during every question period in the House, no one would be talking about it.

It took three and a half years to negotiate with Quebec because under the national housing strategy, Quebec, in its own jurisdiction, wants to have the money that is just sitting in Ottawa. This is not fiction. It is fact.

The airspace easements that are preventing thousands of people in my own riding from getting housing fall under federal jurisdiction. Funnily enough, the Liberals do not question that. What a coincidence.

If the government really wants to house people, then it will get on with it and show leadership. When I look up the word “leadership” in the dictionary, I do not see a federal government that drags its feet for three and half years before paying out the money and needs to be prodded every question period just to give Quebec its funding when all the other provinces have already received their share.

When I talk about leadership, I am not talking about a program where the government boasts that is has invested a certain amount, but more than half of the funding comes directly from Quebec City and the provinces are subject to federal conditions.

If that is the kind of leadership the parliamentary secretary is offering us, we can do without it.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I agree with some of what my colleague has said with respect to unchecked capitalism creating market failure. On that, I think we should all listen to the member. He is very well versed in economics when it comes to that issue.

I want to ask the member two questions. First, does he think it is a problem when the CFO of Pepsi brags, on national television, that they can sell their product for whatever they want? It seems as though we are focused on just the grocers, but there is a whole supply chain before the grocers that is completely absent from this discussion.

If the member does not want to answer that question, could he say why the government waited so long to get dragged into doing something?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, earlier, the previous Conservative member was supposed to speak for 10 minutes. The Green Party objected and he got 20 minutes. He did not even talk about housing. He focused on the price of a bag of chips.

Now my Conservative colleague, who deals with economic matters, is talking about the price of Pepsi. I find that a little unusual. Earlier I mentioned all the mergers and acquisitions that have happened since 1986. As a result, today we have a handful of people who probably belong to the same private club and control 80% of the market price.

The Harper government did nothing about it. There was nothing about that in the Conservative platform. There has been nothing about that in the Conservatives' questions in the House. Today, as the price of food continues to rise, there is still a significant lack of details.

My colleague asked why the Liberals have not done anything. It is for the same reason that successive Conservative governments did nothing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing from the Liberals and the Conservatives that this development-driven model is going to solve the affordable housing crisis. Nowhere in the world has a developer in the private sector model solved an affordable housing crisis.

Right now, 3.5% of the housing stock is non-market housing. We just need to go outside these doors to see what it looks like for every large or medium-sized city in this country. It is homelessness.

We have an urgent need. Hopefully my colleague could speak about the sense of urgency in Mirabel, his community. Does the member agree that the federal government needs to urgently step forward with non-market housing?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, Quebec is the only province with ongoing social and co-operative housing construction programs. Because it does not understand Quebec's programs, the federal government is incapable of negotiating this quickly and correctly.

I agree with my colleague on the substance. The market does not house those who need it most, those with fewer financial means. We need to correct that market with social housing.

However, it is important to remember that the construction of housing falls under Quebec's jurisdiction and, unfortunately, we are not the right Parliament to be talking about this issue. The money needs to be transferred to Quebec.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑56.

As the member for Shefford, I have had a lot of people talk to me about the issue of social housing and homelessness. The town of Granby has been hit hard by this crisis and, as the critic for seniors, during my tour of the four corners of Quebec, I was also made aware of the housing challenges that seniors face.

We cannot remain indifferent and believe that a wave of a magic wand will fix all this. We have a duty to be conscientious. The issue of housing is constantly in the news right now, so we cannot be against the idea of studying this bill in committee.

In my speech today, I will summarize the bill. I will then talk about the importance of respecting what each level of government can do. Finally, I will present the Bloc Québécois's proposals.

First, let me first remind the House that Bill C-56 essentially contains four measures. The first is a GST rebate for the construction of new rental apartment buildings. As everyone knows, this will not really bring prices down, no matter what the Minister of Finance says. During recent briefings, we asked for the studies on which the Deputy Prime Minister based her claim that prices would go down. No one was able to confirm that assertion. She did not have an answer and wanted to check the information and get back to us later. I think it is unlikely that she will ever get back to us.

Clearly, this does not replace the Marshall plan for low-cost housing that the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, our critic for social programs, is calling for. My colleague was kind enough to accept my invitation to come and speak with the community organizations involved in these issues in my region, in collaboration with the Groupe Actions Solutions Pauvreté and its two subcommittees on social housing and homelessness. Their expertise is so valuable and deserves to be recognized more.

However, to return to the GST rebate on new rental apartment buildings, some developers may be swayed by profit-related concerns to build rental apartment buildings rather than condos, and this could ease the pressures driving the cost of market-based housing higher.

According to the Société d'habitation du Québec, although roughly 40% of Quebec households are renters, only 14% of new construction between now and 2030 is expected to be rental housing. This means that the current shortage will worsen in the years to come. If Bill C‑56 can raise that percentage, at least it will help reduce the shortage.

Part 1 of the bill, which amends the Excise Tax Act, proposes giving builders of rental properties a GST rebate equal to 5% of the selling price. The rebate would apply at the time of sale, or deemed sale if the builder becomes the owner. However, the rebate will only apply where the purchaser has already been fully exempted, such as a government agency or municipality, or partially exempted, such as a non‑profit organization or housing co‑operative. Thus, Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects. It only covers private housing. Even so, this is the kind of change that will need to be considered in committee and studied.

Another aspect of the bill is that it proposes three amendments to the Competition Act. One proposal is to give the Competition Bureau of Canada real power to conduct an inquiry when it studies a sector. We regularly proposed this type of measure prior to 2011 in bills on gas prices. The proposal makes it harder for companies to merge. We were already asking for this. Another proposal is to broaden the concept of anti-competitive practices. It is worth looking at.

Right now, when a company wants to buy out a competitor, the Competition Act provides that the bureau will allow it only if the company can show that the buyout will lead to gains in efficiency, even if the merger lessens competition. This provision promoting concentration is unique in the industrialized world and is repealed in Bill C‑56.

The Bloc Québécois, including the member for Terrebonne, called for this measure. The Bloc will stick to its way of doing politics: It will be a party that makes suggestions. It will continue to make suggestions throughout this session, while also avoiding spreading disinformation.

For a long time, the Bloc Québécois has been saying that the provinces and municipalities are best placed to know the housing needs in their jurisdictions. The federal government should not interfere. Let us not forget that housing is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Need I remind our colleagues that sections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution state that property and civil rights and matters of a local nature are provincial legislative jurisdictions? This means the federal government has no standing to interfere.

The numbers speak for themselves. Bill C‑56 is just one drop in an ocean of needs. With the rise in demand, Quebec will need 1.1 million extra housing units within the next six years. Homelessness is rising in every region of Quebec. The homeless population has jumped by 44% over the last five years to reach an estimated 10,000.

The housing shortage and the resulting high cost of available apartments are playing a direct part in this crisis. The Bloc Québécois already has a wide array of suggestions and comments concerning possible solutions to the housing crisis currently raging across Quebec and Canada.

We initially took a favourable view of the Canada-Quebec housing agreement signed in 2020. The agreement is worth $3.7 billion, half of it provided by the federal government. However, we were dismayed that the negotiations leading up to the agreement took three years. Funds intended for Quebec were frozen until the two levels of government could find common ground. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about the federal government's constant need to dictate how Quebec should spend its money.

Once again, Quebec wants its share transferred to it without conditions. Had this been done back in 2017, Quebec could have started building and renovating numerous housing projects, including social housing, three years sooner, which would certainly have alleviated today's rampant housing crisis. Unconditional transfers would significantly streamline funding processes, whereas the various agreements add to the red tape involved—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. member because the hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion to address what came to light on Sunday, which was that a Nazi Waffen-SS officer was in attendance during the Ukrainian president's visit to Parliament.

I move that, whereas on Friday, September 22, a former member of the Nazi Waffen-SS was admitted to and recognized in Parliament, as the Ukrainian president visited the House; whereas it is the job of the Prime Minister of Canada to ensure the success of all visits to Canadian soil by foreign dignitaries; whereas it is the responsibility of the government, the Prime Minister's Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's global affairs department, as coordinated by the diplomatic protocol office, to organize arrangements for visits of foreign dignitaries; whereas, in 2015, legislative changes were made to establish the Parliamentary Protective Service, and in situations like this, the Parliamentary Protective Service reports to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Government of Canada and ultimately the Prime Minister; whereas all parties were required to submit lists of guests to this event to the House of Commons protocol office, which should have worked with the government's diplomatic protocol office, the Prime Minister's department and national security agencies to vet individuals; whereas the government House leader today confirmed in the House of Commons that the government had vetted everyone that was invited to Parliament; and whereas the information confirming the individual's involvement with the Nazi Waffen-SS was easily found and accessible through a basic Internet search; I believe if you seek it you will find unanimous consent for the following conclusion: that this House condemn the invitation and recognition of this individual at an address to the Parliament of Canada, that this House condemn the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada for failing to do appropriate vetting of that individual or, having done vetting, failing to stop him from being admitted to and recognized in Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Shefford will have four minutes after oral question period to continue her speech.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C‑56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was about to explain, when I was interrupted by the Leader of the Opposition, that the Bloc Québécois deplores the federal government's constant need to dictate to Quebec how to spend its money.

First, we want the government to transfer Quebec its share with no strings attached. Had the government done so starting in 2017, then Quebec would have been able to begin building and renovating a number of housing projects, particularly social housing projects, three years sooner, and that definitely would have helped to mitigate the current housing crisis. Transfers with no strings attached would make the funding process much simpler, since the various agreements complicate the associated bureaucracy and increase the wait times before the amounts in question are actually allocated. That is important, particularly since the programs put in place by the Government of Quebec are often innovative and effective.

Second, the Bloc Québécois reiterated the importance of federal funding targeting first and foremost the many needs in the area of social and deeply affordable housing because those are the most pressing.

This is what we proposed during the last election campaign. We proposed that Ottawa progressively reinvest in social, community and truly affordable housing amounting to 1% of its total annual revenues, to ensure constant and predictable funding, instead of having ad hoc agreements. We proposed that every surplus federal property be repurposed for social, community and very affordable housing to help address the housing crisis. We proposed the creation of a property speculation tax to prevent artificial market inflation. We proposed a reform of the home buyers' plan to account for the different realities of Quebec households and increasingly diverse family situations. We also proposed that the federal government proceed with a financial adjustment of the different programs stemming from the national housing strategy to create an acquisition fund. Implementing this fund would enable co-operatives and non-profits to acquire housing unit buildings that are currently accessible in the private market, to keep them affordable and turn them into social, community and very affordable housing. We proposed that Quebec receive its share of funding with no strings attached from federal homelessness programs while calling for the money allocated over the last year during the pandemic to be made permanent.

I had the opportunity to test all these ideas because I was proud to represent the Bloc Québécois in the Eastern Townships in a debate on housing, but the Liberals and the Conservatives were absent from the debate in the Eastern Townships during the election campaign in 2021, on an issue as critical as that. It really struck me at the time. Social housing and homelessness organizations noted the Bloc Québécois' good ideas and the absence of the other two political parties.

In conclusion, we will continue to call for a real housing policy, but there is nothing overly terrible about this bill. Consequently, we would like to see it go to committee for further study.

I would like to add one last thing. It is undignified to leave so many people deprived of a basic need like housing. It is undignified to let women be raped in the street or give birth alone. It is disrespectful to those who built our society to let seniors lose their homes and find themselves without a roof over their heads. They have a right to want to age with dignity. We must put aside partisanship and take action on this all-important issue of social housing and homelessness.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, what we see within the legislation is a very positive step that would lead to the construction of thousands of new homes. One of the things that reflect well on this particular legislation is that we have now seen other provinces adopt the same principle in terms of providing the same break, which would complement the policy that much more. I wonder if my colleague across the way would acknowledge, as I have done, the importance of recognizing not only the need and that Canadians want the government to do this, but that it is also important that the different levels of government and stakeholders work together to best address the overall issue of housing shortage.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think I was fairly clear in my speech. Ottawa has no business dictating our fiscal policy to us. This was precisely Quebec's response. Quebec is asking for its share because social housing and homelessness are part of its jurisdiction and it wants to take action.

I clearly demonstrated why Quebec, the provinces and the municipalities should not be browbeaten, as certain other parties tried to do during this debate. Rather, they should be empowered to act.

I saw no shortage of innovative ideas among community groups when I led a round of consultations with my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. Community groups want to put these ideas into practice.

Let Quebec take action.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that not enough new social housing is being built. However, is it not also true that one of the most serious problems surrounding the housing crisis is the loss of existing social housing?

Does my colleague think that creating an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations could help slow or even stop the loss of social housing?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I talked about this in my speech, but I thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to come back to this much-vaunted acquisition fund.

In 2021, during the election campaign, when I spoke about the acquisition fund during the Eastern Townships housing debates, organizations very much in touch with the needs of the community said that it was a promising idea that would allow community groups and co-operatives to carry out social housing projects. These groups embraced the notion of an acquisition fund.

There are some very interesting models in my riding of Shefford, including a seniors' co-operative that celebrated its 20th anniversary and even appeared before the World Health Organization to show that it is possible to have different housing models for seniors.

Let us allow these organizations to benefit from this acquisition fund and let us get some buildings out of the private speculative market so we can give the power back to the organizations.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a good day when we can speak to the challenges that are facing many Canadians. Right now, with respect to housing, it is no secret that the shortage of supply is making it difficult for folks to keep up, whether that is their mortgage or rent.

I enjoyed the member's speech because we have a lot in common and we believe the solutions are the same. Could the member speak to how important it is to build non-market housing and to the fact that the existing housing market has not delivered the results that Canadians deserve? It is seeing high prices and high competition with huge mega-corporations. Can the member speak to why non-market housing, social housing, is so important?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I was saying to my colleague, we need to look at what should be done with private housing and find the best solution.

Beyond what is proposed in this bill, the Bloc Québécois also wants to debate it in committee in order to make suggestions, ask more questions and work with all the other political parties to come up with the best solutions. We realize that this bill is not perfect, but we have a duty as elected representatives to set partisanship aside when the time comes to debate an issue as crucial as social housing. When the bill is studied in committee, we will be able to continue working on it and propose improvements.

At the end of the day, people are waiting to have a roof over their heads. The right to housing is absolutely crucial. These people are counting on us and are watching us. We have a duty to act with dignity. We owe it to them to study this bill in committee.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, everyone knows that times are really tough for Canadians. Housing and grocery prices are higher than ever and continue to rise. There is a real need for the government to intervene and adopt public policies to try to create circumstances in which those prices are more affordable for Canadians.

Bill C-56 sets out what the government is proposing to accomplish that. There are some good ideas about the Competition Bureau. However, I would say that more could be done. The bill introduced by the leader of the NDP goes even further with regard to the Competition Bureau. For example, it seeks to impose harsher penalties on companies that fix prices and to make the companies in the industry that are planning a merger responsible for showing that they are not doing something that would be harmful to Canadians. Right now, it is up to the Competition Bureau to prove that a company merger would be harmful to Canadians.

We think that the burden of proof should fall on the companies, that they should have to prove that their activities are in the interest of Canadians. The status quo that we have had for so long has not served Canadians well. There are some good ideas in the bill, but we must do more.

When it comes to housing, we in the NDP think that it is very important to not rely solely on market-based solutions, should we have to use them. If we truly want to resolve the housing crisis that has been growing for decades in Canada—under Liberal and Conservative governments alike—then we need solutions that come from outside the market as well as within the market. We have made several proposals, including an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations to give them the opportunity to buy affordable social housing when the organizations that run them decide to sell them.

All too often, large corporations are the ones buying these buildings. They renovate them, only so they can kick out the existing tenants and take on new ones who can afford to pay higher rents. If we are going to implement market-based solutions, we think it is important that the government adopt policies that will help address the critical shortage of social and affordable housing. We do not see anything like that in Bill C-56. We know that there are opportunities to work with the government and the other parties to ensure that Canada takes a strategic approach that includes non-market solutions, but we are not there yet.

I am really happy today to speak to Bill C-56. I think it is an interesting bill. We know that it is a really hard time for Canadians and that it has been for some time now. The costs of housing and food are higher than they have ever been, and they continue to go up.

There is no doubt in our minds, as New Democrats, that some kind of public policy intervention is required in order to try to get a handle on this situation.

In both cases, we have reached this moment of crisis because, for 30 years now, we have had Liberal and Conservative governments that have largely said to leave all this to the market. The market has not produced solutions around affordability.

It is not that the market does not have a really important role to play in the building of housing, for example, or in the delivery of groceries. However, we know, from what we have seen over the past number of years, and in the case of housing, for decades now, that if we just leave it to the market, then we are going to continue to end up in a worse and worse situation. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of housing needs in Canada that will never be met by the market, because it is not profitable enough for the market to meet them.

That is why we need a strategy that pushes private actors into making available, as part of their holdings, affordable suites. It is why we need governments to take responsibility again, as governments did from the 1940s all the way up to the 1990s, when the federal Liberals of the day cancelled the national housing strategy that was in place.

Unless we get governments back to the table and taking responsibility for the creation of social housing, we are not going to see an adequate resolution to the housing crisis. We are going to see it continue.

I have more to say about that. I will carry on with the housing piece, because I think the evidence has been that we have a pretty unified approach between the Liberals and Conservatives. What we have seen this fall already, and, in fact, if we looked back over the last 30 years, is that it is largely a market-based approach to the housing sector.

That is one of the things that changed significantly in Canada in the 1990s, whereas before, we had governments that said that there is a responsibility and an obligation to be investing in social housing and to be maintaining and expanding social housing stock. Really, in the 90s, a decision was made to say that, actually, we are going to leave housing entirely to the market. This has been consistently followed by every government we have had after Chrétien.

This is not done in the other G7 countries. In fact, of our G7 comparators, Canada has one of the lowest percentages of social housing in its housing stock. Canada has really dropped the ball because of this “market-think” that has dominated both Liberal and Conservative governments.

I rush again to say that it is not that the market does not have a role. It is not that there is not going to be market-based housing. It is that a whole other pillar, which was social housing and affordable housing, evaporated; we are living with the consequences of that now. Affordable housing, in some cases, can be provided through market mechanisms if one has the right rules in place, set by public policy.

The problem with Bill C-56 is that the government has not proposed the next stage for meaningfully building social and affordable units, whether in the bill or alongside it. This means that it is an incomplete strategy.

There is a risk of just adding to the public policy that prefers market solutions and puts money back in the pockets of developers without being upfront with Canadians about what the plan is or presenting a plan for a really aggressive social housing building strategy.

That can be the government building social housing. It can be meaningfully engaging the non-profit and co-operative sectors to build social housing. The real point is that we do not see it here.

There is an affinity with the Conservative leader's presentation of a housing plan last week as well. He also talks about taking the GST off purpose-built rental. He does talk a little bit about some affordability conditions in his bill, but they are not defined. When he talks about how it has to be rented below market, we really need a definition of what he means by that. If one charges just 1% below the market rate, we are not really helping Canadians.

I think it is noteworthy that, when the Conservative leader talks about using federal land in order to build more housing, there is no talk about affordability conditions in that part of his bill. That is actually where developers stand to make the biggest gains and make the most money. Therefore, it is really important to have some kind of affordability or social housing framework in respect of the forfeiture of federal lands for housing.

If those conditions are in place, it can be a very good thing to use federal land to develop for housing, but not in the absence of those criteria. In Ontario, we recently saw a Conservative government that decided to allow for the sale of protected lands in order to build more housing; however, it did not establish good rules about that, and it subsequently had to backtrack completely.

Canadians are watching this file very closely. They are not interested in seeing politicians abuse the housing crisis to make money for their developer friends. This is why the conversation that we have around affordable and social housing conditions here in Parliament as we discuss Bill C-56 is so important.

For instance, I think of the NDP's call for a non-profit acquisition fund to try to stop one of the important contributors to the housing crisis. This is that, where there have been apartment blocks with affordable and social units in them, non-profit housing providers or co-ops that have been running them for decades decide they cannot do it anymore, and they put them up on the market. When and if this happens, we have seen a lot of real estate investment trusts or big corporate landlords swoop in and buy those buildings. They have fast access to capital, and they have a lot of money in reserve that they can use to buy these places. They renovate, ask for exceptional rent increases, kick out all the people who were there before and get new tenants who can pay higher rents.

What that means, and some have calculated this, is that for every unit of social affordable housing we are building in Canada right now, we are losing 15. That is not sustainable. It means we are not on track. That is why it is not enough to just propose new market mechanisms to get developers to build new housing, rental or otherwise.

We really need to have a concerted and strategic effort to make sure that we are building a lot more affordable social units and that we are not losing the ones we already have, particularly in communities where there are experienced and competent non-profit or co-operative agencies to take those places over and continue to offer them as units with either affordable or social housing rents, which are calculated as a percentage of one's income, so those who have a lower income pay a lower rent. That is really important.

I have to add that one of the reasons why there have been so many of those buildings come on the market in the last 10 years or so and why real estate investment trusts and big corporate landlords have been able to scoop up so many existing affordable housing units, is the Harper Conservatives. The federal government, in the heyday of its involvement in housing, used to offer operating grants that would help subsidize the rents for these buildings that were tied to the mortgages. In some cases, the mortgages were 40- or 50-year mortgages, and when they came up for renewal, the federal government had to renew that operating funding.

The Harper government, while the leader of the Conservatives was at the table, made a decision not to renew those operating agreements. That is why so many buildings across Canada ended up for sale. The current operators could not continue to offer what they had been offering before, which was affordable rents, or properly, social housing, because the federal money that made that possible went away as a result of the decisions of the Harper Conservatives.

The Liberals ran in 2015 on renewing those operating agreements, and then they did not. There was some talk about coming up with an alternative arrangement, but the evidence is that it was not successful, so the operating grants were not renewed and there was not really a successful initiative that replaced that money to make sure that those units could continue to be offered on an affordable or social basis. Therefore, in the Harper years, we lost 600,000 units of social housing. The leader of the Conservatives, who gets up and talks a lot about housing, how much housing we have lost and how expensive it has become, sat at the table while his government refused to renew funding agreements that, in some cases, had been in place for 40 or 50 years to make sure those units could continue to be affordable.

Also, we saw big profit-seeking interests come in and buy up those buildings, kick out the tenants, fix them up a bit and then charge exorbitant rents. We cannot allow that to continue, and we really need to see, alongside or in this legislation, depending on the mechanism that parties can come to some agreement about, either conditions on this GST rebate or something like a non-profit acquisition fund.

Certainly, the housing co-investment fund was the only real housing initiative under the new national housing strategy the Liberals announced and have been working on in various ways over the last seven to eight years. Although I think most people feel it has not been very effective, it was what got some social housing built. That fund has been depleted, and we need to see it replenished so the organizations that do have plans in their community on how to provide affordable and social rents, with some help from government funders, can get down to doing that work instead of being held up.

When it comes to grocery prices, we in the NDP do not think the Liberals' approach of calling in CEOs for a meeting and wagging their finger has a likelihood of success. If a wagging of the finger was all that corporate executives needed to lower their prices, goodness knows the Liberals should have done it a long time ago. They should not have waited those 20 months while grocery inflation was outpacing the regular rate of inflation, at a time when grocery store profits were neither standing still nor diminishing. What we saw over that time was that they were making far more money than they did prepandemic.

The Conservatives would have us believe that the carbon tax is the only thing driving up grocery prices, but if that were the case, then their profits would not be growing. If all they were doing was passing on the increased costs that grocery stores have experienced as a result of the carbon tax, their profits would not be growing. However, they are growing, which means those companies are increasing their prices by more than the increase in input costs. Any government or any party that wants to form a government with some sense of seriousness about addressing the challenges that Canadians have been facing at the grocery store has to recognize the role of corporate greed in the equation, or they will be unable to do this.

For a long time, going back to during the pandemic when we saw big grocery retailers and other big box retailers making way more money than they had in the years just prior to the pandemic, the New Democrats have recommended a windfall profit tax along the lines of what governments in some other countries, including some places where they have conservative governments, have done. We think that one of the best ways to ensure that corporate greed is not unduly affecting grocery prices is to have something in place that says to grocery retailers that, if they are price gouging, they are not going to get to keep it. That is the best way to make sure that they are not gouging Canadians at the store. We think that is called for because not only have grocery store profits gone up but also even the margins for groceries have gone up.

We would say to those who say that traditionally the grocery sector is a small-margin industry compared to other industries and that again it is the same thing as we see in housing, where Conservatives and Liberals want to treat housing as if it were any other good. This is where they say, “Oh, do they need a house?” Although I should not say “need” because that does not capture the market approach. It is, “Oh, do they want a house? Do they want a Nintendo game? Do they want a new pair of shoes? Do they want to eat at a fancy restaurant?” All these things are just things that people want, ultimately, from a market point of view.

New Democrats are here to say that, when it comes to food and housing, these are not just commodities like anything else. These are things that people have a right to because they are essential to live a dignified and healthy existence, and we have an obligation as a country to make sure that people are housed and fed at reasonable prices they can afford. More and more, we see those prices getting away on us. This is why, alongside effective market mechanisms, such as taking the GST off purpose-built rentals, if the goal is just to build more rental apartments, we also need mechanisms with non-market solutions to make sure not only that are we getting more units that Canadians will not be able to afford anyway, but also that we are getting more units that those who can afford them can access, while also ensuring that we are building units that those who cannot afford the options on the market are also able to access because everyone should be able to access a home here in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate a number of things the member made reference to. I want to pick up on the point that the legislation that we have before us today is great because, when it comes to homes, thousands of homes would be created. We have seen, as I mentioned earlier, other provincial jurisdictions now doing what Ottawa is doing to further enhance it.

However, I want to pick up with the member how important it is that we continue to work with different levels of governments and stakeholders and just emphasize the important role of organizations such as Habitat for Humanity. The member is very familiar with Habitat in Winnipeg, and I believe it has built over 500 homes over the last number of years. Organizations can actually make a difference. This is one of the tools that is being used, but it is important that not only the national government but also governments at different levels work together to build more homes for all sectors of our society.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is absolutely right that obviously it takes a lot of different kinds of organizations to properly attack the housing crisis and get a handle on it. I am very familiar with Habitat for Humanity. I have had the pleasure of volunteering on some Habitat projects. In fact, not long after I was elected, we did that as an office-building exercise. We went out to a Habitat site.

However, with a number of the programs out there, whether it is Habitat or others that we have seen produce some really great infill housing in, for instance, the city of Winnipeg, one of the real challenges is that the housing market is running away on them so much that being able to acquire the property they need to have successful projects using the financial model that gave birth to the organizations is seriously strained and put in jeopardy. It is why things that are, strictly speaking, just market mechanisms cannot just go ahead on their own without a clear strategy by government to ensure that those non-market pieces are being addressed as well. The problem that we have here this fall is that the government has singled out a market mechanism that it wants to move forward on without saying more to Canadians about the other piece that has to follow, which is the social and affordable housing piece.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is really too bad that my colleague from Manitoba is taking this intervention from his home in Manitoba when this is a very important subject of affordability.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is best to not make references to where members are speaking from. Virtual proceedings are the norm now. We do not mention where people are making their statements from.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, we know that Parliament has recognized virtual. We know that the Conservatives participate virtually. This is an inappropriate attack—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I just addressed the issue.

The hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is really too bad. This is part of the problem of the abuse of the virtual system.

Meanwhile, we have a provincial election going on back in Manitoba. I am sure the member is helping out there.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there is nothing abusive about using virtual Parliament. In the Standing Orders, it is made very clear that sitting in the House or virtually is seen as the same. I think it is important for you to make that very clear.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I absolutely agree with the hon. member. That is the way we proceed in the House. It is now the acceptable way of the House to proceed. We make no references to which site the member is speaking from.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member went on quite extensively about the rising costs of food. He seems to have a very good grasp of it.

Could the member acknowledge, though, that the carbon tax does in fact increase the price of food?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt that, through the supply chain, the carbon tax is obviously something that is a factor for pricing of food. It is why the NDP has been concerned and has proposed so many affordability measures.

We want to make dental care accessible to Canadians. That is why we proposed the dental care plan. For so many families that rely on child care, we have fought for years and years. We ran on a $10-a-day child care program in 2015, when I was first elected, because we recognized that there are a lot of things that affect the prices Canadians pay for the various things that they cannot do without. There are a lot of things that put pressure on their household budgets.

Parliament is a very appropriate place to talk about the ways we could help control the cost of things that people cannot do without. That is a debate I have always been quite willing to show up for, both in person and virtually, whenever—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will do without the references.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 includes measures to eliminate the GST on new rental housing. In the long term, this could impact supply, at least theoretically. However, this is for housing that will be built a long time from now, housing that will be started in 2030 and completed in 2035. Meanwhile, during a briefing, we learned that the government had not commissioned any analysis or study on how much this measure will cost or what impact it will have on new housing construction.

I would like to know if this way of doing things worries my colleague. Once again, this is a quick pre-election ploy of creating a measure without knowing how much it will cost or what the outcome will be. The Liberals did the same thing when it came to increasing the immigration target with their friends at McKinsey.

Has the government's tendency to propose legislative changes without doing the necessary calculations become problematic?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think it would be good if the government did its research before announcing these kinds of measures. Yes, I think it is important for us to have that information.

It seems as though this was decided very quickly, perhaps at a caucus meeting where people were unhappy and asked the government to do something about the housing crisis. This is the only component in the Liberals' social and affordable housing strategy. We are going to need more than that if we really want to address the housing crisis. Yes, there are signs indicating that the government acted quickly, on the spur of the moment, rather than taking a more strategic approached based on good research.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the elements of the member for Elmwood—Transcona 's speech that I really appreciated was his honesty about the decades of underinvestment in social housing that have contributed to the crisis we are seeing now across the country.

Could the member speak to how important this is? If we were even to double our social housing stock, we would still be just in the middle of the pack of the G7. Can he speak to how the CMHC, for example, could get back into the business of building affordable housing across the country?

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, when I was first elected, one of the things I did in Elmwood—Transcona was to bring together a group of organizations in the riding that had an interest in the housing question, because there was a lot of talk then about a new national housing strategy and I thought that we should be ready in Elmwood—Transcona for when the strategy hits the ground.

In that effort, I spoke to some folks who used to work for the federal government and the provincial government kind of prior to the cancellation of the national housing policy by the Liberals in the 1990s. One of the things they said was that because the offer for funding every year was reliable, people could plan. Someone could say that they did not have the capital right now, but they could access funding to create a plan to scout out some of the land that they might be able to acquire in order to have a budget and, over the course of six or seven years, deliver a project in a community.

For so long, we have not had that despite some of the offerings in the national housing strategy. The co-investment fund was depleted. Nobody knows when it is going to be replenished. Nobody knows when people will be able to make a request under that program again. It is very hard for non-profits that are not sitting on a pile of cash to be able to do the planning work to be able to deliver housing. That is one of the ways the cancellation of the national housing project strategy, and the ad hoc approach since, has really cost us getting affordable and social units.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on that last question. It is worth pointing out that prior to 1980, the notion of homelessness simply did not exist in Canada. There were certain inner city skid rows with local charities, but housing began to be the crisis in the 1980s as the government began to underfund, and then, of course, when Paul Martin cut the national housing program which gave the green light to multiple provinces. We have seen a slow-moving hurricane finally touch down in real time over the last 30 years, such that now upwards of 280,000 Canadians are touched by homelessness in any given year. That is a staggering number.

I want to ask my hon. colleague about the importance of making it a priority to get housing, to get non-market housing and co-operative housing, built so we can have homes for seniors, for single mums and for families. We need to make this a national priority to make up for the years of disregard from both the Liberals and the Conservatives on the fundamental right to housing in our country.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely we need to build those things. The problem is that a philosophical decision was taken in the 1990s that government did not belong in housing, that housing would be a commodity and that only the market would build housing in Canada. It was a philosophy shared by Liberals and Conservatives and that, I think we see a lot of evidence suggests, continues to be shared by Liberals and Conservatives, largely. That is why we cannot trust those parties to fix the housing crisis.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, I feel the enthusiasm in the House. I feel everyone at home should have the same sentiment. Every day is a good day to fight for Canadians. That is what we are doing today with the affordable housing and groceries act. I was encouraged, I would say, by the comments I heard from colleagues.

I am very pleased to rise in the House today to speak to the affordable housing and groceries act. This new bill contains a number of necessary and timely amendments to the Competition Act. I am sure that my colleagues have heard many commentators say that the Competition Act is long overdue for a reform. This is exactly what we are doing today.

There is no doubt that Canadians are facing a very challenging increase to their cost of living at the moment. That is why, this morning, I summoned the large international food manufacturers to come to Ottawa. First, I expressed to them the frustration of millions of Canadians. I told them how difficult it is for colleagues and for Canadians from coast to coast to see the price of food. I can report to the chamber that the bottom line is that they have agreed to help the government stabilize prices and be part of the solution. We are going to continue to fight for Canadians every step of the way.

We have been working hard to advance solutions. Like I said, I not only met with the international food manufacturers, but I also met last week with the five largest grocery retailers in this country. I told them in very simple terms that we want to see actions. I am very pleased to see that they have also agreed to work with the Government of Canada and with parliamentarians to stabilize the price of food here in Canada.

We are also committed to advancing long-term structural solutions to drive affordability, and the best way to do this is to promote competition across the Canadian marketplace. The reason I am here today is to talk about the bold and decisive actions we intend to take in order to have a landmark reform of competition in this country.

A more effective competition system would generate positive spinoffs for Canadian consumers by stimulating innovation, which in turn could lower prices and encourage better product quality and selection for people across the country. It would allow the country to reap the many benefits of more dynamic markets. I can tell the House that, this morning, people reported other situations in other countries where competition had increased supply and lowered prices. These benefits are not just theoretical. They are extensively documented in the economic literature and proven in markets across the world. I would also argue that we all intuitively understand that less consolidation and more competition leads to lower prices. All Canadians know it.

The Competition Act is intended to promote greater competition and a fair marketplace by addressing various forms of harmful corporate conduct. These include anti-competitive practices, such as price fixing and mergers that lessen competition, to name just a couple. The act is administered and enforced by the Competition Bureau, an independent law enforcement agency.

I would like to provide a bit of context. Although the COVID‑19 pandemic and the rising cost of living have reinforced this trend, Canadians have long been uncomfortable with corporate concentration and the seemingly unbalanced distribution of economic power in the country. Our government understands these concerns and has taken a series of concrete measures to address them over the past few years.

In 2021, we reinvigorated the Competition Bureau, whose budget had been stagnant for way too long in this country. The government provided a much-needed injection of funding to help the agency renew its personnel and the tools at its disposal to take on the challenges of a fast-changing world. Next, we introduced a number of amendments in the 2022 budget legislation that addressed some pressing issues in the law. These included making sure that wage fixing agreements between employers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. minister to remind him not to make too much noise with his papers because that is interfering with the microphone and bothering the interpreters.

The hon. minister.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, as a member who has been sitting in the House for many years, I should know that. My apologies to the interpreters and to all those who felt the inconvenience.

As I was saying, we have provided additional funding to the Competition Bureau. In 2022, in the budget legislation, we included additional amendments to make sure that wage fixing agreements between employers would be illegal, and there would be an increase in maximum penalties so unfair practices could no longer be absorbed by the largest firms as simply a cost of doing business.

Before introducing these amendments, we undertook a formal review of the act and its enforcement regime through an extensive consultation process in order to get feedback from Canadians on possible fundamental reforms.

In keeping with that promise, in November 2022, I launched the consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada. As part of this process, we received more than 130 submissions from stakeholders and more than 400 submissions from members of the general public, whom I would like to thank.

We spent the last several months listening to Canadians and carefully analyzing their submissions. We are now responding with an initial set of amendments to rebalance the marketplace. While it is only the first response to the consultation, these amendments strike at the core of the country's competition law regime and will undoubtedly empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public and improve competition. I would like to thank it for all its work while I am delivering these remarks to the House.

As part of its mandate, the bureau conducts market studies to identify relevant regulations, business practices or other factors that may impede competition in a given sector. However, unlike many competition authorities around the world, the bureau does not have formal investigative powers to compel information. Rather, it must rely on what information is already in its possession, publicly available or provided voluntarily by stakeholders. Because the bureau cannot compel information, it has become apparent that it can rarely get a complete picture, leaving knowledge gaps and potentially casting doubt on the reliability or completeness of the information it gathers. This means that the recommendations the bureau can provide to the government and Canadians are not as complete and as impactful as they could be.

We therefore propose to grant the bureau the authority to conduct market studies in which it can seek to compel the production of information. This was highlighted as a very important issue by the bureau's retail grocery market study and was formally recommended by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I would also underscore that the proposal to create a formal market study framework was broadly supported by stakeholders during the public consultations. However, many stakeholders emphasized the need for safeguards to prevent fishing expeditions or investigations that place a heavy burden on companies or the government.

We considered these comments carefully and came up with a proposed framework aligned with international best practices. I think this will ensure that any burden placed on the companies is limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve public policy objectives.

We have a quite unique feature in our competition law regime that has been the subject of much debate and criticism throughout the law's existence, known as the so-called efficiencies exception or efficiencies defence. It currently protects a merger that harms competition from being successfully challenged, so long as the efficiency gains that it generates for the companies involved will exceed the harm to competition and therefore, supposedly, the harm to consumers.

The provision has been cited as a significant obstacle to competitive markets by a broad cross-section of stakeholders for many years, and particularly so during the public consultation. This exception makes it nearly impossible for the bureau to successfully challenge anti-competitive mergers, so much so that it rarely tries to do it.

Many stakeholders have argued that the act is too narrowly focused on gains in efficiency that benefit specific companies over the short term, but that ultimately lead to industry concentration that hurts consumers over the long term. We are proposing to eliminate the efficiencies exception, which would mean that if a proposed merger were considered anti-competitive, it could be reviewed despite any efficiency gains generated for the companies.

Repealing this exception would give priority to competition and bring Canada in line with international standards.

Of course, if a proposed merger creates efficiencies that strengthen competition in a sector, the tribunal would be able to consider them in its deliberations.

Let me talk about vertical collaborations. The act already recognizes that certain collaborations between competitors may result in significant harm to competition, even if they fall short of the true cartel practices like price fixing or bid rigging. Currently, only agreements between competitors, or so-called horizontal collaborations, can be addressed under the act in most cases. However, agreements between non-competing entities, such as a landlord and a tenant, are known as vertical agreements and are outside the scope of the bureau's review of potentially anti-competitive agreements, even if they result in less competition.

As identified in the bureau's recent retail grocery market study, cases have emerged about property controls made between commercial landlords and tenants to exclude potential competitors from a rental property, sometimes even after the tenant has left. One can understand why we are focusing on that. At the same time as we are talking to the CEOs of grocery chains to say they have to help Canadians, that they have to be part of stabilizing prices, we want this landmark reform on competition because we need to address these issues.

In some cases, controls like these have prevented independent grocers from moving into the only shopping centre in a community. In other cases, discount retailers were prevented from selling certain products near large supermarket chains renting from the same landlord.

We are proposing to amend the provision to allow for the review of vertical collaborations that essentially seek to limit competition, even if the agreements are not between competitors. It would also open the door for the Competition Bureau to look at other forms of collaboration, beyond property controls that can harm competition.

In conclusion, the consultation revealed a strong appetite for further reforms to strengthen the law and its enforcement. I would say it is about time that we had landmark reform of competition in this country, at a time when Canadians want to see less consolidation, more competition and lower prices. Now is the moment to act. I hope everyone in this House will join us, because this is about Canadians. This is about Canada. This is about our competitiveness around the world.

As the next step in our continued efforts to modernize the law, these proposed amendments directly contribute to addressing the most immediate concerns of Canadians about the rising cost of groceries, while we continue to consider further reform to ensure that Canadians and small businesses can benefit from fair marketplaces across Canada.

Let us improve competition in Canada, increase innovation and lower costs for Canadians. With that, I hope that all members in this House will support Bill C-56 so that we can show Canadians, not only as government but as parliamentarians, that we will act to help them in times of high costs.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, we heard from my Conservative colleague, the member for Bay of Quinte, about how this bill actually incorporates a few Conservative ideas.

The minister just acknowledged that maybe there are some further reforms that could be needed, so I have a couple more great Conservative ideas that he could maybe incorporate into this bill. One would be to use some federal buildings that are vacant and turn them into affordable housing units. If he does not want to do that, the second one he could maybe do is another great idea of ours, which would be to sell off the CBC, take the $400 million in real estate holdings that it possesses and turn that into prime real estate for affordable housing in downtown Toronto. That would be a fantastic idea. Does the minister agree?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, members know by now that I have enormous respect for colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because we are all parliamentarians.

Canadians are watching at home, and I know many are watching these debates. In times of need, at a time when they are asking for help, I think Bill C-56 is really addressing the most pressing needs of Canadians. One is around competition, one is around more housing and one is around the CEBA loans extension.

I am always open to listening to members of this House. I am always open, obviously, to listening to Canadians. I hope that what I hear from the member is going to be strong support for Bill C-56, because Canadians are watching and they expect all parliamentarians to be on their side and to lower costs in this country.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. minister is delighted that I am here for his speech. I thank him for his clarifications.

It is true that the current Competition Bureau regime focuses on efficiency when analyzing mergers and acquisitions, sometimes to the detriment of consumers. As a result, over the years, many large grocery groups have formed. This enabled them to lower their costs while raising prices. Consumers did not benefit from that.

Now, with regard to mergers and acquisitions in this market in Canada—the minister knows about this because there were just five CEOs in his office the other day, which is not a lot of people—we have basically come to the end of the exercise. It is not clear whether, in this market, the measures in Bill C‑56 will allow us to reverse course and have new entrants.

I know he is an energetic and creative man. What solutions does he have for bringing new entrants into this market, because five is not enough?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, I like my colleague's ideas, and I have a great deal of respect for him. He always has good ideas for getting things done.

I met with a group known as the Canadian independent grocers, who represent 6,900 small grocery stores across the country. They told me that the most important thing is the whole issue of competition reform, because that is what will help them.

Let me give a very concrete example. As we have seen, in shopping centres in small communities like the ones in our ridings, there are often clauses in certain leases that prevent competitors from setting up shop within a certain radius of kilometres. This kind of practice has a direct impact on smaller grocers who would like to set up shop near the major chains.

To answer my colleague's question directly, I think competition reform will certainly make some of the major international chains take more interest in Canada. I intend to have discussions with Carrefour, as well as some grocers across the border on the American side, to see how we can work together to increase competition here in Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Bill C-56. Some movement on the Competition Bureau is very important, and I appreciate his efforts.

It is the 1386 “Yeoman's Tale” that the phrase “better late than never” comes from. It is good to see the efficiency defence being looked at.

This was previously a motion in committee, an amendment to the previous Competition Bureau work we did, which was actually defeated by the Liberals. Since that time, we have also seen greater mergers. Are they really committed long-term to this? We opposed the Rona takeover by Lowe's, which was approved by the Liberals, Zellers being taken over by Target, Future Shop by Best Buy, and most recently the Rogers and Shaw merger. Is this actually going to be a change in behaviour for the long term from the Liberal Party of Canada to increase competition?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is a member of the industry committee and always comes with valuable input in the work of this House, and certainly we listen.

It is always a good day to fight for Canadians. I think everyone in this House would agree that our job is to keep fighting for Canadians at every step of the way. The landmark reform we are seeing, with more power to the Competition Bureau, goes exactly to what we heard at committee, which is that the market studies on grocery were less than adequate because we could not have full information. We need transparency and full accountability by businesses in this country that are subject to a market study, to be required to provide full information.

Also, with respect to the so-called efficiencies defence, we are a modern economy. We are a mature country. It is about time we got rid of something that was put in the books in 1968. We want less consolidation and more competition, which will bring lower prices.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a number of things that could continue to reduce prices for Canadians and continue to open up more housing. There are literally thousands of ideas, but there is one I am attracted to. New York City has recently taken action, which others have been afraid to do, with taking on Airbnb. We know a substantial portion of Canadian housing is now taken up in short-term vacation rentals, to the benefit of this large offshore corporation.

New York has said Airbnbs can be operated but apartments cannot be rented out, or a full residence, for less than 30 days. We will see how this works out, but it is something for our Canadian housing minister to look at, although the way we react is obviously multi-jurisdictional. Short-term housing rentals, being consumed as we know they are, take properties out of circulation for Canadians who need homes.

We should also look at a guaranteed livable income so Canadians can afford their groceries and no one lives in poverty. Are there any comments from the minister?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is a great member who is always contributing to the debate in this House. I think she would find comfort in the fact that in Bill C-56 we are not only addressing issues around groceries and stabilizing the price of food in this country but also addressing the issue of housing.

She is quite right that there is always more we should be looking to do. The fact that we are going to be removing GST on the construction of rental housing is a step in the right direction. The fact that we will have a landmark competition reform is a step in the right direction. The fact that we are continuing to fight for Canadians to stabilize prices is a step in the right direction. I welcome her suggestions. This is something that should be studied in committee, and we always listen very carefully to what committee members have to say.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the minister today, but I also listened to the press conference the minister gave with four other ministers last week, where he said that these are some of the most fundamental changes to the Competition Act that are being made. I want to focus on process. Why were these changes not made in budget 2022, when at that time the minister said that these are the most monumental changes being made to the Competition Act? Why did the government not fast-track the two opposition member bills, one from the NDP and one from the Conservative Party of Canada, that called for the elimination of the efficiency defence? We would have fast-tracked that right away.

How come this monumental legislation was not in this past budget or in the budget last year? How come it shows up in a government bill just after opposition members table the idea?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am very grateful for the question from the member; he knows I like him very much.

Talking about fast-tracking, I think Canadians watching are going to hear that the Conservatives are going to fast-track Bill C-56 because, as they claim, a lot of their good ideas are in it. I suspect what I am hearing very loudly now is that the Conservatives are going to support and even fast-track this bill. What a great gift it would be to Canadians struggling if there was unanimous consent, something that rarely happens here, to send Bill C-56 to the Senate so that we can help Canadians.

We did something in budget 2022, but what we are proposing today, I would say, would more particularly affect the grocery sector. It is always the right day to do something great, so why do the Conservatives not unite with the NDP and Bloc, give unanimous consent, send Bill C-56 to the Senate and show Canadians that we all care about what they are going through?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Emergency Preparedness.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I start, I want to inform you that I will be splitting my time with my good friend, the very hard-working member for Simcoe North.

“It was all a dream", as the late Notorious B.I.G. put it. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, that is exactly what home ownership has turned into, just a dream. When we talk about the Canadian dream that many newcomers come here for, when they have sometimes left some of the hardest conditions in the countries they are from, that Canadian dream is much more broken now than it has ever been before after eight years of the incompetence of the Liberal-NDP government.

It took until now for the government to even admit there is a housing crisis. It was only months ago when the former housing minister would refuse to stand in this House and even admit there was a housing crisis. It was the current Prime Minister who just months ago refused to say that housing is even his responsibility. We are glad the Liberals finally moved out of that frame of mind and admitted there is a major housing crisis.

How did we get here? How is it possible that a place like Canada has such a bad housing crisis? After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, hundreds of billions of dollars have been flooded into the Canadian economy, which has resulted in too much money chasing too few goods, including homes. The CMHC warns that Canada will see a 20% decline in the number of new homes being built this year. The government's record is to do less, spend more, and put it on the backs of Canadians. That is exactly what is happening right now.

Toronto has the worst housing bubble in the world. Vancouver is the third most overpriced market globally. Canada has the fewest homes per capita in the G7, this despite having the most land to build on. It just does not make any sense.

We saw the finance minister just three years ago tell Canadians, along with the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada, to go out and borrow as much as they want because interest rates would stay low for a very long time. What these borrowers did not expect was for this out-of-touch, out-of-control Liberal-NDP government to throw hundreds of billions of dollars of fuel on the inflationary fire that it started. What did that do? It gave Canadians rapid interest rate hikes not seen in the last three decades.

It was just two months ago when the finance minister said that she solved inflation, she stopped it, she put the brakes on it. The problem was solved. She started to pray. It has gone up 43% since then to a whopping 4%, and now there is a risk of another interest rate hike. That is another interest rate hike that Canadians just cannot handle because, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, housing costs have doubled, rents have doubled, mortgages have doubled. When it used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage, that is what it takes today in Toronto just to save up for a down payment on a house. This is the housing record of the Liberal-NDP government, which by the way committed $89 billion, the most expensive housing budget ever in the history of Canada, to doubling housing. It does not make any sense.

Back in November, the finance minister said there were two things she would make sure were in her failed budget. The first was that she was going to be very careful not to add fuel to the inflationary fire. The second was that she was going to balance the budget by 2027-28. She blew right through those promises, just like every promise the government has made before that and has promised that she will balance the budget in the year never, and poured a $63-billion jerry can of fuel on that inflationary fire, putting a debt of $4,200 on the head of each and every Canadian household.

The Liberals also made the housing crisis and cost of living crisis worse with their failed carbon taxes. Both of these scams are going to cost each and every Canadian household an average of $2,000 a year extra, in gas, groceries and home heating. So, not only have they doubled all the costs of housing, but the things that go into a house, like gas, groceries and home heating, have gone up because of their failed carbon tax scams.

Now where are we at? According to the IMF, Canada is most at risk today for a mortgage default crisis. Those rapid interest rate hikes happened so fast, which had not been seen in the last three decades, and have made it impossible for people to keep up with their mortgage payments. When Canadians went with the advice of this finance minister and Prime Minister that they could borrow because interest rates would be low for a really long time, they did not expect this government to turn around and throw all of that fuel on the inflationary fire, increasing their monthly payments and reducing what they take home every month. On top of that, there are the other taxes, like the carbon tax, which take more and more out of their pockets.

Have members ever seen, in the history of Canada, international students and refugees living under bridges, in tents and not being able to meet their payments? Now, even reverse migration is happening in some cases. One in five newcomers are saying that they want to go back to where they came from and the number one reason is because of the high cost of living, and number two is because their credentials do not get recognized. This is eight years of this NDP-Liberal Prime Minister and his absolute failures on every single front.

What else are the Liberals doing? Even on their housing accelerator fund, CMHC says that Canada will still be over three million new homes short of building enough homes by the end of 2030.

Well, I have good news for Canadians. It was not like this before this NDP-Liberal Prime Minister and it will not be like this after this Liberal-NDP Prime Minister, because once the member for Carleton, the Conservative leader, becomes prime minister of Canada, we have a plan to get more homes built, bring home lower prices and bring home more powerful paycheques for our Canadians.

Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives have a plan right now on the table that goes far beyond this limited bill. We have a clear plan where Conservatives would bring home more homes that Canadians can afford. Our leader's common-sense legislation, the building homes not bureaucracy act, would do just that.

We will incentivize municipalities to build. The more they build, the more they would get. The less they build, the less they would get. We need to incentivize these municipalities that this Prime Minister continues to fork over hundreds of billions of dollars to, with failed results.

Unlike the Liberals, the Conservative plan would fire the gatekeepers and get NIMBYism out of the way. We would sell off 15% of federal buildings and acceptable land so that homebuilders could turn it into homes people can actually afford and get more supply into this country, which is so needed. We would make the GST rebate for new rental housing make homes and apartments people can actually afford. The Liberals will just make it easier for developers to build more expensive homes for their ultra-rich friends and donors.

The Conservative plan would cut bonuses and salaries of the gatekeepers at CMHC who are slowing down new home construction and keeping Canadians out of affordable homes. We would rein in government spending to bring down inflation so that the Bank of Canada lowers interest rates and mortgages can come down.

It is just simple math that this NDP-Liberal government still does not understand. It was its out-of-control deficits that fuelled inflation, which made interest rates go up and put Canada most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. It needs to reverse course. The Conservatives would rein in the spending so that the deficits will come down, inflation will come down, interest rates will come down and Canadians will be able to keep a roof over their head. We are going to bring it home.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would note that this piece of legislation goes to amend, once again, the Competition Act.

A number of years ago, when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, we saw the merger of Shoppers and Loblaws. Now, Loblaws consumes a giant share of the market when it comes to groceries. Some of the measures that we see in the bill are looking to ensure that companies do not get into a position to be able to do that. I wonder if the member can comment as to whether or not he thinks that those measures in the bill are appropriate.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hope the member is charging Stephen Harper rent for living so free, in his mind, for so many years.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, everything has gotten worse. There has been less competition and less growth. Our Conservative plan, once the member for Carleton becomes prime minister, would actually lower costs. Today, under the Liberal-NDP government, Canada's GDP per capita is the worst in all developed nations.

Investors do not want to invest in Canada because of the high regulations made by the government and economic uncertainty that the Liberal-NDP government is responsible for. We need to ignite our economic power in this country so people want to invest, get more competition so we can bring prices down and axe the failed carbon tax.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was very interested in my hon. colleague's comments and I want to point to one very crucial part of his speech where he talked about the government only being there to help its friends, its “very rich donors”. I think he is talking about the Conservatives of Ontario and Doug Ford.

What did Ford run on? He ran on promising people a buck a beer, but what did he deliver? He delivered $8 billion for his insider crony pals. Here is the thing. I know the Conservatives all get whiny whenever their record as a party is questioned, but the mysterious Mr. X, who has been named by the integrity commissioner for being involved in this, is also a friend of the Conservative leader, the member for Stornoway.

I would like to ask the member if he would have any of the discussions between Mr. X and the member for Stornoway made public so we could know what kind of backroom deals the party is already making.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that there is no such thing as the member for Stornoway, so it is not possible to answer that.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to withdraw that comment. He is the member who lives in Stornoway. He is not the member for Stornoway. I thank the Speaker for that.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if the member is launching his bid for provincial politics. Once the good people of Timmins—James Bay fire him in the next election for his party supporting the corrupt and inept Liberal government, he is not going to have a job anymore. It is because he refuses to stand with the hard-working people of Timmins—James Bay and continues to prop up the inept, corrupt Liberal government. Not only does it want to create more bureaucracy and red tape, it wants to blow up the public service and give less and less service to Canadians.

What Conservatives want to do is fire the gatekeepers so we can actually get more built in this country for people who are in his riding and all across Canada. That is what Canadians deserve, not more of the tired Liberal-NDP government.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague from Calgary has experience in the construction industry and the building industry. He worked from the ground level up in this industry when he came to this country. I think he would understand what it takes to build in this country.

From the member's own background, could you relate to us how you know that this needs to happen because of your past experience in the construction industry?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I certainly do not, but I expect the member for Calgary Forest Lawn can answer.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary Forest Lawn, AB]

Madam Speaker, I must acknowledge that I am still jealous of the member for Bow River's mustache.

He is absolutely right. I come from the construction industry where many people, including newcomers, get started. There is one consensus in that industry, which is that, just like any small business, people want less government in their businesses, not more. We have seen, after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the problem is that it creates more government and more bureaucracy. The government wants to put its hand in the candy jar, leave it in there and take more and more from people.

Small business owners, newcomers, anyone who wants to open a business needs to have less government intervention. There are so many brilliant newcomers to this country, immigrants who come here, want to work hard and—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be here with you today. I happen to rise one more time to talk about this important issue. I had an opportunity to get some questions in. It was nice to hear from the minister how much affection he has for me.

Perhaps I will save members the suspense. I can be persuaded to vote for this bill, not to fast track it all the way to the Senate, because maybe we have some amendments. As the member mentioned, there are a couple of ideas the government plagiarized from other parties in the House, both the Conservatives and, dare I say, even the NDP.

I have lots of questions and I want to focus on process for a minute. Typically, a government introduces significant money bills twice per year. It tables a budget in the spring, and then there are important measures included in a budget bill in the spring. Then it has a budget bill usually sometime in the late fall, and we typically pass it before everyone goes home for the winter break and Christmas holidays. Five ministers did a press conference last week at the national press gallery, where they all exclaimed that this bill is so important in order to address problems in the country. That is nice. They are finally waking up, but if these ideas were so amazingly brilliant and needed, why did the government omit them from the budget?

The government spends 12 months preparing a budget, and basically admitted a couple of months later that it did not get it all right and that it has a couple more ideas. Where did it get those ideas? It found out the leader of the official opposition was tabling a bill in the House to reduce the GST on purpose-built rentals, so the government rushed like heck to get a bill ready to do just that. Two bills were tabled before the House to get rid of the efficiencies defence, one by the NDP and one by the member for Bay of Quinte, a Conservative member. Last week, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry said about getting rid of the efficiencies defence that it is about time and we have to do it.

If the Liberals thought it was such an important idea, they could have fast-tracked any piece of legislation in June, before we left for the summer. What has changed? Why do they all of a sudden have these so-called solutions to problems that the government has not even been able to admit exist? The process matters because it highlights that this is a tired government that is out of ideas and is plagiarizing on its homework. It is now rushing and is likely to make mistakes by rushing and doing significant money bills on such short notice.

Frankly, with respect to the efficiencies defence, it was the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry who last year, in the last budget, introduced what he called sweeping changes to the Competition Act reform that had not been seen in at least a decade. If this were such an important change to make to the Competition Act, why did he not make the change last year? Why was he waiting until now?

I will tell members why he waited. It is because the leader of the NDP and a member from the Conservative Party made the suggestion. Liberals have actually run out of ideas, but we cannot blame them. It is human nature. How can we believe that we need solutions to problems when for months, members of the government were telling Canadians that no problems exist?

Let me read a few quotes, or let us go back to the tape as they say; we are now in football season.

The first quote states, “Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to talk down the Canadian economy, but the reality is that Canada is the best country in the world...[when] coping...with the challenging global economic environment,” and says our economy grew faster than every other economy. It also says that the reality is that Canada is doing really well and inflation is way better here than it is elsewhere.

A Conservative member in the House stood up and asked the Minister of Finance what happens if inflation lasts just a little longer than we think and we hit a period of economic uncertainty. That question was asked in May 2022, and the answer from the Minister of Finance was, “I have to urge a bit of economic literacy among the members opposite. The reality is that in data released today, the Canadian economy grew by 3.1% on an annualized basis in the first quarter of this year.” This was an unwillingness to admit that there is trouble on the horizon. Now, last quarter, GDP contracted, and, guess what? Inflation is still around.

Now, we should not worry, because the government is here to solve the problems because it is just realizing that there is a problem and has all these solutions. However, they are not the government's solutions, they are solutions from others. Am I happy that the government took some ideas from opposition parties? Of course I am, but it goes to show that the government is actually just running out of ideas. The government told everybody that interest rates would remain low forever, and they have not. It said that because interest rates were low, it had to spend and that it would be unwise to not spend.

We are now going to spend as much in debt service costs this year as we send to provinces to deliver health care. It is only going to get worse for debt service costs, because when the budget was tabled, all economists, including the government's; the Governor of the Bank of Canada; and all the experts, said interest rates were going to go down by the end of the year. However, they have not; they have actually gone up, not down. That change is going to represent billions of dollars more in spending to service the debt, even just this year, but for at least the next five years as the government renegotiates, repapers and rolls over $421 billion of debt this year.

The reason the government has to roll over $421 billion is complete and utter negligence in the way it financed its COVID spending when COVID hit. The government told everyone that interest rates were going to remain low forever, and may have even believed it itself. When the government issued the debt, it issued only short-term debt. I cannot take credit for that. A very smart individual, Richard Dias, who is a well-known economist, showed that the government could have saved billions of dollars by issuing long bonds. However, the government chose to issue short-term bonds during the pandemic.

We cannot forget that Liberal tweet and the finance minister's starting the parade when in one month out of 28 months, inflation dropped below 3%. They said their job was done and government's plan to bring down inflation was working.

The Liberals really have not actually done that much. What they have ignored is the actual one thing, or maybe even two things, that would make a difference. One would be to reduce spending, and another would be that one does not have to be Einstein's cousin to realize that if taxes were reduced on the good that is causing inflation, it would reduce inflation. For some reason, that is pretty hard for the members on the other side of the chamber to figure out. However, Canadians are smarter than that. They know better than to trust a government to have solutions to the problems that it does not believe exist. I am glad that the Liberals are borrowing some ideas from the opposition parties.

I look forward to sending the bill to committee. I look forward to bringing some amendments, because I think the bill could actually be better. We could expand the GST rebate. Why are we not including triplexes, co-ops and duplexes? We could be driving more investment in this country, but the Liberals are determined to not have any other party in the chamber get a win.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the member opposite very closely, and one might draw the conclusion that the government has not been aware of the issue of housing for Canadians. The government has been very much aware of the important role the federal government plays in housing. We have seen that virtually from 2015 and even this year, when Canadians are having a very difficult time with regard to housing. That is why we continue to provide programs like the rapid housing initiative and supports in different forms of infrastructure programs. The particular GST issue we are talking about today is something we have talked about in the past as one of those potential options. Today, and it does not matter who has the idea, the legislation would incorporate the idea, and Canadians would benefit from it.

I am glad to hear the Conservative Party giving the impression that it is going to vote in favour of the legislation. The question is when the member would like to see the legislation actually go to committee. Will he confirm he is voting in favour of its going to committee?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has been around a long time, and as a rookie member of Parliament, I am speaking only for myself. I cannot speak for my entire party. I am just saying I am encouraged to see it go to committee when it gets there.

Let us talk about rapid housing. Those funds have not been delivered at all rapidly. How about the shared equity mortgage plan that has barely given out a few per cent of its allocated money? It has been a few years. Yes, the member is right; the government has talked about this GST issue for eight years. Why is it making this proposal off cycle and out of budget? It is scrambling.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to focus on the housing part of this and the proposal in the bill to take the GST off purpose-built rental housing, which is something we support. I want to ask the hon. member about the importance of non-market housing in providing security of housing for many people who are shut out of the market by their income. In my riding, there are 15 co-operatives that provide housing for more than 400 families and have done so for the last 20 years. With just a quick look, I found more than 10 co-op housing projects in Simcoe County providing housing for about 300 people.

Does the member support our proposal that the federal government get back into the building of co-operative housing?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, there may be multiple ways the government can support co-op housing. Why not allow co-op housing to qualify for the GST rebate for rentals? Why can it not get the same rebate? All kinds of different housing can be supported through the GST rebate. I would support an examination of how we could best do that. If the hon. member has an amendment to the bill that could include co-op housing, I would be open to supporting that or at least taking a look at it.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the bill contains no specifics on the type of buildings, the type of housing or any affordability requirements to qualify for the rebate.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will note that a very big difference between the leader of the official opposition's bill and the government bill is that the actual Leader of the Opposition's bill would have required that a certain number of the units in an apartment complex, in order to get the GST rebate, had to be affordable. That might surprise some members in this place, but the Conservative position was that in order to qualify for the GST rebate, one had to have a certain percentage of those units as affordable units.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke anticipated my question, because the hon. member for Simcoe North mentioned co-operative housing, and that is also a large priority for Greens. We see it as a very successful form of housing. The comments from my hon. colleague from Simcoe North are encouraging. I know he is speaking only for himself, but does he have a sense of how other members of his caucus would feel about really pushing for more co-operative housing to be built?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, build, baby, build. We need to build it all: market-rate, affordable and everything in between, and in all different sizes, shapes and everything else. I would welcome any thoughtful amendments to the legislation that would see us build more homes of all types faster for Canadians.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and honour to rise in this most honourable of House to speak to something very important: Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, who will rise after I speak.

With that, let me first say that as an individual, I love capitalism, as I believe many others here in the House do. I love the free markets and creating wealth. Why do I encourage those things? I do so because this is what creates jobs and futures. At the same time, we need government and our regulatory bodies, including the Competition Bureau, to play a role to ensure that there is competition in the marketplace. Everybody likes the free markets and capitalism, but we also need competition to ensure that innovation occurs, that prices become lower, and that the standard of living for all Canadians and for people literally across the world improves.

I am so happy to see that there are a number of items here with regard to the Competition Bureau that will strengthen its role in markets across this country. Getting rid of the efficiencies defence is one thing that I applaud the minister and his team for putting in, as well as the industry committee and other committees that have looked at these issues. It is just so important.

Bill C-56 puts forward legislation to encourage the construction of much-needed new rental housing. We are proposing to eliminate the goods and services tax, the GST, on the construction of new rental apartment buildings. This is one more tool to create the conditions necessary to build the kinds of housing Canadians need and families want to live in.

With this bill, we are also moving forward with immediate actions to enhance competition across the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector. By doing so, we are helping to drive down costs for middle-class Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-56 includes a set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act that would do the following: provide the Competition Bureau with powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; remove the efficiencies defence, which I spoke to earlier, that currently allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition, even when Canadian consumers would pay higher prices and have fewer choices; and empower the Competition Bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

Our government is taking concrete actions to help stabilize food prices and improve competition in Canada. However, the industry also needs to step up with meaningful solutions. Canadians can be assured that the government will continue to work day in and day out to bring them much-needed relief.

Our government is well aware that the economic situation is still difficult for many families. Many are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. However, inflation has fallen from a peak of 8.1% in June 2022 to 4% in August this year. There are now almost 1 million more Canadians in the workforce than before the pandemic. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that, next year, Canada will experience the strongest economic growth among G7 countries.

However, we know that the past three years have been really hard for Canadians. COVID took its toll on our mental health and on the economy. Thankfully, we are past that. We have gone through COVID, the COVID recession, Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supply chain snarls, wildfires and hurricanes. We continue to see high global inflation and are now enduring elevated interest rates.

Our government will do everything we can to help Canadians get through these challenging times and to build an economy with strong and steady growth, stable prices and abundant, well-paying middle-class jobs for hard-working Canadians. Our government has always believed in investing in Canadians, restoring middle-class prosperity and building a country where everyone has a chance to succeed and prosper.

There were 2.3 million Canadians lifted out of poverty between 2015 and 2021. In 2015, 14.5% of Canadians were living in poverty. Today, that is down to 7.4 %; this is real progress for Canadians across this beautiful country.

Our Canada-wide system of early learning and child care is making life more affordable for hard-working families, saving families in Ontario up to $8,500 this year per child after tax; pre-tax, that is over $10,000. With a record 85.7% labour force participation rate in July for prime-working-age women, it is helping to address labour shortages and grow our economy at the same time.

From enhancing the Canada workers benefit to creating the Canada child benefit and a new Canadian dental care plan, we have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians can count on and depend on. All the while, we have ensured that Canada maintains the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

On the housing front, we have been active. We created the tax-free home savings account and doubled the first-time homebuyers tax credit, which will in turn help Canadians afford the home they deserve in the future.

With Bill C-56, we are proposing to do even more by eliminating the GST on the construction of new apartment buildings.

Our goal with this legislation is to temporarily change the economic equation so that builders who are dealing with higher construction costs as a result of global inflation get financial incentives to build projects that otherwise would not get built. The removal of the GST will encourage builders to build more housing in communities across the country, which will lower the cost of rent for Canadians.

Our objective is very clear. We want to eliminate the obstacles to building a larger number of housing units more quickly to reduce the cost of those units. Of course, we will also need the co-operation of our partners.

Our government is calling on all provinces that currently apply provincial sales taxes or the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax to rental housing to join us by matching our rebate for new rental housing. I would like to say that organizations such as RESCON, the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, and its members that build high, low and medium housing have come out in favour of the removal of GST on new purpose-built rental housing. It is something for which I have called for a long time. It was in our platform, and I am glad we are having it done now.

We would also require local governments to end inclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments near public transit in order to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. Canadians need support when it comes to accessing housing. We need all levels of government to come together in this effort.

In conclusion, there is a lot of work ahead of us to do. As global inflation and the cost of housing continue to impact Canadians, we must continue to take real action to make life more affordable and build an economy that works for all Canadians. With this legislation, we are leading the charge on housing, to create the necessary conditions and build the types of housing we need and that families want to live in.

Since 2015, our priority has been to build a strong middle class to offer everyone the chance to succeed, but there is still some work to be done.

The measures we are proposing in Bill C‑56 line up with this goal by making it possible to build more of the housing units that Canadians need and to work on lowering the price of groceries.

I invite my colleagues to support this important bill.

I am so glad to see Bill C-56 come to the floor of the House of Commons for debate. I encourage the House to get this bill to committee as soon as possible so the finance committee, or whichever committee will be looking at it, can debate it and even look at amendments to strengthen it. There are many things that are good for the economy in this bill. They are good for the housing sector, for the Competition Bureau and for helping our businesses, as we have done with the Canadian emergency business loan, which put in place during COVID and helped hundreds of thousands of businesses survive in our country.

Let us all work together in the House to get this bill approved for all our businesses, for our stakeholders and, most important, for every single Canadian in this beautiful country.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. Today, I rise for one special person. I would like to recognize my mother's birthday. Obviously, without her sacrifice and my father's sacrifice, I would not be here. My family came from southern Italy, as did that of the hon. member opposite who gave the speech.

The government said that interest rates would be low forever. The Liberals told people to borrow, and they borrowed like crazy; so did the government. Would the member agree with me that this is in part why we are in the crisis that we are in?

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

[Member spoke in Italian].

[English]

Madam Speaker, my family and the member's family have known each other for over six decades, if memory serves me well. There is much respect between our families, who both immigrated here from southern Italy.

With regards to the question on interest rates, as an economist and someone who worked on Wall Street for a number of years and on Bay Street for over a decade and who follows the financial markets very closely, there is obviously a period of normalization of rates going on across the world, not just here in Canada. Following the 2008-09 financial crisis, rates were made very low.

I will stop there, but I would be more than happy to sit down with the member and give him my views on interest rates, on where the long bond will be and on where short and mid rates will be in the future.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, this issue is important. The housing crisis is affecting every single one of our communities. Certainly, in Timmins—James Bay, when we look at the indigenous communities, we have massive rates of homelessness. Even in our urban centres now, where we have a young population looking to live, there is no place to live. We have a growing economy; people cannot move in. For senior citizens who cannot stay in their old farmhouses and want to move into town, there is no housing.

I would ask the hon. member about a sense of urgency. I have heard about housing since this government was elected, but I have not seen the urgency on the ground to actually move towards mixed units, co-operative housing and apartment opportunities so that we can get housing now, whether for new Canadians, students, workers or senior citizens in communities like Timmins, Kirkland Lake or Belleville. In any community we name, it is the same crisis.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Timmins—James Bay and I sit on the natural resources committee together and have travelled together, and so I know the individual quite well.

Housing is obviously a priority for all Canadians, and we do know that there is currently a housing crisis happening here in Canada. We do know that we have to build, which is why we are working with all levels of government.

We saw a very important step. We have seen the rapid housing initiative with our national housing affordability plan put in place, which has helped a lot of Canadians who are very vulnerable find housing, but we also know that we need to build. That is why we have the $4-billion housing accelerator fund working with municipalities to end exclusionary zoning so that we can get that density up. We are working on ensuring that funds that are invested by the federal government for infrastructure have density with them, much like what is happening at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre in the City of Vaughan where we had a population of zero going up to almost 50,000 in over a 10-year period. It is very dynamic to see and a lot of good stuff is going on.

We know that the builders are up for it, we know that the skilled trades are up for it, we know that municipalities are up for it, and we are working with them.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the grocery portion of Bill C-56.

I am reading the Competition Bureau's report from June of this year entitled, “Canada Needs More Grocery Competition”. In that report, the Competition Bureau makes the point that the big three retailers earn a profit combined of $3.6 billion. It sounds like a lot of money, but that is on $100 billion of sales. So, that is a 3.6% profit margin, which certainly does not sound like greedflation, as our NDP colleagues like to call it.

My question to the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge is whether he thinks 3.6% is too much profit.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always believe in looking at the first derivative, what the percentage change in a number is and so forth. I would obviously look to see how the margins have fared over the past couple of years.

Having covered the grocery sector and the private sector, I know quite well how they operate. Literally tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands, of people work for grocers across Canada along the continuum from the food terminal in Etobicoke to our local grocers in my riding, such as Cataldi, Longo's and Fortinos. Those are wonderful folks who need to be supported. They need to have good wages and good benefits, and we will make sure that we encourage that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to share my views on a bill. This one is extremely important because it deals with housing affordability and the cost of groceries, an essential matter.

Throughout the summer months, I too heard clearly from constituents about the price of groceries.

I heard it from my kids. I have three kids and they remind me whenever they see me. When I go to the grocery store, I notice the prices are much higher than I believe they should be. I can go to certain grocery stores and see items at half the price. Something needs to be done, and our objective is to try to bring stability in pricing.

In my speech today, I will talk about what we have done thus far, what we are going to do now to help affordability, because it is a real issue to Canadians right across this country, but I will also talk about the importance of investing in our strengths so we can bring more revenues to the table and do more to support Canadians.

Prosperity is the key to success, as my dad used to say, and we have shown big investments that look into the future. Electric vehicles is one, of course. We have given big contracts in Ontario for batteries. The trade agreements we have signed over the last four or five years bring prosperity. I will also talk about offshore wind farms and the Atlantic Accord, which the Conservatives do not want to support.

Let me start with some of the key things we did to help with affordability, because this is crucial. We doubled the GST to two quarterly payments to help those in need, the low-income Canadians, which is so important. There is the Canada workers benefit; depending on one's salary, one can receive $2,400 a year. We made some changes so every three months one will receive a quarter of that sum, so one can have more money as one faces some the challenges out there.

There is the disability benefit, which we passed in the last legislation and is so important, because we know people with disabilities are the most vulnerable. The highest poverty in the country is among people with disabilities, so we need to move forward on that very quickly.

I need to talk about something extremely important, which is indexing. Indexing of inflation is key here, because if one's pension or the benefits being received do not increase with the cost of living, it makes it even more difficult. Therefore, we came forward with the CCB, which is tax-free, but it is now indexed to inflation so young families can continue to count on that growth to help them. This is so important.

The GST is exactly the same; we have adjusted that. As well, there are changes to the Canada pension plan, to help Canadians not fall behind. We already made a big improvement in that area, and where a person was getting about $11,400 a year, now it is up to $20,000 a year, which will be a great help.

I want to talk about the OAS and the GIS, because those are specifically touching seniors. In here, we have ensured indexing for these as well. This indexing, which is so important, will see a 30% increase by 2027-28 in the OAS and GIS, which is crucial. Our government will be investing about $20 billion a year to continue to support our seniors, which is over and above what we are paying now.

Early learning and child care is such an important investment. It is tax-free as well. Already, today we see that 50% of the provinces have lowered the price to $10 a day, with the rest to follow in the next couple of years. This is having an effect on affordability for young families.

On housing, last year in one of our bills there was a top-up that helped 1.8 million low-income Canadians. As well, there was a one-time payment for groceries that helped 11 million Canadians, with single people receiving a little over $200 and a family of four over $400. Those are specific investments helping affordability, but it is not enough, which is why we will bring more forward.

Also, we talked about students in university, now having a tax-free interest rate, which is very important. We increased, by 40%, the grant funding so that they can have more money to pay for their expenses because we know the challenges. Just the interest rate and the student loan is over $600 a year for a student. That is a help, as well, toward affordability.

Who can forget, of course, our very important investment in dental care for Canadians? We will see over nine million Canadians, by 2027, receive dental care. Already today, over 340,000 children have received support through dental care, which is crucial.

My riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook has seen some of these benefits but so have the ridings of many other members of Parliament in the House. We have seen investment in child care spots in my riding. It means more space. We made 500 more spaces in Nova Scotia. My riding of Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook will receive 119 of those 500, well over 20%.

We are also receiving, of course, the CCB, for young families. The CCB in my riding alone will be over $5 million per month for young families. That is over $60 million a year. People in all of the MPs' constituencies are receiving those monies to help them, which is so important.

We then see an investment in the Canada community revitalization fund, which allows many of my communities to benefit from these important investments.

I cannot understand why a Conservative would not be in favour of the tweaking of the Atlantic Accord, which is so important. For the first time ever, we are going to see an offshore wind farm here, right here. It will be the only one in Canada. There are none today. This creates that opportunity to allow this industry to bring more revenues and more great jobs for Canadians. These are major steps and there is a trillion dollars to be had in investment by 2040.

This legislation today that needs to move very quickly to committee is the GST rebate and this is focused on various types of housing, which is crucial, of course.

The minister tells me that the five main grocery chains, when they were here last week, did understand that they too have a role to play to support Canadians with regard to affordability. It is important that they play a role and they are open to coming back to us, I understand, by the end of this week with some proposals that will see those costs lowered, which is so important.

I want to talk about the Competition Bureau's act. The competition bureau has a major role to play. We are going to make some major changes here. This came out of a report back in 2022, that more competition is needed, more innovation is needed and this is one way we can ensure that the prices, again, find their way downward.

As I said, we have made some investments in the past. We are bringing forward some major investments this time around. We also have to keep our eyes focused on our strengths and that is investing in our people and looking to, in the future, where our investments should go. We did it with the electric car. We did it with the batteries.

On the wind farm project, it is hard to believe that Canada has the biggest coast and shores in the world and Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador have the fastest winds in the world. This is how we can grow this economy. There is so much to be had through this investment.

Why, again, I ask, are the Conservatives not supporting Atlantic Canada, especially today when we need to?

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Atlantic Canada for his inspiring speech. What inspires me is what you are missing. There is an easy way to address affordability for housing and groceries and I think you have overlooked it.

You have recently, as a government, announced that there is going to be a GST credit for new construction of rental properties. That is a start, but that is a one-time tax credit. Why do you not look at the carbon tax, which is a compounding credit? It compounds every single process in a product and it compounds every single movement that a grocery item makes to the grocery store.

If you really want to make life more affordable for Canadians, why do you not drop the carbon tax, both of them, the clean fuel standard tax and the carbon tax?

Let us axe the tax.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

There are lots of things I would like to be able to do, but I cannot do it here in the Chair. I will ask the hon. member to make sure he runs his question through the Chair and not directly to a member.

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have very clear rules about how to address members; it has to be through the Chair. I just want to clarify did you, Mr. Speaker, bring in the carbon tax or is he misunderstanding the rules of the House? I would like to have that clarified.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I just addressed that before the point of order got going.

Maybe the hon. member for Provencher wants to retract or change how his question was worded.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Absolutely. Let me try that again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, did the member perhaps consider whether a better way to address the affordability crisis of housing and the cost of groceries would be to axe the tax, which would be the carbon tax and clean fuel standard tax, because they are compounding taxes? Every step of the way in processing, groceries or in the construction of housing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I think we got the gist of it.

The hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question and I also want to thank him for praising our government in bringing forward the GST under housing. That is a very important project and I am glad he is realizing the project is important.

We know that their party, when it comes to climate change, cannot see that climate change is extremely important and is walking hand in hand with investments in the economy. When I talk about investments in the economy, why are they not supporting the Atlantic Accord? It could bring trillions of dollars to Canada and we could be leaders in the world. Do not hold back; join the team. Let us go.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his high-energy speech. That is not surprising. We know our colleague well.

The Prime Minister, who is of course a member of his political party, recently took aim at Quebec municipalities by saying that housing was not being built quickly enough because of all kinds of regulations. What is rather surprising is that, in my riding, for nearly 50 years, the federal government has been imposing non-construction easements on an airport in Mirabel that has effectively been shut down. This is preventing us from building on residential land and potentially depriving the people of Mirabel of thousands of housing units.

How is it that the government is so quick to point the finger at the municipalities but has such a hard time looking inward at its own regulations? Are there no mirrors in the Liberal backroom?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I must say that he represents Mirabel well. He often talks about the Mirabel airport and its land.

It is very important to note that our government has been the most effective at working closely with municipalities. Many municipalities across the country have seen great improvements, including in Quebec, a province that is key in this discussion. This is a partnership. We have invested in Quebec, and we will continue to invest in housing, because it is essential. Whether someone is from Quebec, Cape Breton Island or Vancouver, they need housing, and that is exactly what we are going to work on.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, like many members in this House, the people of Vancouver Kingsway are experiencing unprecedented high prices for food. People are going to supermarkets and finding that the price of three apples is about $5. I am not sure how anybody can eat nutritious food with the kinds of prices we are being charged in this country.

There has always been a problem in our schools with children not having access to healthy food and it is even worse today. The Liberals and the NDP campaigned last election on having a billion dollars over five and four years respectively to get started on a national school nutritious food program. We are the only country in the G7 that does not have one.

Would my hon. colleague not agree that, at a time of unprecedented high prices for food and when so many families are struggling, this is the ideal time for the federal government to bring in this long-overdue program to make sure that kids, when they go to school, get at least one nutritious meal, so they can learn better and help relieve the strain on family budgets across this country?

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we need to stabilize prices. It is very important. Coming from the education system, I know that many schools have a program to support vulnerable kids. That does not take the point that the hon. member is making that we can do more. I think a national program is something we need to look at. As I said, we have structures in place as we speak, but we can improve them and that is something that we need to continue to have conversations about, because it is a very challenging time for many families in this country.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

We have a cost of living crisis in Canada. The prices of housing, groceries, fuel and home heating have pushed far too many to the financial breaking point. Once upon a time, if people worked hard in Canada, they could earn a paycheque that would comfortably pay for their necessities. They would even have some cash left over and maybe take a family vacation.

My father was an electrician. One of my brothers is an electrician and another is a carpenter. These are good blue-collar jobs in the skilled trades. We grew up in a safe neighbourhood on Vancouver Island, a place that is not that safe anymore. My father worked hard, and he was able to raise and support six children. We did not always have a lot, but we always had enough. My brothers worked hard and were able to live comfortably. Sometimes, we did not have a lot in our kitchen cupboards, but my father never had to visit the food bank to put food on the table for us.

That was the promise of Canada, but under the Liberals, that promise is broken. After eight years of the overbearing NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are out of money and they are turning their backs on the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister knows it. Out of pure political desperation, he has put forward new legislation to address the mess he has made of housing and grocery prices. Unfortunately, this legislation, Bill C-56, is inadequate.

The Liberals could have adopted the comprehensive housing policy put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in the building homes not bureaucracy act, but instead, they are taking a patchwork approach to the housing crisis. The bill would remove the GST for rental unit construction projects, a campaign promise the Liberals made and broke in 2015. I support this proposal, but would have preferred that the Liberals adopt the positive and sweeping reforms contained in our Conservative leader's bill. I will have more on that in a moment.

Bill C-56 also includes Conservative policy introduced by my colleague from Bay of Quinte in amending the Competition Act by removing the efficiencies defence. This change would give the Competition Bureau more teeth to prevent mergers that would lead to higher prices and less choice. The changes in the legislation are positive and supportable, but it is lamentable that we are in this economic position in the first place.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition, the promise of Canada is broken. Canadians with higher education and many working in the skilled trades find themselves living in tents or in their cars. Crime, chaos, drugs and disorder plague our streets, and we have a Minister of Justice who says it is all in our heads.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government and its punitive carbon tax, the cost of groceries is out of control, and Canadian families are hurting. There is a tax on the farmer who grows the food, a tax on the trucker who ships the food and a tax on the store that sells the food, and they are all a tax on the family struggling to buy the food. One in five Canadians is now skipping meals because they simply cannot afford food, and food bank usage is now up at levels we have never seen before. Food banks in my community are at risk of bankruptcy because they cannot keep up with demand. Put simply, our citizens cannot afford to feed themselves because of the NDP-Liberal government.

They also are struggling to put a roof over their heads. Nine in 10 young Canadians believe the dream of home ownership is just that: a dream. Mortgages have doubled. Rents have doubled. Down payments have doubled. Greater Vancouver is now the third most overpriced housing market on the planet. In the city of Vancouver, the average rent is over $3,300 a month, and for a two-bedroom apartment it is nearly $3,900 a month. We can add that to the $2 plus for a litre for gas.

A recent C.D. Howe Institute study determined that in Vancouver nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is from government gatekeepers adding unnecessary red tape. That means that over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is bloated by delays, fees, regulations, taxes and high-priced consultants.

Data from Statistics Canada shows that residential construction investment has declined for the fourth consecutive month, including a decrease of 3.2% in Vancouver. In Canada, it used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years just to save up for a down payment. The NDP-Liberal government's record on housing has been nothing short of disastrous.

Just a few weeks ago, the Liberals met in London, Ontario, for a three-day retreat. They said that housing and affordability were their top priorities. What did the retreat accomplish? They reannounced their broken campaign promise from 2015 to remove the GST from new, purpose-built rental housing. After the Liberals heard about our common-sense Conservative plan to axe the housing tax, they flip-flopped and tried to take credit.

To address the increase in the price of food, the Prime Minister announced that they were calling in the grocery store CEOs for a meeting. I am sure they were very intimidated. He then threatened them with tax measures that would inevitably be passed on to consumers if they did not lower prices. As expected, this amounted to nothing more than a stunt, a grocery gimmick, theatre. Photo ops, announcements, virtue-signalling, and now they are plagiarizing ideas from the Conservatives.

If the NDP-Liberal government is looking for another idea to plagiarize from Conservatives, it should repeal its carbon taxes and stop the reckless spending that caused this affordability crisis in the first place. These are the real reasons Canadians are struggling with the high cost of living: high interest rates, and high prices in the grocery stores and at the gas pumps.

Bill C-56 does not go far enough and simply would not cut it when it comes to addressing and fixing the housing crisis in this country.

The Leader of the Opposition introduced the building homes not bureaucracy act in Parliament last week. This is a real plan that would tie housing completions to infrastructure funding so we can get shovels in the ground while providing a building bonus to municipalities that exceed their home-building targets. Simply put, if one builds more houses efficiently, one would get more money. Projections are that Canada needs 3.5 million new homes by 2030. We had better get started. Our message to municipalities is clear: build, build, build.

The Prime Minister rewards big city gatekeepers with tax dollars, regardless of whether or not they build homes. Our Conservative plan would require municipalities to build homes close to transit. Conservatives would also list 15% of the federal government's 37,000 buildings so they can be turned into affordable housing. We would remove the GST for any new home with rental houses below market value, incentivizing the construction of affordable homes. Conservatives would cut the bonuses of the gatekeepers at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation if they are unable to speed up approval of applications to an average of 60 days. Under the watch of the Prime Minister, these bureaucrats have been rewarded with huge performance bonuses for an abysmal performance. Much like the current Prime Minister, Bill C-56 is weak, inadequate, and reeks of desperation.

Only a common-sense Conservative government would fix this housing crisis by building homes not bureaucracy. Only a Conservative government would bring home lower prices for Canadians by ending the inflationary deficits and axing the carbon tax. The promise of Canada is broken, but hope is on the way. Conservatives would reverse these reckless policies and restore the promise of Canada.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know in this bill there are specific improvements to the Competition Act, in particular, what the Competition Bureau can do to ensure that monopolies and such are kept at bay, because they are obviously not a good thing for competition. I wonder if the member can provide some comments as to how she sees the parts of the bill with respect to the Competition Act and whether or not she thinks they will be successful at achieving their goals.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we do think they will be successful in achieving these goals. That is why the member for Bay of Quinte brought forward the legislation in the first place. We are really glad the Liberals decided to steal our ideas because these are good ideas, and they would benefit Canadians.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for my hon. colleague from British Columbia, and I usually find her speeches to be informed and interesting, but she, like a lot of her Conservative colleagues, keeps referring to eight years of an NDP-Liberal coalition. She knows that the confidence-and-supply agreement signed between the two parties is two years old, and prior to that, there was no formal or informal arrangement of any type between the NDP and the Liberals.

I am wondering if this is the kind of thing that we would see from a future Conservative government, where there would be active exaggeration to, if not outright misleading of, Canadians about the goings-on in Parliament? Does she agree with me that it is important to speak with integrity and accuracy in the House?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do agree with hon. friend that it is important to speak and act with integrity in the House. We see too little of it from the government, but I do believe in it. If I misspoke or exaggerated, I guess those two years have felt like eight years.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Société immobilière du Québec, 40% of Quebec households are renters, yet only 14% of the housing expected to be built by 2030 will be rental housing. If we do not reverse the trend, it will be a national tragedy. We would need to triple the proposed amount of new rental housing to keep the housing crisis from getting worse.

Is it going to take more than 25 years to resolve the situation?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we are in a crisis. We need affordable housing. We need rental housing. We need homes that people can buy. We need homes that people can rent. We need to increase supply.

We have the smallest number of housing units per capita in the G7, with the most land to build on, and that is exactly why we want to see more purpose-built housing. We want to incentivize that building. We want it done efficiently, and we want it done solidly, but there is no reason it should take the kind of time it does or that the bureaucratic hoops people have to go through should add such an egregious cost to it.

We need to understand that we are in a crisis. We need more. Canadians are suffering, and this has to end.

[Martin Shields, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from South Surrey—White Rock represents a riding that has a very diverse base, and I would imagine that she has an understanding as to why this bill is very limiting on what it could do for housing in her riding.

I wonder if the member could respond to the types of housing that are needed and not addressed in this piece of legislation.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I live in one of the most beautiful spots in the country, but it is unaffordable for many people. I was door knocking recently and people would immediately get tears in their eyes, telling me how they are doing double shifts and everyone in the family is working just to try to keep the home they are already in to meet the increases in mortgage payments, which are unfathomable to them. We pay mortgages in this country with after-tax dollars, and it is very difficult for people right now.

What Conservatives are saying is that the bill could have been more comprehensive, there could have been a lot more attention paid to the kinds of things the Conservative leader is proposing, such as incentives and disincentives, to work with all levels of government to make this happen. It is going to take a coordinated, comprehensive approach to improve housing in this country, and right now too many people are operating in too many silos and the bureaucracy is adding to the costs and the delay.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, we saw the Prime Minister announce with great fanfare the national housing strategy. He said it was going to be life-changing and transformational. That was in 2017.

Since then, house prices have doubled, and we have just heard the opposition whip remind us that about nine out of 10 young people in this country do not own a home and do not believe they will ever have that opportunity. Rents have doubled in this country, and that is if someone can find a place to rent. Vacancy rates are now at an all-time low, generally hovering around 1% across the country.

Inflation is skyrocketing, which of course, means that interest rates have spiked, which caused mortgage rates to go up. Mortgages have doubled. People with variable rate mortgages have seen their payments double. Those with fixed rate mortgages who are going to renew those mortgages in the next several months or years are worried that they are not going to be able to afford their home anymore. This is in the midst of a housing crisis.

Homelessness is on the rise. There are tent communities now in cities large and small all across the country. There are new immigrants and students who are living in homeless shelters, like Covenant House in Toronto. On average, three homeless Canadians die every week on the streets of Toronto.

The national housing strategy has certainly been life-changing for many. It has been transformational, but not the transformation that I suspect the Liberals had hoped for. It is not just in the big cities, of course. I represent a smaller community. I would like to say it is as beautiful as South Surrey—White Rock, maybe more, but it is also very expensive there.

Forty percent of households in Parry Sound—Muskoka spend more than 30% of their income on shelter costs. The median employment income in Parry Sound—Muskoka is about 20% lower than the provincial average across Ontario. The vacancy rate for rentals in Muskoka is 0.65%. That means there is nothing to rent. People are stretched thin because they cannot afford to pay for groceries because of the carbon tax. I get calls every week, and I am sure everyone in the House gets these calls as well, from constituents who are facing high prices at the grocery store. They feel the pinch of the carbon tax every time they go to the grocery store, fill up their car or need to get more fuel to heat their homes.

The people in my riding do not think the Liberal government cares, and it is hard for me to tell them otherwise. With an ever-increasing carbon tax that punishes rural Canadians and the most vulnerable in our society, there is no relief in sight.

On grocery prices, it is no wonder prices are so high. There is carbon tax one and carbon tax two point zero. It is on the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who delivers the food. It is a tax on food.

Here we are today. Over the summer, the Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet and named a new Minister of Housing. Someone started to wake up and realize that there is in fact a crisis in housing, and that the government has to do something because what it has done clearly is not working. However, it was not before the Prime Minister took an opportunity, while announcing a few units in Hamilton, to deflect from his failure by saying that it is not primarily his responsibility.

It was a life-changing, transformational program in 2017. In July 2023, he told Canadians that it was not really his fault. Now today, we have Bill C-56, which is supposed to be a big new change coming to the housing portfolio. What is offered on housing in this bill?

The Liberals are finally delivering on a promise they made back in the 2015 campaign to give back the GST on the construction of new rental buildings. That is it. That is all. We were expecting big change from the new minister and big change coming from the Prime Minister. However, this is what we got.

What is not in the bill? How about some CMHC reforms? The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which reports to the government, might be one of the biggest gatekeepers in the whole country. I know lots of colleagues around the House who have heard from people in their ridings, whether it is from small community groups trying to get housing built or smaller municipalities, about the stories of anguish when they go to CMHC to try to get their ridiculously complicated funding application approved. With the bureaucratic hurdles at the CMHC and in Ottawa, they often give up. If they do get a response, they often do not even get a reason why they have been rejected.

We can see builders and community groups, which do not really have the resources to battle with the CMHC, going back to the drawing table without much guidance on what they have to do differently. It is like this, of course, because this government has allowed the CMHC to grow and grow over the last eight years, and it kills more projects that it approves.

The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, put forward a bill that Bill C-56 certainly would not address. It would provide accountability to Canadians for the CMHC in Ottawa. The CMHC would have, on average, 60 days to respond to an application. We would put the executives at the CMHC on notice. We would put their bonuses on the line and say, “You have to meet these timelines”, because in a crisis, we pull out every stop. It is a bold target, but in a housing crisis, there cannot be some bureaucrat in Ottawa who is blocking homes. They have to be looking for every way possible to get more homes built.

Speaking of targets, they are another thing that is missing from the bill before us. For too long, the federal government has been happy to give massive federal transfers to cities to help them build all kinds of infrastructure with no strings attached to get more housing built. We need to tip the scales back in favour of the builders, not the blockers, because there is a scarcity of housing. There is a huge lack of supply. There are not enough townhomes, triplexes and single family homes, and not nearly enough density around transit. We need to make housing abundant again in this country. What is missing in the bill is any target for the municipalities to meet.

The Liberals are happy to fly around the country and hand out a cheque here and a cheque there for a few hundred units here and a few hundred units there, and that is as far as it gets. They do not have targets, so we see no results. On this side of the House, we believe in results. On that side of the House, they seem to believe in photo-ops and talking points, and that is not working. We need accountability, incentives and targets.

To me, it is pretty clear that the government just does not get it. The last minister of housing could not even admit that housing was a crisis in this country. The new minister started out doing what the last minister did by trumpeting on social media about the great success they are having on housing. He then went on a little housing retreat in P.E.I. and listened to the experts, including some experts who actually proposed some pretty good ideas. Then he went to London for another retreat and teased the media on the way in about something that will be really big that we have never done before in housing. Then he came back out and announced the same old funding from a program they started a year ago, which has delivered no results. It is more of the same: meaningless photo-ops and announcements of a little bit of money. There are no plans, no targets, no goals and no results.

To the young people shafted by the government, to all the seniors on fixed incomes worried about how they are going to get by and to the new Canadians who come here and feel like they have been sold a bill of goods, I say that I am sorry we have a government that pretends to care but does not really deliver.

To the House and to the government, I say that Bill C-56 is a cruel joke. It is not serious. The Liberals give themselves lots of pats on the back, but there are no results. The proof of their failure is in the dismay of the young people who have given up the hope of owning a home. It is in the tear-filled eyes I see when seniors come to me and feel ashamed that the food bank they used to donate to is one from which they now have to get their groceries. The proof is in the tent cities, where people living in tents go to their jobs but cannot find a home. The proof is in the number of homeless Canadians who die on the streets.

There is a housing crisis in this country, and Bill C-56 is further proof that the government just does not get it.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments from the member, and I think it is unfortunate when we say stuff like “The government does not care.” We certainly can have differences of opinion in terms of policy and the effectiveness of it, but to suggest that members do not care is, I think, disingenuous.

The member talked about CMHC and how a Conservative government would use CMHC and give it a mandate of 60 days to respond, or something like that. However, that just highlights a misunderstanding of CMHC's role in affordable housing and the way it delivers funds to projects. Organizations do not go to CMHC and say, “Here's my application; give me a yes or no.” They go to CMHC, and CMHC helps them walk through the various ways in which to apply in order to maximize the opportunity for funding in order deliver more housing. CMHC is less an agency that stamps either “yes” or “no”, and more an agency that is meant to work with the applicant. I have had my fair share of grievances with respect to CMHC, but in my community, for example, it is certainly doing exactly that and has delivered on at least seven or eight projects in the last few years.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that he does not really understand how the CMHC does or does not work, and that is not surprising considering the fact that we have an agency that is charged with the responsibility of delivering this life-changing, transformational national housing strategy. It has been an abject failure and they still pay themselves massive bonuses at the end of the year for a job well done.

Honestly, that is cold comfort to the people in this country who are desperate for a warm, safe bed to sleep in at night.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. colleague, who I respect, and I think he has good knowledge of the file.

The one thing I need to question is this relentless line from Conservatives about gatekeepers, bureaucracy and red tape. They always throw out the line, for example, that it takes 10 years to get a mine into production. I come from mining country. There is not a single investor on the planet who would open a billion-dollar operation in a mine without doing absolute due diligence, which does take 10 years to actually map out an ore body.

It is the same for getting housing right. We have seen the leaky condo scandal that cost $7 billion in B.C. We have seen the crappy concrete crisis in the U.K. that happened under Conservatives because they were not making sure that things were done right.

When I see the blame about municipalities acting as gatekeepers, in my region, they are more than ready to get these houses built, but they have to be built right.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why his colleagues are clapping for him because he is clearly confusing zoning processes and planning applications with building inspectors.

It should not take six years to get a piece of property rezoned to what someone wants, which is the exact same thing that is next door and on either side of the property. Making sure the building is built properly has nothing to do with zoning and it has nothing to do with planning applications, but it has everything to do with the building inspectors.

I do not know about mines, but I know about housing. The zoning process will have no impact on whether there are leaky pipes in the building or not.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We have a point of order from the hon. deputy House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make sure we are talking about zoning and building permits. Am I in a city council chamber right now or is this a federal House of—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

That is debate. It is well understood there are a number of mayors sitting in this chamber.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the common-sense legislation theme today sounds a lot like the common-sense revolution under Mike Harris. Members may recall those days when another Conservative government at another level downloaded municipal non-profit housing to municipalities, and they have been stuck with that cost ever since.

Why can the member opposite and his party not see fit to support programs for the seniors he talked about and for those people who are on affordable housing wait-lists across the country? That is not their plan. Their plan is more like the Mike Harris days from the 1990s.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was on a municipal council when that downloading happened. The reason that was downloaded is because the federal government was reducing transfers to provinces because of the outrageous spending of the first Trudeau government, the downturn and the global economy. They stopped building housing. Of course, that trickle-down effect impacted municipalities the most. I know that member, who was on city council, knows exactly what I am talking about.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I rise today to speak at second reading to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act; also known as the affordable housing and groceries act. I believe this is an important and very much needed piece of legislation. Before I get into the specific measures contained in this bill, I would like to speak to the global economic situation that makes some of the measures contained in this bill necessary.

The world is experiencing a global inflation crisis. Canada is not an island, and we are not immune to the factors that are driving high prices around the world. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, from supply chain challenges to climate change impacting harvests and causing crop failures, inflation is an inescapable global phenomenon. Compared to our G7 allies, Canada has fared very well. In August, Canada's inflation rate was measured at 4% according to the data published by the Financial Times. This is just behind Japan and almost tied with the United States and compares to 6.7% in the United Kingdom, 6.1% in Germany and 5.4% in Italy.

COVID-19 was an unforeseen and unimagined global crisis. The world essentially ground to a halt. Canada has fared relatively well through the pandemic recovery, thanks to the resiliency of the Canadian economy and in part to the programs to support Canadians and business owners to allow them to keep paying their bills when we had to stay at home and many business owners had to close their doors. Without that support, I shudder to think of where we would be now.

However, just because Canada is doing better than many of our peer countries, that does not make the impact on the day-to-day lives of regular Canadians any less real. Several factors are driving rates in Canada, including energy prices and food prices. I have had many meetings on the issue of affordability. I have heard this loud and clear from my constituents in Scarborough Centre. It was a consistent theme whether I met them at local events or on their doorsteps or in my constituency office: People are hurting and people are worried. More and more Canadians are having difficulty making ends meet. They are having to stretch every paycheque further and further.

Access to affordable, suitable housing has been a problem in our community for far too long. Rents are out of control, home ownership is for many an elusive dream. Interest rates are high and it costs so much more just to cover the necessities of life like putting food on the table. Grocery bills have skyrocketed.

The Grace Place Church operates one of several food banks in my community, and Pastor Amos tells me that demand has increased from 14,000 visits per month during the pandemic to 20,000 per month today. This is not sustainable. I have taken these messages to the government and I am pleased to say that, with Bill C-56, the government is listening. No one measure or measures will be the silver bullet, but the steps outlined in this legislation would have a meaningful impact.

Let me speak first to housing, which is an issue I have raised several times in this House. We need to be clear and unequivocal: There is a housing crisis in this country. We need to build more housing of all kinds. We need to build houses and rental units. We need more affordable housing of all types. We need to build senior homes and long-term care and student housing. We need more supply, and it needs to be affordable as well as accessible. We need more smart density housing, especially around the transit hubs.

There are many reasons for the housing crisis, and one thing must be clear: We cannot solve it alone. Every level of government has a role to play. The federal government, the provinces and the municipalities all have levers and responsibilities and all must come to the table, put politics aside and work for the good of all Canadians. As a federal government, we have limited levers, but we do have a big one: We have money. We need to come to the table with serious dollars; we expect the provinces to match the amounts or at least make major contributions.

However, if we just put money on the table we will have failed. In health care, we use federal funding to enforce national standards of care. Likewise, with housing, we need to make federal dollars contingent on specific changes needed to address the housing crisis and make housing more affordable.

We have already seen this with the government's housing accelerator fund. By making municipalities agree to loosening residential zoning restrictions to allow for more density and accelerating affordable housing projects as a condition to receive federal funding, our government would use federal dollars to help drive change at the municipal level, which would see more smart density and more affordable homes built. It is an important step to addressing housing affordability.

Clearly we need to do more, and with this bill, we would be building on the steps we have taken. I am glad we are tackling the issue of rental units, which are a critical part of our housing ecosystems. They are the choice for students who are away to study, for young people just starting their careers, for newcomers making their start in our country and for seniors looking to downsize but who still want to be independent.

The cost of rent is too high for too many now. That is why we are acting with specific measures on Bill C-56. To build more rental housing faster, we would remove the GST on new rental housing, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences. This would accelerate much needed rental housing builds across Canada.

As well, we are calling on provinces to also waive the provincial sales tax on new apartments. I am so glad to see the Province of Ontario immediately agree to follow our lead, and I hope all other provinces follow suit. This would help rental housing get built faster and encourage new builds to break ground. New supply will help to increase competition and moderate prices. Already, housing experts say that this change will take many rental building projects out of the planning stage and into construction by making building rental units more attractive than before, rather than simply building more condominiums.

Tim Richter, CEO of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, said, “It's the federal government being very serious about taking some meaningful and muscular steps to address the housing crisis.”

This is one important measure, but it is not going to solve every issue in the housing market. It is not meant to. We cannot just do one thing; we need to do all the things. We all need to come to the table, and we all need to act now.

Let me turn my attention now to the more basic issue of affordability. We have taken many actions over the years to make life more affordable, especially for the middle class and those working hard to join it. The Canada child benefit has put more money into the pockets of Canadian families that need help the most every quarter. Thanks in part to this tax-free, income-based support for low- to middle-income families with children, there were 782,000 fewer children living in poverty in 2020 compared to 2015. That is a big deal. I have heard from many families in my riding how the CCB has literally been life-changing.

Another major step we took, in co-operation with the provinces but largely funded by the federal government, has been the Canada-wide early learning and child care program. In Ontario, for most families, child care costs have already been cut in half and will soon go down to $10 a day. This is saving families thousands of dollars. We also continue to expand dental care for lower income Canadians, starting with children and seniors.

These measures have been impactful, but with inflation driving up the cost of everyday life, we need to do more. I have spoken to food bank operators in my riding. Demand spiked through the pandemic and is still high today.

That is why we are also taking action to stabilize grocery prices. High grocery prices have made it tougher for many Canadians and their families, all while grocers are increasing their profits. We are acting in both the near and medium terms.

The one-time grocery rebate delivered up to $467 to a family to help them put food on the table. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and the industry minister met the CEOs of the five major grocers and made it clear that we expect concrete measures on how they can stabilize food prices with a plan by Thanksgiving. We will make it easier to crack down on unfair practices that drive up prices and make it harder for local grocers to compete to protect Canadians and help them with the cost of groceries.

I look forward to the debate on this bill. I look forward to constructive suggestions on how it can be made better, and I look forward to working with all parliamentarians to make life more affordable for all Canadians.

[Michael Coteau, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough Centre's riding and my riding are right next to each other. A lot of the demographics between the two are similar.

I know that the Conservatives voted against dental care for children. They voted against a $500 rebate for groceries. They also voted against subsidies to help people in apartments. I know that in my community, those were very valuable incentives for people going through a pretty challenging time.

I would just like to know this from the member: What was the response like in her community for programs that helped people during these difficult times?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had conversations during the summer with my constituents, and they are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. When I talk to them, they tell me what a difference the Canada child benefit and the $10-a-day child care program are making by saving them thousands of dollars each month. I know that dental care is very important. I have been talking to many of my constituents who have been able to take their young kids to a dentist, which they were not able to afford before.

It is very important that we continue investing in these programs like the $10-a-day child care, the Canada child benefit and dental care, and that we make sure we do more to make life affordable for all Canadians.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good day, I think, in Canada when the House, Parliament, can speak to the crisis that so many people are facing when it comes to housing, groceries and affordability. It is no secret, however, that companies, particularly monopolies and oligopolies, have tremendous power in this country. That is evidenced by many indigenous people. For example, I grew up with stories of the Hudson's Bay Company, a monopoly in Canada, one that demanded, for example, an unlimited amount of fur in exchange for one good. It said that someone would have to pile up their fur as high as a rifle in order to get that rifle, an unrealistic measure of wealth.

Today, Canadians are dealing with the same kind of strong-arm companies that are saying we need to pay more for housing, we need to pay more for telecoms and we need to pay more for groceries. The same people who are asking for this are just a few names in a room, not many people, just a few CEOs of these megacorporations. These megacorporations need to be held accountable. They are oligopolies. They are gouging Canadians.

That is why New Democrats have been steadfast in our call for a windfall tax, something that has been taking place in Conservative countries like the U.K., for example, that would disincentivize companies from price gouging Canadians at a time of crisis when groceries are going up like they are, when housing is going up like it is and when food is at such an unrealistic price. It is time for a windfall tax so we can make these billionaires pay their fair share and equal the playing field.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we work together and act now to make life affordable for all Canadians. I heard that very clearly from constituents in my riding during the summertime. People are finding it difficult. That is why it is important that we work together to pass Bill C-56, which would make a difference.

That is why the minister of industry called the five CEOs of the major grocery companies to come to Ottawa, to tell them that it is really very important that we work together to stabilize the price of groceries. I am sure that by Thanksgiving, they will show us some results. If not, we are ready to take other measures to make sure the price of food stabilizes for all Canadians and we can make life more affordable for them.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to follow up on the message that my colleague from Edmonton Griesbach just shared with the House. CEOs in this country are making outsized incomes, and their corporations are making outsized profits. This is not actually helping Canadians get more affordable groceries and certainly not more affordable housing.

My question to the member is around rental housing and the GST rebate. How can Canadians be sure that any savings these developers are making, if there are developers involved, get passed down to their renters?

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, reducing or eliminating the GST from the construction of purpose-built rental units will give relief to people. It will definitely make a difference. I know that prices will not go down just with doing one thing or another thing. We need a comprehensive plan. This is one major step that will really make a difference in making housing more affordable for people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I know members are a little upset—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on a point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to rag the puck here but if it is less than five minutes, I think it would be fair for all of us to see the clock at 6:30.

Would we need unanimous consent for that or would we just need a majority of members in the House?

I think it would be very helpful in order to have us all leave on a good point on Monday but I defer to my colleagues.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I would be remiss if I did not allow the hon. member to at least get some of his thoughts out, so that we can listen less next time, when we do come back and talk to this bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 is very important legislation that we are debating. If we just reflect, in terms of our homes and our constituents, people are genuinely concerned about issues of housing affordability, the housing supply, inflation and the price of groceries.

That is what Bill C-56 is all about. It is recognizing that the constituents we are collectively representing are having a difficult time. That is why we have Bill C-56. I hope that all members, from all sides of the House, will recognize that this is legislation that not only should pass but should pass in a relatively quick fashion, in order to support the people of Canada from coast to coast to coast.

In listening to all of the debate, I want to emphasize to those who might be following it that the government has been on the housing file now for many years. In fact, it is this government, more than any other government in generations, that has made a commitment to invest in housing. We are not talking one sector alone but rather, whether it is free market, non-profits or investing in stakeholders, virtually from day one, as a government, we have been investing in housing in Canada, unprecedented in comparison to any other government in generations.

All one needs to look at are some of our more recent budgets. Members often talk about the important role of non-profits. Take a look at what we are doing in housing co-ops, providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to encourage additional housing co-ops to be built. It is a wonderful form of housing.

We could talk about the millions and millions invested into non-profits. We could talk about the rapid transition housing. Having the ability to support housing needs has always been important to this government.

We see what is taking place in our communities. This initiative, this legislation, is actually now being looked at by provincial jurisdictions, and some of them are adopting it as provincial policy, which will see thousands of homes being built.

I would like to think that all members will look at that holistic approach that the government has been taking, the specifics of this legislation, and get behind it.

The House resumed from September 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise to speak to a very important piece of legislation. Bill C-56 is actually a reflection of many discussions that have been held throughout our communities, in virtually every community throughout the country from coast to coast to coast. In particular, I know my colleagues have been listening to what their constituents have been saying, and we have some very serious issues on which we need to work together in order to overcome them. The types of issues this bill is dealing with are things such as inflation and interest rates, indirectly if not directly. The bill specifically deals with issues like housing and competition. In order to ensure that there is a sense of stability, it deals with issues like groceries and how we have seen the rise and drop, though mostly the rise, in grocery prices.

I would argue that while some members, in particular the Conservatives, will focus their attention on being critical of personalities, the government and the members of the national Liberal caucus are very much focused on what is hurting Canada today and on listening to what Canadians have to say. That is what this bill is all about.

Just a few moments ago, I was reconfirming some headlines. One of them dealt with a developer who was saying that he was going to be moving toward building 5,000 new rental units because of the GST forgiveness, which is actually in this legislation. It is a bit dependent, as the developer is hoping to see provinces join and follow suit in terms of what the federal government is doing. We have actually seen a number of provinces do that. I believe that at the end of the day, in good part because of this legislation, we will see thousands and thousands of new homes being constructed.

We can think in terms of the issue of grocery prices and inflation and how much these are hurting the pocketbooks of Canadians. In the last budget, we created the grocery rebate for Canadians. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians were affected by that particular policy, through which we were able to put money into the pockets of Canadians to help alleviate the issue of inflation, in particular with respect to groceries.

In September, following the caucus discussion, the Prime Minister made a presentation about the importance of things like the Competition Act, of holding those who sell our groceries accountable, and the idea of bringing the big five, for example, before the minister and before the government, in one sense to hold them more accountable and to put in some deadlines. We want to see more stability in that area from Costco, Walmart, Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys, which are the big five. I understand that just over 80% of grocery sales in Canada are through those five large companies. The minister and government laid down the expectations of the government. Stability in pricing is of great importance, and this legislation would help deal with the issue. The Competition Act is something that can have an impact.

There was a time when people would say that bigger is better; they would use the argument of efficiency. That argument does not sell anymore. We need to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency; it is not good enough to stand by and watch consumers being gouged. We are very sensitive to the issue of inflation.

If we look at it, and there is the odd little heckle or murmur from the Conservatives, at the end of the day, it would be easy to say that Canada is doing exceptionally well on inflation, which is true. We understand that people are still suffering from the impacts of inflation, and that is why we have taken measures, not only in this legislation but also in other legislation and in budgetary measures that have been brought before the House.

We can understand and appreciate what people have to go through. This legislation is a reflection of what we are hearing. We are responding to the needs of the people of Canada. We will continue to focus on the policy changes necessary to help and have the backs of Canadians. We have done this through the pandemic, up to this point, and, I would ultimately argue, since we formed government back in 2015.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, beyond the ridiculous nature of how the member opposite goes on about the inflationary crisis that the Liberals caused, we know very clearly that many farmers in rural Canada rely on temporary foreign workers to help do their work. They build accommodations for those workers.

Will those farmers qualify for the GST rebate on the housing they build for temporary foreign workers?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize, as I started to say in my beginning comments on the issue last night, that when we look at housing, the Liberal government has supported housing as no other government in generations has.

We have done that through a national housing strategy. We have seen it through billions of dollars of investments in housing. We see it in the legislation that we have before us today and in our co-operation with different stakeholders, including provinces, territories and indigenous leaders. All this is an attempt to take a team Canada approach to dealing with the housing crisis that we have today.

This legislation would enable thousands of new homes to be constructed.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to housing, we approved the housing accelerator fund as part of budget 2022. It is a $4-billion program to help the municipalities.

It is strange because this program is called the housing accelerator fund, but not a single penny has been spent in Quebec after a year and a half. I think that the Liberal government has not yet found the program's gas pedal. We learned that negotiations have stalled and that $900 million that could be used to house the less fortunate in Quebec are stuck in Ottawa. From what we have heard about the negotiations, Quebec wants to focus more on housing, but Ottawa is talking about municipalities, infrastructure, cost estimates and zoning, when it should be focusing on building real housing.

Could my colleague tell us the status of the negotiations with the Government of Quebec with regard to that $900 million?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what can be found over the last years is that there have been a number of housing programs, whether they were the enhancements through budgetary measures in 2022 in regard to housing co-ops, the ongoing hundreds of millions to support non-profit housing units, the rapid housing initiative or the legislation that we have before today.

For the first time we have a national government that is not only taking an interest but has also actually invested. A part of that is the housing accelerator fund. In good part, we have to work with the jurisdictions. It is not that Ottawa is one large ATM that just pushes out money.

At the end of the day, it is important for us to recognize that we need to work with different levels of government. We have seen many projects taken up and moved forward in that fund. I would hope that all provinces—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The member actually mentioned the program for co-ops in budget 2022. As it stands right now, not one penny has rolled out of that budget measure. In fact, there is not even an agreement with the co-op sector to roll that money out.

Aside from that, with respect to this bill, why did the government explicitly exclude co-ops from accessing the exemption for the GST in the bill?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I believe the first part of what the member said, because on the second part, the co-ops are exempt already. They do not need to be exempted, from what I understand, because they are currently exempt. If I am wrong, I would apologize. Equally, if the member is wrong, will she stand up and apologize?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we follow up on the question from the member for Vancouver East. On the point about the co-op housing funding from budget 2022, none of those funds have rolled out yet. When the member for Winnipeg North speaks about investments in housing, a really critical point is that investments in housing are not meant to be a one-off. Back in the 1980s, it used to be that co-op housing received investments every single year to build the affordable dignified housing we need.

Will the member champion continued funding for co-op housing every year?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have always been and will always be an advocate for housing co-ops. This even goes back to prior to my being elected in 1988.

In regard to the GST for the expansion of new units, I believe housing co-ops are, in fact, exempt from it. If I am wrong, I would apologize to the member. I hope the member for the New Democratic Party would do the same and apologize if she is wrong.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after the solemn Yom Kippur holiday yesterday, as a Jewish parliamentarian and one who represents the largest Jewish riding in the country, before I speak to the matter today, I will address what happened in this place last Friday: a full-blown international embarrassment for our Parliament and for our country. A Nazi was invited to this House, welcomed and celebrated as a hero. I will say what nobody has said. Nobody from the government has said this: This man is not a hero. He is a monster, and he had no business being here. We will never accept collective responsibility for that. It is not anybody's dishonour to bear except for the government, which is responsible for allowing him in this chamber.

Yesterday, we observed Yom Kippur. It was the miracle of repentance. I will add this one thing, because I think it is important: It is not that we just start a new page; we also look back at the past and reflect on what happened. As I prayed and fasted, I thought about my ancestors who prayed and fasted throughout the Holocaust, through the hunger, fear and risk of death. They kept their faith. They needed to show God that, despite being locked in hell, they were still capable of singing his praises. Such people as the one honoured in this House forced them into that hell. It is particularly troubling to me, as somebody with family members who lived on the eastern front in Ukraine. It is not trauma or pain; it is actually anger that has deepened, knowing that nobody in a position of power did anything about it.

I hope my colleagues listened carefully to that. I will turn to the matter at hand today, because I would like to move to the conversation on the floor. It is an important one.

Bill C-56 is a nice try at some new legislation but, ultimately, as the saying goes, “too little, too late”. Right off the top, I want to make clear that the government should have started building houses eight years ago, not today, two years in the future, four years in the future, eight years in the future or never. The government's inaction is actually the root of the housing crisis that we are debating today, which they woke up and had an epiphany about after a summer of bad polling.

For example, last year our population grew by 1.3 million people. We built 286,000 homes. Where did the extra million people go? If we take that times eight years under the Prime Minister, we can see why the price of a home has nearly doubled to $900,000. We can see why the cost has doubled and why the average monthly mortgage payment has grown, in my neck of the woods, to over $3,000 a month. That is what happens when the government is asleep at the wheel for nearly a decade and when government members did not prioritize construction, when they wake up after a summer of bad polling and decide that now is the time to do something about housing, when they add more red tape instead of cutting it and when they raise taxes instead of lowering them. That is what the government is doing to everyday Canadians.

Bill C-56 is a perfect representation of the Liberal-NDP failure on housing, because its central promise of ending GST on construction of rental housing is a promise they made six years ago. Here we are, eight years later, and the reality is that a house will take a lot of time to build. Endless paperwork needs to be completed, and workers need to be hired somewhere.

I also have to split my time with the member for Chilliwack—Hope.

The reality is that, because it takes so much time to build homes, this is too little, too late. One cannot snap one's fingers and expect to have a million homes sitting, ready to sell. Neither can the problem be solved by telling people that it just does not exist, although that is what we heard from them for almost eight years.

We saw finger pointing. The last minister's parting gift to Canadians was an op-ed in a national newspaper saying that none of this was his fault. In fact, they got the guy who actually lost a million people in the portfolio before that to become housing minister, to fix housing in this country. All of these things that are part of the Liberals' strategy on housing seem to be based in magical thinking.

What is more, we cannot change the inflation in Canada, affordability in Canada and interest rates in Canada, all the things that we are trying to address, without changing the fundamental framework, things like government spending, raising taxes, bigger bureaucracy and outright waste on consultants, and on apps that do not work and that nobody uses. The list is endless.

This government’s endless tax-and-spend leads to record deficits that lead to higher inflation, which means higher interest rates. That means higher mortgages, higher costs to borrow and higher everything for Canadians struggling to keep a roof over their head, food on the table and gas in their car.

Without fixing that, we cannot do anything here. We will not actually make peoples’ lives affordable unless the Liberals want to steal those ideas too.

By the way, all of these ideas are stolen ideas. One of them exists in our colleague’s private member’s bill. The other one was announced that same day.

It is going to take an actual new plan and a government that realizes that there is a problem, not one that tells us how it is doing on the world stage and that everything is fine and that Canadians have never had it so good.

That is what we hear from the benches opposite, except in a mild reprieve when they realize that, hey, maybe there is a problem, maybe Canadians are struggling and maybe it is their own caucus that is finally telling their Prime Minister that the summer they had in their ridings was probably the opposite of what they have been saying right here in the House.

This is going to take an entirely new plan. It is going to take entirely new ministers and it is going to take an entirely new government and hopefully a Conservative majority government after the next election.

Here are our ideas. It will not take long. Here are our ideas on housing and how to make it more affordable in Canada.

We need to drastically increase the pace of homebuilding by cutting red tape and removing gatekeepers to stop construction that raises prices, and encourage municipalities to put shovels in the ground with incentives and building bonuses for their top performers.

We also said that we would sell off 15% of government buildings to create the much-needed apartment housing in our biggest city centres, and, of course, we will end the carbon tax and the war on work, to lower the price of materials and labour that we need to actually build.

The Liberal plan on all of this is to have a bunch of meetings with bureaucrats in fancy suits, issue a press release, maybe issue a press release calling for another meeting, reward bad behaviour with an endless supply of money with no strings attached, blame everything on Stephen Harper, we cannot forget that, and tell Canadians that their taxes need to be higher and that, again, they have never had it so good.

One cannot understand the extent of the problem that lies ahead if one does not think there is a problem at all. According to a recent report, we need to build 3.5 million more housing units on top of what we are already projected to build and we need to build it all by 2030.

I would like to ask Canadians who they trust to bring home those homes, who they trust to make life more affordable and affordable housing more attainable, more of what got us here or a bold plan to actually get costs down?

The cost of inaction is clear. That is why we are having this debate. That is why they rushed this legislation right through the House after a summer of brutal polling and constituents telling them that they have had enough.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am curious. At the end of her speech, my colleague said that we need 3.5 million housing units by 2030. It is almost 2024. That is a lot to accomplish in just six years.

I listened to my colleague, but I am not sure that we are going to meet that goal by providing the municipalities with rebates or bonuses to encourage them to build more. That measure alone is not going to get 3.5 million housing units built in Canada in the next six years. That just is not the case.

I would like to know what the Conservatives actually plan to do to deal with this issue. We are talking about 3.5 million housing units. That will almost require an industrial strategy. What is the plan?

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is called “the building homes and not bureaucracy act”, and it would incentivize municipalities to hit and exceed their building targets with more federal funding.

The member is right, we probably will not get to 3.5 million homes, but we are going to do a lot better than the zero homes built by their accelerator.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am still in absolute shock. Last week, the Conservatives were the gatekeepers for the big grocery stores and CEOs. This week, they show up and they sound like New Democrats saying that CEOs and greedflation are part of the problem.

What we actually need, and what people in our country need, is action. Will the Conservatives support initiatives that we brought forward, including taxing CEOs, or will they act like Conservatives in Britain where they charge an excess profit tax on oil and gas, or are they going to sit back and just talk more without action?

I want to see some action. Canadians deserve action.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the action is not supporting this Liberal government every single day on the floor of the House of Commons. They used to be in opposition, and I am sure that the people in the riding of that member would love to see us axe the carbon tax. In fact, they have been saying so. That is one action that he can support us on today instead of voting to increase it every single time that vote comes to the House of Commons.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was interested in one of the points that the hon. member made in her speech about selling off public land.

In my riding, land is available, but it has been so financialized, and housing has been so financialized. However, I want to ask her specifically about selling off public lands. As we know in Ontario, Doug Ford tried to sell off public land and it did not go so well for him, and it is certainly was not in the public, not-for-profit sector's interests. I would like to hear more about that.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the member might want to bring that question to the Ontario legislature.

The plan is to sell off 15% of land. We have 37,000 federal buildings in this country. We actually have an example in Winnipeg where there are two office towers next to each other and both are 50% full. Now, it might not take a genius to figure out what we can do if both towers are 50% full. Maybe we can put all of those people in one tower and convert the other tower into affordable housing. It is not that complicated and it has nothing to do with the Ontario legislature.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member made reference to the two towers. However, sometimes these towers are not structurally sound enough to be able to convert into housing.

I will leave behind the fact that the Conservatives completely ignored the issue of housing for 10 years, which is an absolute fact. However, does the member not recognize that, yes, Ottawa plays a very important role, which we have demonstrated through strong leadership on the housing file, but we also need municipalities, provincial entities, territorial governments and the different stakeholders that are out there, such as the many non-profit organizations that can contribute to the housing situation we have today.

I am wondering if the member can provide her thoughts on taking that holistic approach and not just the federal government.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Madam Speaker, for a brief moment there I thought that the Liberals actually recognized the problem this summer. I thought that they had an epiphany and were going to do something about housing. In fact, we hear the same refrain that we heard from the last housing minister who left this country with an op-ed blaming everybody else except for themselves: municipalities, provinces and all of that. They were going to do something about this and still they cannot drop the talking points of “It is not my fault. It is everybody else's fault.” It is shameful and Canadians deserve better.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the House of Commons on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope.

We are here today discussing Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which the government whipped together after its London caucus meeting. The government is great at the announcement part of things. It is great at the glitzy announcements and the flashy photo ops, but it really is terrible at delivering results for Canadians.

This is no more evident in any file than in the housing file. It had billions of dollars and promises for eight years about how it was going to revolutionize housing in this country, and what it has delivered is failure. Time and time again, when the rubber meets the road, it has not delivered the housing units that it promised, it has not delivered the funding that it promised. It is Canadians who have paid the price.

On the first day of the London caucus meeting where the panicked Liberals said they had to do something because what they were doing was not working and they were getting crushed at people's doors, the Prime Minister actually reannounced, for maybe the third time, the same funding that he had announced in previous budgets in years past. He said that Liberals were working with London and announcing new money, and, for once, the media did not buy it. It said what they were announcing was something they announced before and were a year behind in delivering, that this was old money and not a new promise of new housing for Canadians.

That did not work, so what did the Liberals do the next day? They came out with an eight-year-old promise from the 2015 Liberal red book. They again failed to deliver on the promises they made to Canadians at that time. They promised the GST rebate for apartments in 2015. It was 2023 and, on the back of a napkin half an hour before the Leader of the Opposition was releasing a comprehensive housing plan that included a GST rebate for rental housing, they whipped out this promise that they had buried and forgotten about for eight full years. That is not leadership, that is admitting failure, which is what they have done again and again on this file.

It is the same thing with the grocery store photo op. It is the same government that gave millions and millions of dollars to Galen Weston and Loblaws to subsidize freezers and fridges. It is a good thing it gave the money. I heard that Loblaws barely scraped by last year. It barely made a profit and it is a good thing that the federal Liberals reached deep into taxpayers' pockets and took out $12 million for fridges and freezers to gift to Loblaws. Then they have audacity to say they will bring representatives of grocery stores to Ottawa, they will tell them what is what, they will have a photo op and things will be different, that we should trust them. Nothing happened at that event except a photo op for the industry minister and a talking point for the Liberals.

When we asked the Liberals, as a result of this meeting, what will happen to the outrageous price of a head of lettuce, a bag of carrots, a bag of potatoes and a turkey, we heard nothing. They have no idea. This is a complete and total photo op by a government of complete and total failure. Every single time there is a problem, it comes up with a communications plan that does not deliver anything for Canadians.

Canadians are not holding their breath in my riding that a photo op meeting with some CEOs is going to make any difference in their grocery bills, but they know what would make a difference. What would make a difference in their grocery bills is axing the Liberal carbon tax because we know that when farmers pay a tax, they pass that on, when truckers have to pay a tax to pick up food from farmers, they pass that on, when manufacturers and food processors have to pay the carbon tax, they pass that on, and the grocery stores pass it on. The Liberals say it has no impact on the price of groceries. We know that it does. We know that taxes have an upward effect on grocery prices, but the government refuses to look at that and, instead, has gimmicks and photo ops that do not make a difference to the bottom line of Canadians.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader spoke just a few moments ago. He said that things were going well for Canada. It reminds me of the new justice minister. When he was appointed to his position, he said that the rising crime wave Canadians were feeling in their communities was all in their heads, that it was not actually happening. However, the data shows that it is happening, that the crime rate is soaring across the country. It is the same with the price of groceries. When the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader says that it is all in their heads, that things are going well, he obviously has not spent much time talking to his constituents.

People are suffering. People need help. People in my riding are living in RVs full time. They are living in their cars, they have taken over highway rest areas, which have become permanent encampments for people to live, and they are live in tents. It is because the price of rent has doubled in eight years under the Liberal government. The price of mortgages has doubled in eight years under the Prime Minister. The cost of a down payment has doubled under the Prime Minister.

We see a recycled promise from eight years ago, just in advance of the Leader of the Opposition's announcement, and the Liberals want us to applaud them for their housing plan. It is not working. I wish they would adopt the rest of the Leader of the Opposition's private member's bill, Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act. We need to incentivize municipalities to actually get homes built, not talk about it, not plan for 15 years from now but to get keys in doors and people in homes. That is what the Leader of the Opposition's plan would do by incentivizing municipalities to get more homes built and punishing municipalities that stand in the way.

We know that the cost of red tape and gatekeeping in Vancouver, for instance, now adds over $1 million to the price of a home. It has been revealed that even upper middle-class Canadians can no longer qualify for the average home in Canada. They cannot qualify for a mortgage, making $170,000 a year. That is the state of play in our country, and the Liberals want us to say that they are doing so well.

One of the great tragedies, and having young people in my life, I think of my own family, is that nine in 10 young people, 90% of young people, have given up on home ownership altogether. They do not believe they will ever be able to afford a home. That was not the case before the Liberal government, and it will not be the case after the Liberal government is gone.

It is time for real action on housing. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition's plan on housing, which would take real action. Real steps and real metrics would be realized to deliver actual results. The Liberal plan has failed. We saw refugees coming to our country with the promise of a better life. They have been living on the streets and using food banks, living under overpasses. We have seen students forced to live in shelters and use food banks.

This is the legacy of eight years of the Liberal government, and this bill would not change that. Having a photo-op will not change that. Having a re-announcement will not change that. What will change it is real action. As I mentioned, the Conservative leader's plan is a real plan, unlike the back-of-a-napkin approach of the Liberal government.

We have said that we would withhold transit and infrastructure funding from cities until sufficient high-density housing around transit stations is built and occupied. That is key. Not planned, not built at some stage but when they are occupied is when they will get the money. We are going to incentivize cities with a super bonus if they do better. It is not just a stick; it is also a carrot. That is an important part of the Conservative leader's bill that is better than the Liberal bill.

We are paying performance bonuses to executives of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for this dismal failure of getting Canadians into homes that they can afford. We will cut those performances bonuses unless they can deliver results for Canadians.

This bill just scratches the surface. If the government were serious about getting more Canadians into homes, it would axe the tax, which would not only help with the price of homes but would help with the cost of groceries. The fact that it has not done that shows that the government is not yet serious about this very important issue.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to it. The big plan for the Conservative Party, the big tax break, is going to be to get rid of the carbon tax. We hear that from member after member.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, they heckle “Hear, hear!” I want to remind every member who just said “Hear, hear!” that in the last federal election, every one of them, including the member who just spoke, supported the Conservative election platform.

[An hon. member]

Nope, not a chance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, they did, Madam Speaker.

Every one of those candidates were signed off by Erin O'Toole, who was the leader of the Conservative Party, who endorsed an election platform that said they wanted a price on pollution. That is a carbon tax. The member across the way spoke in favour of the carbon tax.

Do any of the members of the party across the way have any regrets whatsoever for supporting Erin O'Toole and the price on pollution they were promising Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, the fact that the member can say Erin O'Toole's name out loud means Erin O'Toole is no longer here. Many of us did not campaign on a price on carbon. We always have opposed a carbon tax, continue to oppose a carbon tax and will oppose a carbon tax until it is gone for good.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague talk to us about a real plan. I think it is rather funny to base a real plan on misinformation. I have never seen a real plan based on misinformation and the Conservatives have certainly been spouting misinformation. The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has set its own price on carbon. It is not the carbon tax. The Conservatives keep huffing and puffing about a carbon tax that applies in Quebec. There is no second carbon tax. There is talk of clean fuel regulations. People are not fooled that easily.

The worst thing MPs can do is discredit themselves by introducing lies left and right. I get the impression that is what the Conservatives are doing, but sooner or later the truth will come out and they will look ridiculous.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the member said that Canadians are not fools. His constituents are not fools. They know a tax when they see one. They know that the Bloc Québécois is not supported by Quebeckers when it says that it wants to radically increase the carbon tax in Quebec. There is a second carbon tax, the Liberal carbon tax, that the Bloc Québécois has enthusiastically supported. We reject it. Its members will have to take that up with their voters in the election, and we will have many more Quebec MPs in the Conservative fold after that time.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will splitting my time with the member for Richmond Hill.

It is an honour to rise to participate in today's debate in support of Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. I have heard from many residents in my riding of Don Valley West about the rising prices they face every day, about the impact of inflation on their daily lives, and especially about the rising cost of rental apartments and high grocery prices.

Powerful measures are indeed needed to lower the costs of those two essential expenses for many families in Don Valley West, in Toronto and across Canada, those being housing and groceries. They are absolutely essential for our well-being in every sense of the word, and we need to take absolutely strong steps. Bill C-56 lays out some of the steps that the government needs to do to address this situation.

Our government indeed wants to put money in the pockets of middle-class Canadians at a time when they need it most. Our whole world is facing, and continues to face, supply chain crises and rising prices around the world, and Canada is no exception to that.

Bill C-56 addresses the housing costs that are far too high for far too many Canadians. This bill would enable the government to incentivize the construction of much-needed rental homes by removing the GST on the construction of new rental housing. To get it done, the bill would implement a temporary enhancement to the GST new residential rental property rebate in respect of new, purpose-built rental housing.

Just before this announcement was made in mid-September, a builder approached me in my own riding to say that he had successfully constructed a number of rental units and had approvals for many hundreds more, but was putting it on hold with the high costs in today's economy. He immediately spoke to me the next day and thanked me for this decision of the government because that incentivized and enabled him to take up the challenge to build more rental units.

For example, a two-bedroom rental unit that costs about $500,000 to construct, with the enhanced GST rental rebate, would now have $25,000 in tax relief, a significant move to lower the costs of construction of new rental units. This is another tool to create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing we need and that families want to live in.

The federal government cannot do this alone. We are calling on all provinces that currently apply provincial sales taxes to join Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, and perhaps others who have announced that they will be reducing or eliminating the provincial portion of the HST on rental housing. We want all provinces and territories to join in on this, matching our rebate for new rental housing.

We have been leading the charge to make sure that an entire generation is not priced out of owning a home or even renting one. In budget 2022, we announced targeted and responsible investments that would help provide Canadians an affordable place to call home. Budget 2022 laid out important steps toward building more houses, helping people save for their first home, curbing speculation and unfair practices that are driving up housing prices.

Among those measures, the government unveiled the tax-free first home savings account to allow Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free to help buy their first home. We also launched the rapid housing initiative, which is providing $1.5 billion to create 4,500 new affordable housing units.

Since then, we have kept up our fight to help families. We are acting quickly to make a difference, but we recognize, very strongly, that there is more to do. We know boosting Canada's housing supply is critical to easing affordability challenges.

Earlier this month, we announced the government's first agreement under the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which was launched earlier this year to cut red tape and fix outdated local policies, such as zoning, and build more homes faster. This is an inter-governmental problem, and we need governments at every level to engage in the solutions, whether it is municipalities, provinces or our own federal government.

This initial agreement would provide some $74 million to increase the housing supply in London, Ontario. We believe many more agreements are to follow, and would encourage all members of the House to look for opportunities and to talk to their municipalities about this fund.

There is more. We will recommend that local governments end exclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments near public transit to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. Our plan to double the rate of housing construction over the next decade will help build the housing supply we need. We will continue to work with provincial, territorial and municipal governments as well as indigenous partners to keep building more homes.

Building the homes a growing Canada needs will require a national effort, and the federal government is ready to lead. What we need first, obviously, are roofs over our heads. It is critical that people have affordable and attainable housing that will ensure they have that roof over their heads. Once they have the roof over their head, what they need is food to put on the table that is under that roof.

As I mentioned, the reach of Bill C-56 is also designed to help address escalating grocery prices. Last week, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry summoned the leaders of Canada's largest grocery chains to begin urgent discussions so we can move quickly to stabilize food prices. Yesterday, our government met with major international food processors, going up the chain, to continue our efforts to bring relief for Canadian consumers.

We are considering all tools at our disposal to restore grocery price stability. In an era when the whole world is facing a crisis in rising food prices, we cannot do this alone, but we will take the steps we can do as a federal government to bring grocery prices down so Canadians can eat well.

Bill C-56 would take the first legislative steps to enhance competition, with a focus on the grocery sector, by amending the Competition Act. Among the most recent amendments, the bill would grant the Competition Bureau with powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies. Bill C-56 would also empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular situations where large grocers prevent small competitors from establishing operations nearby.

In conclusion, since 2015, the federal government has been working hard to ease the financial strain on Canadian families through the Canada child benefit, a middle-class tax cut, and in the next few years, $10-a-day regulated child care on average all across the country.

We have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians count on. We will continue to be there for Canadians, making sure they have a roof over their heads, groceries they can afford and the benefits they need to continue to prosper and excel in this country.

[Shaun Chen, Liberal, Scarborough North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the last vote earlier, I erroneously voted against when I meant to vote in favour, and I would like to ask the House for unanimous consent to change my vote.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for having this debate today because in Oshawa this is one of the issues I am hearing about over and over again. I was listening to the parliamentary secretary's speech. One of the complaints I get from municipal leaders is that there has been a lot of money put out there but really there is not a lot of results.

I believe in the last eight years the Liberal government has announced $89 billion in funding for affordable housing, and we just do not know how many houses that has actually helped build. I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary could tell us today how many houses were successfully built over the last eight years with that $89 billion and how much the cost was per house.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we have a market-driven economy that builds houses across this country in many different ways. There are houses that are built as rental units. There are apartments that are built and condominiums that are built.

I invite him to come to the riding of Don Valley West to the area at Redpath and Broadway to see the construction project, which is a fascinating public-private partnership building hundreds of units of affordable housing and market rent housing, as well as condominiums. It is one concrete example, literally concrete, where houses are being built and a difference is being made.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague speaking proudly and enthusiastically about the fantastic measure that we have just adopted to build rental housing by removing the GST on the construction of apartment buildings. This only applies to privately owned buildings, however. Municipal organizations are already exempt. Non-profits that are already partially exempt will not be fully exempt. Housing co-ops will not be fully exempt either.

Does the member find that logical? Does he think that we should make an effort to change that and take truly meaningful measures, like investing 1% of the annual budget in social housing to take pressure off the market?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, housing subsidies and other measures offered on the market, including by not-for-profit organizations, are not the same. It is a complex situation, with an integrated market overlapping two sectors. I think it is necessary to have housing supports offered by not-for-profit organizations and others aimed at the private market. Both sectors need different things in different parts of the country.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have known many young people, and I actually spent the summer helping move people out of Toronto because this is no longer a city they can live in. It now takes 20 years for a family to save for a down payment. It has been reported that 40% of the condos in Toronto sit empty or are being rented out on Airbnb.

This is a manufactured crisis. Therefore, when I hear my hon. colleague talk about the response, what I am not hearing is a credible plan for co-operative housing, which was a linchpin of making urban living possible and also of making rural and northern living possible. Due to the fact that the market forces have failed us, that there is market manipulation and that the housing market has been used by speculators, we really need a strong all-hands-on-deck approach to address the housing crisis that exists in every one of our communities across this country.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member will get no argument whatsoever from me about the importance of building co-operative housing. I have four such buildings in my riding, and I want eight or 10 or 12. We have to set the conditions for co-operative housing to be increased. I am happy to be on record as saying that I will push my own government to make sure that we have a way to encourage such projects. They are innovative. We may need to look for a 21st-century solution to what used to be a 20th- century example. I have been part of those projects. I myself have built three affordable-housing projects and I will engage in any good and credible solutions to find a way to put roofs over people's heads.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-56. This affordability bill has two important parts: the temporary removal of the goods and services tax, the GST, from new purpose-built rental housing, and a significant improvement to the Competition Act. On September 14, the government announced that the GST would be temporarily removed from new purpose-built rental housing to encourage an increase in the construction of rental housing. This removal would be in effect until the end of 2035.

That being said, I would like to spend the rest of my speech today on the second part of this bill, which is about enhancing the Competition Act. Bill C-56 would make three targeted improvements to the Competition Act. It would stop big-business mergers with anti-competitive effects, would enable the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and would stop anti-competitive collaboration that stifles small businesses, specifically small grocers.

Canada's current Competition Act was first passed in 1985. It is an understatement to say that since then, our market has evolved. For this reason, the government launched a wide-ranging consultation on competition legislation and what ought to be done to modernize it and make sure it serves the best interests of Canadians. One thing we know for sure is that over the years, there has been an increase in mergers and market concentration in many Canadian industries, such as retail grocery. Canadian consumers have made it very clear that they have concerns about how the competitive landscape has changed in these markets and that they believe the law needs to be changed to that ensure the marketplace is fair.

Business collaboration can take all sorts of forms, from innocuous dealings to the problematic anti-competitive agreements. In this latter category, we have the sorts of practices that are always considered harmful under our competition law, such as cartels to fix prices, allocate markets or restrict production. Rigging bids in response to a call for tenders is also treated in this manner, as now are wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements between employers, because of changes we introduced in 2022. These forms of agreements are criminal offences. They are the most direct and straightforward way to undermine marketplace competition and are illegal, no matter their results.

There are other sorts of collaboration, however, that are not so clear-cut. One might think of joint ventures involving two competitors, or an agreement to share certain information or jointly conduct research. These agreements are not cartels but may, nevertheless, still lessen competition because they involve co-operation between parties that are meant to compete. The Competition Bureau may examine these kinds of collaborations, and if it finds that they harm competition, the bureau may apply for a court order to remedy that. There is one hitch, however. The bureau can look to remedy these agreements only if they are struck between real or potential competitors in the same market.

Most other countries have a more straightforward rule, which is that an agreement made to restrain competition can be remedied. It is as simple as that, because there are cases where we should be concerned by an agreement made between two companies that are not direct competitors. Imagine, if we will, that a large grocery retailer opens a store in the only shopping plaza in the community and that, as part of its agreement with the landlord, it indicates that it does not want another supermarket or maybe even a specialty food store to open in the same plaza. The supermarket does not want a competitor eating into its profits. The landlord agrees because it wants the big grocery retailer to come to the plaza and generate traffic. The landlord is still free to rent other spaces to hardware stores, furniture stores or even pet shops. It is a win-win between them, right? It is not really. The end consumer is actually the one who loses.

First and foremost, the consumer misses out on the benefits of competition. The supermarket can raise prices because of its territorial exclusivity. How about a local entrepreneur who would like to open a butcher shop or a bakery? Unfortunately, they will be cut out of the list of potential tenants because the landlord made a promise.

What I have shared is not just a hypothetical scenario. Earlier this year, the Competition Bureau conducted a retail grocery market study. In its report, the bureau shared that it heard from Canadian businesses that said they have been unable to open stores in places they wanted to set up shop, because of property controls. As the bureau would conclude, these property controls limit entry by new grocers and deny consumers all of the benefits from added competition, like lower prices and more choice.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, or CFIG, raised an even more worrisome version of property control in its submission to the government consultation. CFIG raised the topic of restrictive covenants, which arise when a retail store is sold but the vendor wants to protect the land it is leaving from any rivals. When the chain sells its space, it may negotiate a covenant into its sale agreement with the purchaser, preventing any future owners from ever using the property to operate a grocery store. This can happen with lease agreements too, shielding the plot of land from new entrants even after the original supermarket has left.

CFIG and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre both point to this practice as contributing to so-called food deserts in many communities. This is not a good outcome, and it is the result of restraints on competition. It is time for Canada to update our legislation and ensure that we catch up to our international counterparts at the forefront of promoting fair competition. Amendments to the Competition Act would ensure that the Competition Bureau can review agreements like these where their very purpose is to restrict competition, even when they are made between non-competing parties like landlords and tenants. If the collaboration would substantially lessen or prevent competition, then the bureau would be able to seek a remedy, including an order to shut down the activity.

I wish to highlight that our office places great importance on proactive community engagement. To this end, we have established five community councils, among which the Affordability Council stands as one of the most actively engaged. It is with eager anticipation that I intend to present the affordability bill to my local Richmond Hill Community Council.

The matter of affordable housing and access to essential groceries stands as a paramount concern for constituents, and we are committed to addressing these critical issues through this affordability bill. I look forward to working with members of the House on passing this important piece of legislation.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did make some good points. The member mentioned independent grocers. I work a lot with independent grocers, and he is right; they do face a lot more challenges than big chains. There are challenges in trying to get competitive pricing on goods they want to buy and resell in their stores. That is just one of the issues that independent grocers face.

If we have more competition in the grocery industry, we will see grocery prices fall, and that is the crux of the matter in Canada. I have been asking about this for years. In fact, I asked the Competition Bureau if it would look at abuse of dominance with big grocers in the industry, and I have had the opportunity to question the CEOs of major grocery stores.

Will the member's government stop providing Canadian taxpayer dollars to multinational corporations or publicly traded grocers that are making hundreds of millions of dollars in profits every quarter, and perhaps focus on keeping our independent grocers alive and well in the communities they serve?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member across the aisle for advocating for independent grocers, as I have been in my riding.

There are two pieces to that comment. One is about international grocers and collaboration. As members know, our government called on at least five of those grocers, along with some of the manufacturers, over the last week or so to have a conversation with them and to work collaboratively to come up with a solution to reduce prices. On the other hand, I come from a riding that is highly diverse and the small grocers who provide to some of the ethnic community play a huge role, so this is welcome news. Bill C-56 is welcome news for those independent, ethnic-based grocers who are providing products for those types of communities.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Competition Act, which was the main focus of the speech by my colleague opposite, has two components. It prohibits certain anti-competition practices, and it makes corporate mergers and acquisitions more difficult. In Canada, the status quo boils down to a single practice: efficiency gains. The efficiency argument allows buyouts. The Competition Bureau gives them a pass.

Could my colleague give us practical examples of how these improved competition rules will affect prices, and therefore, inflation, and how these factors will improve the lives of our fellow citizens?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make is that if we ensure that the bureau can review the agreements when the sale of a grocery store or a grocery chain has taken place and the land is not made available to other competitors of the same kind, specifically grocery, that violation is what we are going to look into, and that is what this bill intends to address.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in Edmonton, I and the member for Edmonton Griesbach have been meeting with Mayor Sohi regularly to talk about housing, because we are so deeply worried about the housing crisis in Edmonton. One of the things Mayor Sohi has asked is that this rebate on the GST also include those properties that are currently being built. However, there are restrictions being added to this by the Liberals.

Could the member explain to me why those restrictions are in place and whether the Liberals would be open to amending it to expand the availability of that rebate?

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, any opportunity to improve Bill C-56 to ensure that we can increase the supply of housing, specifically purpose rental housing, is considered. I suggest that we pass this bill and get it to committee so that we can actually have the conversation that we need to have on that.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. For that reason, I will be talking less about housing than about competition. I would have plenty to say about housing, but my colleague will do a better job.

All I am going to say about housing is what I said earlier: This is just window dressing, like most of the Liberal government's announcements. We need concrete action and money for social housing on an ongoing basis. I will come back to this if I have time at the end of my speech.

That said, let us move on to the positive feature of Bill C‑56, which is amending the Competition Act. It is good to see meaningful measures that are likely to actually improve things.

The first measure that was announced was one that was proposed in the report on a study during which we, too, met with the heads of the major grocery chains, but not only them. We also met all the stakeholders in the agri-food industry.

Let us talk for a minute about the smoke and mirrors show the government is putting on, convening CEOs and, this week, meeting with the major processors. I suggest that the government meet everyone, including everyday people. Of course this includes the small processors, people from the Conseil de la transformation alimentaire du Québec, which covers a significant number of SMEs, and those from the agricultural world. The message is being sent because if we want to act, then we need to be aware of the challenges that all these people meet along the way.

Let us come back to the first measure, which seeks to give real investigative powers to the Competition Bureau. I must make a confession. When we received people from the Competition Bureau at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, there was a moment when I was embarrassed. I was embarrassed to be an elected member from a G7 country listening to the people responsible for providing assurances of a healthy competition among businesses in the country tell me that they did not have power, explain to me plainly that they would ask the major grocery chains for their profit numbers, but that the chains did not want to oblige. They kept having to say “please” to no avail.

I am going to tell you something even more galling. During the study, we hosted the five CEOs of the major grocery chains in committee. Knowing that the Competition Bureau had no authority to compel them to produce a breakdown of their profits, I personally asked each of them, one by one, to commit to provide Competition Bureau authorities with a breakdown of their figures, which these authorities would keep confidential.

Their standard response when we ask them for their figures is to claim that, as competitors, they cannot disclose that information to us. While they may be competitors, for some strange reason, they all change their prices at exactly the same time. Nevertheless, all five agreed to give us all their figures. A few weeks later I was bitterly disappointed on seeing the Competition Bureau's report. The bureau complained that several companies had refused to hand over their figures. I do not know how to characterize that. If we seriously want to ensure competition in a G7 nation, the institution responsible for market investigations needs the authority to do its job. It needs to be able to compel people to come testify and produce documents. I applaud this initial measure.

Now for the second measure. The law already prohibits agreements between competitors that will restrict competition. That is a no-brainer. However, agreements like that clearly happen at times; the trick is to catch them. Here is the adjustment that is being made to the legislation: Companies are not allowed to enter into an agreement with someone who is not their competitor for the purpose of restricting competition in a market. For example, if a business leases space in a shopping centre to set up a grocery store, it cannot tell the landlord that the only way the it will sign the lease is if the landlord does not lease space to someone else who sells food in the same building. This restricts competition.

Another example is when a food-related business closes down. They sell the building and open another business a little further away. They renovate to make it look good. When selling the old building, they include conditions that the buyer will never be allowed to open a food market. These are real examples that show how competition is reduced. I applaud this measure.

The third measure will likely have a big impact, but it comes a bit late because we now have five major food chains that control 80% of the market. In economics that is called an oligopoly. Even though the owners of these five businesses swear, hand on heart, that they do not talk to each other, we can at the very least assume that they look at one another. We saw evidence of that when they simultaneously stopped giving COVID bonuses to their employees when COVID‑19 was over, on the same day. When the average person sees that, they think that if they are not talking to each other, then they are looking at one another a lot. That is what makes them an oligopoly.

The third measure in the bill relates to not authorizing a merger that reduces competition on the pretext that it increases a company's efficiency. It is important to note that there was a provision in a piece of legislation called the Competition Act that allowed a merger and acquisition to be authorized if it increased a company's efficiency. I should hope that it makes a company more efficient. No company buys another company thinking it will become less efficient or worse at what it does. This can happen because of poor calculations, a poor reading of the market or because it is just not a good company but, generally speaking, an entrepreneur who acquires a competitor on the market clearly intends to reduce competition and become more efficient. If that company is the only one, it can inflate its prices in the long term. That is how it always works.

I could not get over the fact that this criterion existed in the Competition Act. Bill C‑56 proposes to remove that and I applaud that as well. There are some markets that are oligopolistic, but they do not all have the same need for regulations. However, when we talk about food or housing, these are essential needs. I would go further than that and I am sure that my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert will agree with me. These are more than essential needs. Housing and putting food on the table are fundamental rights. The government needs to take effective measures to address these issues.

We need to be aware of other factors that cause the price of groceries to go up. Let us consider the consequences of climate change that our vegetable producers faced this summer. I have sounded the alarm about this in the House a few times now and we still have not received a meaningful answer from the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food nor the Minister of Finance.

At the start of summer, some people invest $2 million to $3 million in their fields. If year after year they are told that they will have to work themselves out of a tight spot all by themselves, they are eventually going to stop investing that $2 million to $3 million. Instead of growing cauliflower, they might go into field crops, where there is less risk. Consequently, we could end up with a food shortage.

I do not want to sound too alarmist, but it happened in Britain and Ireland this year. The shelves were empty or half empty. They turned to the farming countries that can usually sell food, except that they, too, were having production problems, unfortunately, and could not sell anything. There were empty shelves, or shelves where the product was extremely expensive. We do not want that either.

With pricing policies like these, we need a long-term strategic policy, not a short-term plan. Politics' main flaw is that most decision-makers operate on a four-year timeline centred on the next election. I am calling on elected members of the House to take the high road and make the decision that works best for the next generation. That is our job. Otherwise, we have no business here. That is my philosophical take on it.

In the 50 or so seconds I have left, I want to say that the war in Ukraine has put the world grain market under a lot of pressure. Although these factors are beyond our control, the same is not true of the 35% tax still applied to Russian fertilizer, and Canada is the only country that has it. This measure is not effective. Once again, I am asking that this money be returned to farmers. It will cost less in the end.

I could also talk about percentage margins and many other things. I hope that my colleagues in the House will give me an opportunity to say more by asking me intelligent and structured questions.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his thoughtful intervention.

The affordable housing initiative that we are putting forward, with the removal of the GST on rentals, is part of our national housing strategy, which has a variety of different programs intended to reach different parts of the market. Removing the GST is the equivalent of a 5% reduction for developers to build rental units, so we can get more rental units into the marketplace. Now that the cost of interest has gone up, this would help decisions be made to have rental units created.

Could the hon. member comment on how important it is to have such a range of options in our housing strategy?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course removing the GST from housing construction is not a bad idea. All I was saying earlier is that this is a half-measure that will not have much of an impact.

My colleague mentioned it himself in his question. Interest rates are rising well above the 5% GST and builders will pass on the cost in the price of rent.

What we really need are measures that will lower the price of rent and increase the number of available housing, by using supply and demand. The market is currently out of balance.

The solution, I repeat, is 1% of the annual budget for social housing with no strings attached in Quebec and the provinces in order to make this happen quickly, instead of blocking the $900 million — which, I would like the House to know, is still being blocked.

I find it revolting that the government claims to be taking measures for housing when it is keeping money from Quebec. They need to give us our money. We will build housing.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, with whom I sit on the agriculture committee, for his great speech. He brought up a few points with respect to farmers.

We know that grocery prices have increased in the stores. For farmers, input costs have gone up. The biggest thing is the carbon tax. The second is interest rates on loans, so the costs have gone up for servicing debt. Minimum wage has gone up in many provinces. We are seeing those three basic increases, which contribute to the increased price farmers are asking for their products from the grocers.

If we look at lack of competition with respect to the grocery stores, here is one example. I will ask my hon. colleague to comment on this: The price of lettuce in Vancouver is more expensive than that in Toronto. Why would that be, when California, which supplies the lettuce, is closer to Vancouver than it is to Toronto? Why is it that people are paying less in Toronto for groceries than they are in Vancouver? The answer is simple: It is competition. There is more competition in Toronto—

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I appreciate the work she does.

Indeed, competition is the key. In fact, my colleague will recall that, in the report we produced, there were several recommendations, including one that suggested working on the supply chain and doing so effectively.

The problem with this government is that it does not take action. There is a report from the supply chain task force to incentivize investment, but it is going nowhere.

As I mentioned earlier, we also proposed abolishing the tax on Russian fertilizers. In addition, we have also proposed a package of measures to make life easier for our farmers, including a modernization investment program for small and medium-sized processing businesses. When are we going to see that?

These are structural measures that will address the labour shortage and make things more efficient, which could have a long-term effect on prices.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned long-term effects. I want to ask the member this: Unlike the U.S., Canada has never broken up a corporation to protect Canadian consumers, yet the Competition Board has the authority to review beyond initial transactions. Does the Bloc see value in having the Competition Board review the Loblaws-Shoppers Drug Mart merger from 10 years ago?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately it is very difficult to review a transaction that happened years ago. All we can do is take action for the future.

We are currently regulating future transactions, and that is fine. Now, what can we do to make it easier to enter the market?

Could the government not create measures that would favour independent grocers, that could increase food supply and therefore increase competition?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, particularly the part about Bill C-56 that he handled so well. He spoke intelligently, very eloquently and passionately, as always.

I am a little uncertain about how to approach today's debate. Over the past few years, I have talked a lot about housing, about those less fortunate, about people who are being left behind in this country. Last week we debated a motion moved by a Conservative colleague relating to, among other things, children with disabilities. That gave me the opportunity to say that I do not think we are doing enough for the most vulnerable members of our society. They are not being properly considered, and Canada is not doing enough to address the huge problems we are facing right now. Bill C-56 is right in the thick of it. We have a major problem.

This summer, I set out with my pilgrim's staff. I had read in the newspaper back in February that homelessness was now a reality in places where that had never been seen before in Quebec, places like Sainte‑Anne‑des‑Monts, Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon or Saint‑Jean‑de‑Dieu in the Témiscouata region. There were people sleeping in tents on the side of highways and in buildings in places where no one had ever seen anything of the sort. We know that the situation is dire. We have seen the numbers. We need 3.5 million housing units. That was mentioned earlier, and I will come back to it later.

When I heard about that, I decided to take a trip across Quebec over much of the summer. I left in May and June, and again starting in mid-August. What I saw was terrible. Quebec is on the verge of a humanitarian crisis. There are tent cities everywhere. I mentioned Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon, but there are some in Val‑d'Or, in Shawinigan, in Joliette, in Trois‑Rivières. How can we, in this country, accept that a single mother has to sleep in her car with her two children? I cannot accept that. I tell myself that I have some power. I was elected here. I am only one of 338, but I still have the power to do something. We need to act. I got on the road to get a sense of the situation.

This summer, we also heard about a young pregnant woman who gave birth in a wooded area in downtown Gatineau, about one or two kilometres from here. The mayor of Gatineau talked about it. She asked how we could accept that. As an elected official, she too finds that completely unacceptable.

Last week, I was in Quebec City at a symposium on homelessness. We talked about how to deal with this crisis. Bill C-56 brings us back to the housing crisis. What are people telling us about the homelessness problem? This was a problem 20 years ago in Quebec. We know how to deal with these issues. We developed a continuum of services for homeless people, which included emergency resources that are available 24/7, where people could go if it was -20 degrees outside and where they could sleep. These types of resources are not available everywhere, but they were there at one point. Then, there was a continuum of services for people with addictions and mental health issues. They could be brought to a transition house, where they could stay for a month or even two. There were services available there. There were psychologists that could help people. They were working to reintegrate these people back into society. Those who had an addiction got support. At the end of this community help chain to support the most vulnerable, this sort of service pipeline, this process for taking care of people, there was housing.

However, I have seen that, now, there is nothing at the end of the service pipeline. There is no more housing. The result is that homelessness resources are at maximum capacity. There is no room for anyone else, so people are sleeping in tents across the province. How is that acceptable?

I spent the summer talking about that. Everyone is talking about it. It makes the headlines in the media almost every—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I understand that the discussions are interesting, but when the House of Commons is not very full, as is the case right now, private conversations tend to carry a lot more. Hearing our colleagues' conversations makes it hard to concentrate. I wonder if it would be possible to ask them to take their conversations elsewhere or to lower their voices.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The hon. member raises a good point. I would ask all members to be quiet while the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has the floor.

The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert has five minutes left to finish his speech.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that we are at the end of the continuum of service for homelessness. As we saw, there are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec. That was a snapshot of the situation in October 2022, and every organization told me that it was likely just the tip of the iceberg, because the homelessness we see hides the homelessness we do not see. I am thinking, for example, of women trapped in toxic relationships who are forced to stay in the home because they have no resources. Every day in Quebec, a woman who is the victim of domestic violence knocks on the door of a resource for victims of domestic violence and returns to her apartment with her two or three children and her abusive husband. How is such a thing acceptable?

Here we are being offered a half measure. After hearing these testimonies all across Quebec, I expected the government to do something. I saw a poll or two this summer. I imagine that the Liberals saw the same thing and told themselves that the housing crisis was important and they needed to take action. Then they present us with a half measure, a GST credit.

This country needs to build 3.5 million homes by 2030, including 1.1 million in Quebec. We would expect the Liberals to take action if they want to be re-elected. That is one of the major problems of our time. We would expect them to introduce a structuring measure that will change people's lives and enable us to build housing quickly. Instead we are getting a GST credit.

Of course, private builders will benefit from this, but will they really build housing for the less fortunate? Will they build social housing? Rarely in my lifetime have I heard of private contractors getting involved in social housing. That does not happen very often.

There was an attempt in Montreal. Mayor Plante tried, with the 20-20-20 bylaw, which required developers who build 80, 100 or 120 units to build 20% social housing, 20% affordable housing and 20% housing for families. Many developers would rather pay the penalty than build social housing. Obviously, people who live in $2,500-a-month homes do not really like having poor people as neighbours. It can interfere with property values.

Nothing is being done to solve this problem. As my colleague so well put it, the government had one chance, and now that makes two missed opportunities.

The first missed opportunity was withholding the $900 million. I cannot believe it. There is a program called the housing accelerator fund for municipalities. It was part of the 2022 budget, and not a penny of the program funding has been spent in Quebec. Clearly, no one has figured out how to accelerate this program. It has been a year and a half, and there is a desperate need, yet not a penny has been spent. We are being told that the Quebec government is investing money as well. That could add up to more than $1 billion to quickly build housing to help our people. It makes no sense. How is that acceptable?

What I am hearing is that the people in Quebec City want to use this money to build housing, but the people in Ottawa want the accelerator fund to be used to help municipalities with zoning and infrastructure and so on. Perhaps that would be helpful, but right now, Ottawa is the one hindering housing construction. It has been a year and a half since this $4-billion program was passed, and they have just started building homes elsewhere in Canada.

The second missed opportunity dates back to 2017, when the government launched its major national housing strategy, an $82-billion program. It took three years before even a single penny was spent in Quebec. Who is holding up the projects? Both the Liberals and the Conservatives like to say that it is the cities that are delaying projects and that they are going to fix the problem. No, it is not the cities that are holding up the projects. It is the federal government that is holding up the projects. That is unacceptable.

There is something else the government could do quickly. In Quebec's low-income housing stock, 72,000 housing units were built before 1993, and 4,500 of them have been boarded up because they are too dilapidated. These housing units still come under agreements with the federal government. It seems to me that funds could be allocated pretty quickly in the current context. These nearly 5,000 units already exist, and we would not need to zone anything. They are there; they exist. These are actual social housing units that could house people.

The government made a promise and it has to pay for these renovations, but it is nitpicking, fussing over the colour of the wallpaper and the tiling, or the depth of the sink. We are not too sure. There are discussions among people of taste. How are these homes going to be built? There are 4,500 housing units. If the government signed a cheque now, it could have 5,000 brand new social housing units ready for next July 1 in Quebec. The victims of domestic violence I was just talking about could be housed there.

It seems to me that the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities could make a quick call to Ms. Bowers—

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that there are so many in the House who are passionate about building housing. I was concerned that he was downplaying the impact of the GST credit. It is not a magic bullet that will solve anything, but it will be significant. It will produce hundreds of thousands of units of housing.

Just today we have seen, in Toronto, 5,000 units of housing that are going to be built because of this tax credit. That is one announcement, in one city, in one moment.

Why is he downplaying this when it is already having an impact?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know why Bill C-56 does not include an affordability criterion as part of the eligibility for the GST credit. Including it would have made things simple. The government could force private builders to make housing truly affordable. However, it was not included.

Perhaps my colleague from Joliette will manage to get this added at committee, but I do not understand why the government did not include it. With this GST credit, all the government is going to do is hand out more money. The main problem with the major national housing strategy that was launched is that it is giving a lot of the money to private developers. The private sector wants to line its pockets. That is how capitalism works.

It is absolutely essential that the government invest in building real social housing.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join in the debate today. I have heard, often, my Bloc colleagues talk about there being no carbon tax effects in Quebec. I am sure all of the food that is consumed in Quebec is not produced in Quebec.

There is a carbon tax on the farmers that produce the food. There is a carbon tax on the truckers that truck the food, so why would he not think that the carbon tax would affect the consumers in Quebec?

It gets produced in other parts of the country and trucked from all across the country, so that food is more expensive in Quebec because of the carbon tax.

Would he not agree with that?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what is most expensive in Quebec right now is housing and rent. That is what is needed right now. I listen to the Conservatives here in the House and I try to find solutions. I listen to what they are proposing. All they want is to punish cities. They say that cities cannot get it right, that they will get in there to clean up the mess and make sure that cities build housing.

Come on. That has never worked. If it worked, we would know it. Punishing cities is not the way to go. What we need is for the federal government to really step up, because it has taxation power.

According to the IMF, we gave the oil industry $50 billion in 2022. Meanwhile, people in Quebec have to sleep outdoors. How is that acceptable?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert came to see us in Shefford. The problem is very serious in Granby. The member toured Quebec, and what the organizations in Quebec are asking for is assistance for community groups.

Community groups in Quebec are not talking to us about taxes. The idea of investing more money, for example 1% of the GDP, speaks to community groups, those that work every day with people in social housing and the homeless. There are also the acquisition funds. People tell me about ideas like giving more clout to other types of projects and taking this file out of the private market.

My colleague addressed the issue of victims of domestic violence and that is why I wanted to take the floor. He talked about the $900 million that is being held in Ottawa right now. In the middle of the pandemic, while women were stuck 24 hours a day with their abuser, Ottawa was withholding money for women's shelters. That was in the middle of the pandemic. It is unacceptable. The federal government was withholding the money because it was trying to impose conditions.

It is time to give the money to Quebec. These are matters that fall under Quebec's responsibility. The government needs to stop withholding the money. Women and children are at risk.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right; that is unacceptable.

The government seems totally clueless about this problem. As I have said, we need to build 1.1 million housing units in Quebec and 3.5 million in Canada. A GST break alone is not going to make a big difference.

We absolutely have to have a strategy. We need an industrial-strength strategy. When the pandemic hit, the government managed to organize everything, send cheques out to workers and businesses and roll out vaccination across the country. How did it do that? It all happened in record time.

Why can we not mobilize the entire Canadian government behind this issue? It seems to me that we should all be able to get on board with taking care of the least fortunate.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is quite adamant about waking us all up on important issues, which I appreciate. When it comes to the market, however, I think it is important to delineate two facts. One is that the housing market we are seeing in Canada is largely a privatized one. It has been the belief of both the Conservatives and the Liberals that the market is going to fix itself.

Does the member agree with the New Democratic Party that we need non-market solutions to what is, in fact, a crisis facing Canadians?

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

Sadly, we are out of time. We have to continue.

The member for Winnipeg South Centre.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kingston and the Islands.

On June 19, the people of Winnipeg South Centre put their trust in me to be their voice in this chamber. It is with the greatest sense of pride and humility that I rise today for my maiden speech as a member of Parliament.

The people of Winnipeg South Centre are as diverse as the country itself. It is a riding comprising individuals who have arrived in Canada recently and those, such as my ancestors, who escaped the pogroms of Europe, who came some time in the more distant past, as well as first nations and Red River Métis. We are blessed in Winnipeg South Centre to reflect the foundation of diversity upon which Canada is built.

What I appreciate most about the people of Winnipeg South Centre is their deep social conscience. They hold a collective belief in the responsibility that we all bear to look after one another. They care about those around them, never limiting the scope of their concerns to themselves only, but extending it broadly. It is an honour to be an extension of that here.

I saw these values reflected in the thousands of conversations I had with neighbours during the recent by-election campaign. Whether it be concerns related to climate change, reconciliation, mental health or education, my constituents are engaged, and they care.

I come to this role with a deep sense of gratitude and responsibility. As I took my seat last week and walked in this chamber past colleagues from all sides of the House and all parties, I was overcome by the magnitude of this place and reminded of how great a privilege it is to have the honour to serve one's community within these walls.

Today, I am thinking of those who have helped to shape me along the years: teachers, coaches, friends, family, neighbours and constituents. Whether it was Monsieurs Sokalski and Young at Kelvin High School, who fostered my love for civics and history; my coaches, Romu and Urbanovich, who taught me to always keep my head up and do my part as a member of a team; my dear friend who we lost earlier this year, Lydia Hedrich, who reminded me to always focus on my north star; or my mother and father, who instilled in me the foundational values of kindness, hard work and honesty that guide my actions today, I have been incredibly well served by those who collectively raised me. Of course, I am eternally grateful to my partner, Amy, for the positive influence she is on me every day.

I am a product of bilingualism in Canada. Like many Canadians across the country, I was in a French immersion program from kindergarten to grade 12. It was during a French speaking competition that I first announced, “One day, I will be an MP”.

The public service has guided a number of the decisions I have made throughout my lifetime. I will continue to improve my French as best I can here in the House.

With every job or duty that I have undertaken in my life, the underlying aim has been to contribute to the benefit of the community that helped raise me. Whether it was as a teacher, volunteer coach or school principal, I have tried to immerse myself in actions that give something back.

Of particular focus for me over the coming months will be to advocate for the advancement of our collective journey toward truth and reconciliation, and I am grateful for the opportunity to sit on the Standing Committee for Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I have had the privilege as a teacher and principal to work closely with indigenous students and their families. I feel that, despite the significant progress that has been made since 2015, there is still much more work to do at the federal level to ensure equity and opportunity for young people from our indigenous communities.

By fostering stronger bonds with these communities and working together with our provincial colleagues as well as post-secondary institutions across the country, we can achieve meaningful progress.

I come to my work as a parliamentarian with a view through many lenses. In addition to conveying the thoughts and aspirations relayed to me by the people of Winnipeg South Centre, I arrive here as a teacher, as a Jew, as a son and as a westerner.

My hometown of Winnipeg is a special place. As an emerging destination for newcomers and economic development in the 19th and 20th centuries, Winnipeg served, and continues to serve, as the gateway to the west. As I look to the future of this great country, I see no region playing a more critical role than western Canada.

As we tackle the climate crisis, the Prairies will be there to innovate. With technologies like carbon capture and green hydrogen, wind and solar power, vast networks of clean hydroelectric energy, and critical minerals, we will lead the way.

Although I have been assured that my maiden speech can be somewhat less relevant to the debate at hand, it is timely that we are discussing the issues of affordability as I give these remarks, for the future costs we will assume or avoid as a country are rooted in the issues I have just highlighted.

If we do not address climate change, we will bear significant costs, ranging from massive increases in insurance premiums to emergency preparedness, infrastructure and more. If we do not follow the facts and medical expertise on how to effectively address the drug and mental health crisis we face in this country, including the implementation at provincial levels of supervised safe consumption sites, our costs for health care and within the criminal justice system will never be resolved or recovered.

If we do not continue moving towards closing the gap with indigenous education, we will leave the nation's fastest-growing generation’s ideas and intellect behind and perpetuate the harms of the residential school era. In my home province of Manitoba, of the 11,000 children in the care of child and family services, 90% of them are indigenous.

In addition to the west, I am eager to contribute where possible to the growth and stability of our north. In my home province of Manitoba, the Port of Churchill will play a vital role in economic export activity, clean energy transmission and, of growing significance, Arctic sovereignty.

As we talk about affordability, it is a combination of these social and economic policies that will ensure that life is better for Canadians from all parts of the country. Along with the announcements the government has made in recent days pertaining to the GST on purpose-built homes, inclusive of the proposed changes to the Competition Act, are significant steps in our ongoing efforts to make life more affordable for Canadians, and to ease the financial burden being driven by myriad global factors.

As I conclude these maiden remarks, I want to turn my memory for a moment to my father. Less than a year ago, he stood courageously in this very chamber, just a few seats away from the one that I occupy today, and he used, literally, the last days of his life to continue fighting for the country and the region that he loved. The aspect of his work that I, as his son, was most proud of, across a long and diverse career of public contributions, was his unwavering commitment to building bridges and a conduct that evaded hyperpartisanship at every opportunity. Whenever the time may come that I look back at my own parliamentary career to judge its successes and shortcomings, I hope that I will be able to genuinely say that I have lived up to the standard that he set for us all.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his election and appointment to the agriculture committee which he did not mention in his speech, which I find completely shameful. That should have led off his entire presentation, but that is okay.

I know he did not talk a great deal about the bill that we are talking about here today. I certainly appreciate that when someone is giving their maiden speech, they want to thank those who worked hard to get them here and what it means for all of us. However, now that he is member of the agriculture committee, with one aim of this bill being to reduce the grocery prices of food that all Canadians are struggling with, I would ask my colleague this.

We know now from the Canada food index that an average 5,000-acre farm will pay $150,000 in carbon taxes. Farmers will be paying close to a billion dollars in carbon taxes between now and the year 2030. The Liberals are also going to be putting $2 billion in new costs on farmers, producers and processors on front-of-pack labelling. Could the Liberals not address the food crisis and the price crisis right now by eliminating the carbon tax and eliminating this regulatory red tape?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I admit it was an egregious error not to begin my remarks by highlighting the fact that I have also been named, as he has, to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I look forward to working with the member; as I mentioned earlier, the west is going to be at the forefront of change in this country, and the agricultural industry is critical to that change. Whether it is advancement that we are going to see in transportation, in clean energy or in the social issues that I mentioned previously in my remarks, it will be western Canada at the forefront. We have the brains and the leadership in the Prairies to lead the way.

Specifically related to the price of food, I will note that, in preparation for my work on the agriculture committee, I read through the report that the committee produced just a few months ago related to the price of food. At no point since the pandemic had the cost of food in Canada surpassed that in the United States. The point here is that this is a global issue. We are taking concrete measures, and we will continue to do so through this legislation.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to welcome the member to the House of Commons. I would also like to say that I was here when his father gave his farewell speech in the House, and I was here when people paid tribute after his passing. The words of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia left not a single dry eye in the House. With utmost respect, I welcome him to his new role as a member of Parliament. I am sure he will fill those shoes with dignity and professionalism.

Since my colleague is a member of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to talk more about food prices and inflation, which is hitting Quebeckers and Canadians hard these days. I know that the government is trying, that it has summoned the heads of the major chains and major agri-food companies, but I think we need to consult farmers. They should be part of the solution and part of the conversation.

Should the burden on farmers not be eased because they are at the base of the chain?

Should the burden on farmers not be eased so as to reduce costs throughout the supply chain?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his kind words. As I said earlier, these are global challenges that we are also facing in Canada. We have taken and will continue to take concrete action to ensure that grocery costs continue to drop.

I would once again like to thank my colleague for his words. I will have the opportunity to work with him on these issues in the weeks and months to come.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome my hon. colleague to the House. I had the honour to sit beside his father. In the final weeks, I asked him every day, “Jim, how are you doing?” He said, “Every day is grace.”

I welcome my hon. colleague, and I thank him for his words on indigenous education and the climate crisis. We know there are many in this House who do not believe that our planet is on fire and would rather have it burn if it made a few extra bucks for big oil. We all need to work together, so I thank my colleague.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an absolute honour to have been afforded the opportunity to share my time today with the member for Winnipeg South Centre, who has just delivered his maiden speech in this House. I want to echo others in saying that we deeply miss his father. He was such an incredible asset to our team and provided great insight. He was always an incredible individual to interact with, whether in the government lobby or wherever it was. Right up until his last day in this House, he had so much energy, and it was always a pleasure to deal with him.

I am equally delighted and excited to have our newest member, the member for Winnipeg South Centre, here as part of our team. I look forward to working with him in the future.

There are a few things I want to talk about in relation to Bill C-56. I want to echo some of the comments I heard my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre mention a few minutes ago in response to the first question with respect to affordability, more generally speaking, and how this is really a global issue and global problem that people are facing.

The member hit the nail right on the head when he made comments about agriculture and how food prices in the United States have always inflated a lot faster than they do here in Canada. I know that is small comfort to those who are really affected by it, in particular, some of the most vulnerable in our communities. However, it is important, in the context of our debates, to recognize that inflation is a global thing, something that has happened globally.

I will provide the latest statistics in terms of inflation. Canada ranks second lowest in the G7 in terms of inflation. We all know that it is 4% right now, but the only country lower would be Japan, at 3.3%. Indeed, the U.K. is at 6.7%, Germany is at 6.1%, Italy is at 5.4%, France is at 4.9% and the U.S. is at 3.7%. That would make two countries below Canada.

I realize that this is very insignificant and small comfort for those affected by it. However, it is important, when we are having these discussions, to talk about where we are in terms of our position within the G7 and our comparative countries, so that we can understand how to properly address the issue. If we are not recognizing where the issue comes from, it is going to be very difficult to address where to go and to create proper policies to help deal with it.

That is where this bill comes in. In particular, I want to talk about the competition improvements in this bill and what it seeks to do to further enhance competition in the marketplace. We know that when companies are competitive and there is robust competition in our economy, consumers end up with the best deal. That is the way it is supposed to work, but sometimes, of course, that does not happen, because different businesses get together and carry out particular practices that end in not having that robust competition.

Specifically, I am sure everyone can tell that I am speaking about when businesses get together and collude on price-fixing. That does not help anybody. It certainly does not help the consumer. In terms of efficiency, it does not help the economy; does not help the businesses in the long run either when they become used to the ability to fix prices in that way. That is why I bring to the attention of the House that, back in 2022, we introduced legislation to improve competitiveness in the marketplace. Unfortunately, Conservatives voted against it.

What did we see as a result of that? As a direct result of that legislation that was introduced in 2022, we saw Canada Bread sentenced to pay a $50-million fine after pleading guilty to fixing wholesale bread prices. Therefore, we know that this type of legislation is working. We know that it was able to contribute to rooting out a price-fixing practice, properly fining those responsible and, ultimately, setting them on the right course to prevent this type of activity from happening into the future.

In that case, which was just resolved in June, the Canada Bread Company, Limited was fined $50 million by the Ontario Superior Court after pleading guilty for its role in a criminal price-fixing arrangement that raised the wholesale price of fresh commercial bread. This is the highest price-fixing fine imposed by a Canadian court to date, or at least that was the case when this happened.

We know that the legislation we introduced back in 2022, which Conservatives unfortunately chose not to support and voted against, had a direct result in terms of the ability of the government and agencies that are tasked by the government to ensure that they can continue to maintain competitiveness. This is very important, especially when we are talking about bread or groceries. We know the price is increasing.

I will just give a quick stat. In the United States, Walmart has the largest share of grocery sales; I believe it is right around 20%. It might be just under 20%. In Canada, it is Loblaws, which has around 43%. Our largest share, as a percentage of grocery sales in Canada, has more than double the shares that Walmart has in the United States.

Loblaws merged with Shoppers Drug Mart under Stephen Harper's watch, and that has continued to build. We brought in legislation in 2022 to try to help deal with this; Conservatives voted against it.

Now we have more legislation, and I really hope Conservatives will vote in favour of this, that specifically goes to improving once again on the competitiveness in the industry. This bill would give the Competition Bureau the power to stop big business mergers with anti-competitive effects. It would also enable the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and get the data and information from companies it is examining. Moreover, it would stop the anti-competitive collaborations that stifle small businesses, especially small grocers.

I know the default reaction to this from Conservatives was that they brought forward a private member's bill and the government stole their idea. One of the concerns of the Conservatives seems to be that this was their idea, through a private member's bill of one of their members, and now it is suddenly in this bill. This seems to be what they are upset about. I did not think policy was created to satisfy one individual's ego. I thought it was for the betterment of Canadians.

Here we are with Conservatives complaining about the fact that this was their idea and we stole it. Should they not be flattered? My mother used to always say that imitation is the best form of flattery. I know this better than probably most members in this House, because back in 2016, I introduced a bill that had EI reform in it, which the government totally voted against but the Conservatives all voted in favour of. Once it passed, the government took my idea and put it in the budget, and I was thrilled by it. At the end of the day, I knew that what I was doing, my idea and what I put forward, whether it had my name on it or not, was something Canadians would benefit from.

I hope Conservatives take pride in the fact they had a great idea. Whether the government had the same idea or saw their idea and took it is completely irrelevant. What is important is that, at the end of the day, we have policies in place that are for the betterment of all Canadians. That is our job here, and I am proud to sit across the aisle from individuals who have come up with similar ideas and have a similar approach to it.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my colleague is talking about the price of food increasing but does not do the simple, basic math. When one taxes a farmer and puts a tax on fuel for farmers to take the food from the field to the farm, and when one taxes truckers to ship it to the grocery stores and then puts the carbon tax on the fuel for the families to go to the grocery stores to buy their food, it is no wonder food is expensive. It is the policies of the government that are outright making food more expensive.

To my hon. colleague, maybe if you took away the carbon tax, and it was a more competitive environment for our farmers to grow in, instead of competing with other countries around the world that do not pay this carbon tax on the things they grow, we would see the price of groceries decline in this country. Would you comment on why you are making it so hard for farmers to grow food to feed families in Canada?

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

I will just pause to encourage members to direct questions through the Speaker.

We have a point of order from the member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member who represents the Green Party does support making polluters pay; the Conservatives do not. I think it is unfair that she is singling you out when it is really the member for Kingston and the Islands.

[The Acting Speaker, Green, Mike Morrice]

That is obviously not a point of order.

The hon. deputy House leader.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course that is the narrative the Conservatives are playing all the time and they want everyone to believe it.

How about this one? Ukraine was growing 15% of the world's grain. What happens when that stops all of a sudden? Do members think the price of grain is going to increase by 15%? If someone has even the most rudimentary understanding of free trade and the global economy, they will realize very quickly the price is going to shoot up.

Conservatives come into the House day after day and try to paint the picture as though this is strictly a problem that exists within Canada, but that is just not true. I started my speech by giving the statistics on that and letting the House know exactly where we stood in the world. This is a global problem. If we are just going to look day in, day out at how this is a problem and if we are just going to look within Canada and not look at it globally, we are never going to come up with a proper solution because we are not recognizing the real problem.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, which is a mini-reform and contains a few small measures, is the government admitting that the Canadian housing strategy is a failure? Objectively, it has been a failure.

Is that what the government is admitting?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I focused my remarks today on the Competition Act amendments part of this, and to suggest that it is minor is an incredible disservice. I already told members about how, in 2022, we brought along provisions that led to a $50-million fine for Canada Bread Company earlier this year.

What we have already done in terms of anti-competition, which the Conservatives voted against, has resulted in significant fines and significant abilities to do something about the competition and anti-competition practices in this country.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing up the merger between Loblaw and Shoppers Drug Mart. I am sure the member knows now that bread is also for sale at Shoppers Drug Mart.

If the member knows that Loblaw has 40% of the market share on bread, why have the Liberals not tried to break up these monopolies?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this bill is at the stage where it is going to go to committee. The member will have the opportunity, at that time, to raise these very important questions and then decide what the recommendations out of committee will be.

My point in my observation earlier was to show how anti-competitive things are in Canada right now, especially as compared to the United States, as I did in my speech.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have doubled, rent has doubled, mortgage payments have doubled and the down payment needed for a new average home has doubled. Before the Prime Minister, it took 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now, in Toronto, it takes the average family 25 years to save for a down payment.

Before the Prime Minister, one could buy an average home for a modest $450,000 and at significantly lower interest rates. Now, one has to pay over $700,000 for the exact same home with the exact same walls, roof, windows, floors and basement, and one must pay much higher rates on the mortgage for that home. Under the Prime Minister, housing costs 50% more in Canada than it does in the United States, and one can buy a castle in Sweden for the price of a two-bedroom, rundown home in Kitchener.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, Toronto now ranks as the worst housing bubble in the world, according to the UBS bank. Vancouver is now the third most overpriced housing market in the world when we compare average income to average house price. It is worse than New York; London, England; and Singapore, a tiny island with 2,000 times more people per square kilometre. All these places have more money, more people and less land, and yet somehow, miraculously, their housing is more affordable.

According to the IMF, Canada now has the riskiest mortgage debt in the entire G7. We have by far the most indebted households, all of which have had to take on these massive mortgages to pay for the exorbitant house prices that have skyrocketed under the Prime Minister.

Speaking of those rocketing prices, they have two causes. One is that the Prime Minister had the central bank print $600 billion. When it does that, it does not just drop the money out of airplanes or deliver it to the PMO in a Brink's truck, as much as he might like for that to be the case. Rather, it buys government bonds on the secondary market, which makes it easier for the government to borrow and spend, which the Prime Minister loves, but it also has the by-product of massively increasing the cash in the financial system that gets lent out in mortgages, disproportionately to the wealthy insiders who have connections to the banking system, who then bid up housing prices. During that money-printing orgy, we saw the number of homes bought by investors literally double in a year and a half, a 100% increase, which led to the fastest increase in house prices ever recorded in Canadian history.

The second cause deals with supply. After eight years of the Prime Minister, Canada has the fewest homes per capita of any country in the G7, even though we have the most land to build on. Why? It is because we have the second-slowest building permits out of all 40 OECD countries. Only the Slovak Republic is slower.

So what are the solutions to that? One, we need to cap spending and cut waste to balance the budget and bring down interest rates and inflation. Two, we need to get rid of the government gatekeepers who block home building.

Now, the government has come up with this idea of a housing accelerator fund. It is a $2-billion program. The Liberals announced it a year and a half ago and so far it has not built a single, solitary home anywhere. They had one photo-op announcement, where there was a promise that it would eventually build 2,000 homes. Well, it sounds like a lot, but according to CMHC, we need to increase the projected home building by 3.5 million homes between now and 2030. In other words, even if they keep their promise of building 2,000 more homes in London, Ontario, they would have to do that same announcement and execute the announcement, with results, 1,500 times to get up to the 3.5 million homes we need.

Now, there is a very big difference. A lot of the media tried to say that the Prime Minister's accelerator is an attempt to copy my housing plan. It might be the same in messaging and rhetoric, but in practice it is totally different, and here is the difference: He is funding bureaucracy; I will fund results.

Let me use a hockey analogy. A team wins the Stanley Cup if it scores the most goals in the most games, gets into the playoffs, wins the most games in every series and ultimately win the finals. Winning is about putting pucks in nets.

Can members imagine if, instead, the referee said that he was going to give points based on the practices of the team members? He would go to the Calgary Flames' Saddledome and say that they have an excellent skating drill, so he is going to give them 10 points. Then he would go over to the Maple Leafs, which may be a bad example, and say that they have an excellent pep talk before each game, and he is going to give them a few points. Then he goes over to the Vancouver Canucks and says that they do an excellent job of practising their shooting accuracy on the ice, and gives them a bunch of points.

However, he does not realize that, when he has turned his back, the Flames hockey team might be having a beer and pizza party every night that fattens up the teammates and makes them less successful on the ice, or the Toronto Maple Leafs spend more time on the golf course than they do on the ice, or the Vancouver Canucks do not practise when the referee is not looking. Therefore, when the referee is not looking, he does not know what they are doing.

Let us bring this example to housing. The Liberals want the Minister of Housing to go around to judge the practices, as he sees them in his eyes, of each municipality and then give them lump sum grants based on what practices they take. They might speed up permits one day when the minister is looking, but then they might increase the cost of development charges on the next, or add a new site plan process that adds a bunch of extra time after it has this big grant and photo op from the minister. In other words, it might not build more houses. Just today the minister was forced to cancel a photo op with the City of Vancouver because it is proposing to raise its development charges on new home building, even though last week it made a favourable announcement.

What is the solution to this? Why do we not judge our cities and their approval processes by how many homes they complete, or in other words, how many pucks go in the net. That is judging by results. My common sense approach is very simple math. I would require every city in Canada to boost housing completions by 15% per year. If it beats that target by 1%, it gets 1% more money. If it misses it by 1%, it gets 1% less money. If it beats it by 10%, it gets 10% more money, but if it misses it by 10%, it gets 10% less. It is very simple: build more, get more. Incentives work. That is why we give kids who perform best on their exams a higher mark to take home on their report card to their parents. That is why employers pay bonuses to high-performing employees. That is how the real world works.

I am not going to tell the cities how to do it. As long as they safely allow for builders to complete 15% or more home building every single year, they would get more money from my government. By the way, they would generate more money for my government because more home building means more people working, which means more people paying taxes.

All of this is common sense. My government would be paying for results across the board. We would clear away the bureaucracy and get things done. Those who help me get things done would be rewarded. Speaking of rewards, just like with the Stanley Cup, those superstar municipalities that massively increase home building would be eligible for an even bigger home-building top-up, a massive building bonus, so they can take that money and use it to service the new communities they have allowed to be built.

Some say it cannot be done, that we cannot safely build homes faster. The Brits and Americans approve building permits three times faster than us, and they do it just as safely. It is not just them. Thank God the Squamish people in Vancouver do not have to follow Vancouver city hall rules because they are on a reserve. Can members guess what they did? They approved 6,000 new homes on 10 acres of land. That is 600 homes per acre. Now people will have affordable homes built that would not have been possible if the gatekeepers had been in the way.

Imagine if we could have stories like that right across the country. That is what my plan, the building homes not bureaucracy act, would enable. Let us build homes of the future. Let us base it on the common sense of the common people united for our common home, their home, my home, our home. Let us bring it home.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, in Vancouver Kingsway, we have an intense housing crisis and have had for several decades.

I would say that one of the most successful models of affordable housing has been co-ops. We had a very successful federal co-op program in this country that started in the 1970s and 1980s. It built tens of thousands of units across this country, many of which in my riding still exist today. This was thanks to CMHC long-term financing combined with provincial government support. The municipalities contributed land and were helped by non-profit societies that did the building.

I am just wondering whether my hon. colleague would agree with me and the NDP that we need a vibrant, robust, modern co-op program to build hundreds of thousands of co-op units for Canadians. Does he think that would help solve the problem? Would he support that?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, of course. Just name it: co-ops, market housing and purpose-built private rentals. We need it all. However, to get a co-op housing complex completed, there need to be rapid permits. The local gatekeepers need to get out of the way.

The NDP premier in the member's province said recently that he was trying to fund housing for developmentally disabled people that has been held up for two years by local government gatekeepers. The question is, why has the NDP government there not legislated away those obstacles that municipalities, which are creatures of the province, have put in the way? The reality is that under the NDP in B.C. and the Liberal-NDP coalition in Ottawa, housing costs have doubled. Nowhere is it worse than in NDP Vancouver. We need to get the government out of the way and build homes, not bureaucracy.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition comes here and just recycles old slogans. He is not providing anything substantial. He is threatening municipalities with cutting infrastructure but expects them to build more housing.

This bill is already having impacts, and it has not yet passed. Today, we have already seen a Toronto developer announce 5,000 new units of housing in Toronto. Without this bill having passed, it is already having an impact. Why is the Conservative Party standing against it?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are not. I do not know what he is talking about.

Speaking of 5,000 homes, if he believes removing the GST on purpose-built rental is what is needed to build 5,000 homes, then why did the Liberals not do it eight years ago when they promised it? More importantly, why did the Liberals decide to do it now? It is because they got wind that I was going to announce it, and they wanted to front-run my announcement and avoid the embarrassment of having, once again, been outdone and outperformed by the Conservative opposition, which has led this debate from the very beginning.

The bill before us today is mostly promises that the Liberals already broke or things they stole from the Conservative Party. All the Competition Act components of this bill came from my competition shadow minister, the member for Bay of Quinte. Of course we are going to support the measures we have proposed. However, this would go only a small step towards undoing the damage the Prime Minister has caused by doubling housing costs. If the Liberals really want a solution, they should pass the building homes not bureaucracy act.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have blamed municipalities for the delays in housing construction. However, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the National Bank and TD Bank, the lack of housing in Canada has more to do with a sharp rise in demand. This sharp rise in demand is partly the result of immigration.

What does the Leader of the Opposition think of the government's immigration targets?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, government targets have nothing to do with the ability to build houses. That is why the Conservative Party had common-sense targets when it was in power. We welcomed immigrants, but we were also able to build housing, create jobs and reduce wait times in the health care system, all at the same time. That is a common-sense approach.

The Bloc Québécois, on the other hand, will never be able to do anything about that, because all it wants to do is drastically increase taxes on the backs of Quebeckers. We in the Conservative Party will cut taxes.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am always very happy to rise in the House. It is always a privilege. I will say one thing, though. Speaking right after the leader of the official opposition is quite a challenge for me.

Before going into the bill we have to address today, I just want to warn the leader when he talks about hockey, because he made an analogy with a hockey team in the NHL and he talked about the Toronto Maple Leafs. I like them. I am the one who likes them, even though I am from Quebec City. We have to win in Toronto, by the way, so we will win, first of all, with the Maple Leafs.

This reminds me of a good joke made by Prime Minister Harper in 2014 when he was in Quebec City. Maybe the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles was there too. The prime minister said that Quebec and Toronto have a point in common, common ground in some aspects. Those two cities dream about having an NHL again team one day, because the Toronto Maple Leafs are not exactly a very NHL-level team, but that is coming.

We are gathered here to talk about Bill C‑56, which basically covers two things: the Competition Act, which I will talk about a little later in my speech, and support that needs to be provided for building houses.

We all know that Canada is in the midst of the worst housing crisis in our history. We need concrete, effective, well-thought-out measures to re-energize the construction sector. People say that, when construction goes well, everything goes well. In Canada, that has never been truer. Construction is not going well here, and neither is anything else, certainly not when it comes to the economy, taxation or inflation.

Earlier, our leader astutely pointed out that, in just eight years of Liberal government, the housing situation overall has deteriorated dramatically, and that has really hurt Canadians. That is why we have to take concrete, effective, meaningful measures that will have a positive impact on everyone. It is time to stop setting easy targets, spouting lofty principles and making grand announcements. It is time to produce results.

That is why our leader introduced a bill that essentially reflects the broad outlines he set out in his now-famous speech in Quebec City on September 8, when 2,500 Conservatives from across the country gathered together. In his speech, the leader laid out the key areas we will focus on as a government when Canadians put their trust in us in the next election.

It is essentially about incentivizing performance to build housing and encouraging real results. This means that, as a first step, cities will have to have realistic ambitions of more than 15%. We need to increase housing construction by 15% to have more than 15% new housing, year after year. Cities that meet this target will have the necessary funding. If cities exceed that target, they will be rewarded and encouraged, because we will give them more. We are not going to punish performance. On the contrary, we will reward it. Conversely, if, by chance, some cities do not reach this target, funding will obviously drop. It is just common sense.

The same goes for public transit. Residential density will have to be established where public transit already exists and must go. The funding will guarantee both. If we build high-density housing near public transit services, more people will take public transit and there will be more funding for that. It makes sense. It is not a question of announcements to please one side or the other. It is about results.

We are also introducing penalties for blatant cases of “not in my backyard”. All too often we see developers and people in the housing sector saying that they want to work on a certain project, that they are going to do it in a particular location, but not where a certain population lives, because it might upset Mr. or Mrs. X. That is not the right approach. Rather, we need to encourage construction and go where the needs are. We must avoid the “not in my backyard” principle, which unfortunately all too often hinders housing construction.

That is essentially what our action in terms of housing will be based on, because that is what we need. There are other aspects to our housing strategy. Our approach to housing also considers the fact that, at this very moment, there is unused space in federal buildings, mostly because of the pandemic and telework. How many federal buildings are there across the country? The answer is 37,000. That is a lot.

We want to turn 15% of these 37,000 buildings into housing units. Federal buildings are essentially office buildings. Office buildings are usually located downtown. Turning half-empty buildings into housing units is a very smart and common-sense solution. Work areas will simply need to be set up more efficiently and the workforce will have to be reinstalled accordingly. It will not be easy, we are aware of that. Not all buildings will be well suited for that. It is up to us to figure that out to make sure that we can bring people back and revitalize the downtown cores and have affordable housing in the downtown areas of our cities so that people can have access to housing and services. We would do that in the first 18 months of a government led by the member for Carleton.

It is also important to be aware that there is an organization in Canada that was created several years ago to provide assistance with housing construction. I am talking about the CMHC. We are well aware that, in a situation as urgent as this one, it is time for a swift kick in the pants, as they say, to make sure there is a review of the CMHC's mandate.

I am not saying that what the CMHC is doing is not good, but we need to ensure that things are done correctly and a lot more efficiently. Since the CMHC is a Crown corporation that is a bit more independent from the government than others, it must be accountable. That is especially true for public agencies.

That is why we want to speed up the issuing of permits. Right now, it takes far too long to get a permit from the CMHC. We need to speed that up. We therefore need to reduce the salaries and bonuses of the decision-makers who are not delivering the necessary results. We need to target an average of 60 days and be very sure this will get done faster than the average we have right now.

I would like to remind the House that in my region, Quebec City, we currently have an extraordinary project called the Fleur de Lys project. It is a private investment of $1.7 billion. I had the chance to visit it two weeks ago in my riding. This project by the Trudel family is absolutely fantastic. It is getting support and assistance from the municipality. The people from Quebec City are drawn to this project because it is in a sector that was not necessarily at its peak. They are in the process of creating an extraordinary focal point. It is a $1.7‑billion private investment. These are successful people who want to share their success with everyone.

This project is so impressive that it is a bit too much, it seems, for the CMHC. The CMHC needs to be more flexible to ensure that projects like this, in Quebec City, can achieve their full potential. It is perfectly normal. We do not want to turn things upside down just to please everyone, but it is normal, in an extreme housing crisis like the one we are in right now, to have another look at the entities and the rules that are in place. When we are in an emergency situation, it takes new emergency measures to see things.

That is why Canada, now more than ever, needs a common-sense government. Now more than ever, Canada needs people who will lead the country by focusing on results instead of trying to cajole the people with empty announcements. Now more than ever, we need realistic targets and real action that will address the issues that are directly impacting Canadian families. We all have friends or family members who struggle with housing. We need action. We must build more housing units.

Our approach will build new housing units by incentivizing people to do more with better incentives and financial support instead of pretending that everything is fine. Over the last eight years, the situation has gotten so bad in this country that new constructions, sadly, are not welcome. We need to start building again in the second-largest country on the planet, where there is no shortage of space. That is common sense.

Yes, more than ever, we will be proud to welcome new Canadians.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the bureaucracy, and the previous speaker, the member for Carleton, took credit for other people's work. One of these people is Mike Moffatt, author of the National Housing Accord. He had the chance to read the Conservative proposal for affordable housing.

He said that “this bill is an exceptionally weak response to the housing crisis, riddled with loopholes.” I am referring to the private member's bill, Bill C-356, which is not the bill we are talking about today but is the bill that they have been referring to on the other side.

He notes that this bill is going to increase bureaucracy, that it is going to bring more red tape, that it is actually going to increase the cost of housing and create more bureaucracy for housing.

When the foremost speaker and thinker on housing rejects his plan entirely, what is his response?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the question of the parliamentary secretary of my counterpart on climate change and environmental issues. We have the pleasure of working together at the environment committee.

If I were the parliamentary secretary who just spoke, I would be very embarrassed to judge our proposals so harshly when his party has been in power for eight years. What have the Liberals done on housing for the past eight years? The cost of housing has doubled.

Renting an apartment is twice as expensive as it was eight years ago. Getting a loan is twice as expensive as it was eight years ago. Making a down payment is twice as expensive as it was eight years ago. Ontario is one of the worst, if not the worst province in terms of the housing bubble. Is that the legacy of this government? Houses in Canada are twice as expensive as in the U.S. Is that the legacy of eight years of Liberal governance? A common-sense government cannot come soon enough.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, we hear the Conservatives make criticisms and talk about what they will do when they are in power if they are elected. However, the housing crisis is urgent and is happening right now. The election might happen at any time, but it might not happen for another two years.

In the meantime, $900 million is dormant in the federal government's coffers and it is meant to go to Quebec City. I was pleased to hear my colleague talk about solutions such as repurposing federal buildings and using them for affordable housing. I think that is great, but that does not apply in every region or in every town. That being said, I was pleased to see that solutions were being proposed.

I would like know whether my colleague agrees that the $900 million meant for Quebec that is currently dormant at the federal level should be sent to Quebec and the municipalities so that they can take care of fixing the housing crisis, which is their responsibility.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Drummond, whom I respect and hold in high esteem. I think it is reciprocal. Perhaps he could pass the message on to others.

I want to say two things.

First of all, not all office buildings can be converted into apartment buildings. I have spoken with some leading experts who told me that it is not easy to do. That is why our common-sense plan does not apply to all buildings. Our current goal is to convert 15% of the buildings we currently have and then do an assessment to identify the ones with the most potential. It may be easier in large urban centres than in rural or suburban areas. We recognize this right away, and that is why there is no question of implementing a one-size-fits-all solution overnight. Instead, we want to target the places where it is most likely to happen.

Clearly, the money that is available must be used. We do see a problem right now. Initially the Prime Minister said he had ambitious targets, but then he went on to insult the cities, saying that it was their problem and they were incapable of solving it. That is not exactly the right approach.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to cite a report from 2019 that suggests, “Over 800,000 rental units...were 'lost' in the decade between 2006-2016. When these units shift to higher rent bands, more households pay over 30 percent and many over 50 percent to afford the remaining homes.”

The last time the Conservatives were in power, we lost 800,000 homes in our country, affordable homes that were lost. These are credible reports from, for example, Steve Pomeroy, a fantastic housing expert across our country. He cites this directly during the period the Conservatives were in power.

How can Canadians trust them?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind members that our government faced the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Our country, under the leadership of the Right Hon. Stephen Harper, was the first in the G7 to get back on its feet during that major crisis.

We are very proud of the way we managed Canada under Stephen Harper. Let us wait and see what we do with the MP for Carleton. It will be extraordinary. Common sense will finally be in power.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

It is a pleasure to rise in the House this evening. This is the first time I have had a chance to give a speech in this fall session after having been at home, like all other members, and having the chance to speak with constituents.

It is very appropriate that I am able to speak in support Bill C-56, which is an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, perhaps more appropriately known as the affordable housing and groceries act. Among other concerns that I heard from constituents, including ferries, congestion on the roads and the impact of the climate crisis, it was really the cost of living and the cost of housing that are top of mind for residents of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. While inflation has slowed in Canada, it is still increasing with grocery prices and housing prices, which is why it is very appropriate that the first legislation we have introduced this fall session would take significant steps in tackling both of these challenges.

First is housing. The cost of housing has always been a huge challenge in my riding, but it has set new records, where the average home was selling for about $4 million in West Vancouver and Whistler. With low interest rates and the ability to work more from home, we have actually seen house prices increase significantly in other regions in the riding. With people being increasingly priced out of the markets, we are seeing additional demand for rentals, and with a highly constrained supply, we are seeing prices continue to elevate. Now, some of the most expensive rents in the entire country are in my riding.

This is a profound injustice for young people, who have not benefited from owning rapidly appreciating real estate nor having long-term rents at low cost. They are still mostly at entry-level positions and lower-paying jobs. Worst yet, with interest rates rising to where they are now, developers are abandoning new construction projects, because the business case is simply not there, and badly needed rental stock is being sidelined even further. This challenge has been highlighted by CMHC, which shows that we need to build an additional 3.5 million homes, on top of what we are already on track to build, just to restore affordability in Canada. This is a big challenge to make sure that we can build homes for the middle class, and it requires all orders of government to work together.

The federal government used to be heavily involved in the housing market, particularly in the business of building rentals. From the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, the Government of Canada brought in financial assistance for new home buying, loans for co-operative housing, and low-interest loans for municipal, private and non-profit housing. In fact, I can still see the apartment buildings that line Ambleside and Dundarave in West Vancouver, which were built during this era. Unfortunately, Brian Mulroney's government eliminated these measures in 1986, and for three decades successive Conservative and Liberal governments stayed out of the housing game. A good example of this is the net of over 800,000 affordable homes that were lost during the dark lost decade of the Harper Conservative government.

The federal government launched the national housing strategy in 2017 to get back into building housing, and by my count, 784 below-market homes have been funded through this program in my riding in the last four years alone. We are also now rolling out the housing accelerator fund, where we are supporting municipalities to speed up their processes to get more housing built. I note that nearly all of the municipalities in my riding have applied to this program, showing that they are also on board to do what needs to be done. I am pleased that we have a strong partnership with the Province of British Columbia, with the premier and cabinet joining in Ottawa this week to coordinate how we can do more together on housing.

However, it is clear that more needs to be done, which is why I am so pleased to see that Bill C-56 would be eliminating the GST on all purpose-built rentals. This would greatly assist in getting more rental housing built. Do not take my word for it. The Smart Prosperity Institute estimates that this will lead to an additional 200,000 to 300,000 new rental units being built. The B.C. housing minister, Ravi Kahlon, notes that this is “positive news, and a significant step toward enhancing housing affordability.” B.C. has similarly eliminated the PST on purpose-built rentals.

With that, I see my time is up and I look forward to continuing at our next session.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, when I left off in my speech, I was talking about some of the stakeholder reaction to the proposed measure to remove the GST from purpose-built rentals.

The Squamish Community Housing Society from my riding stated that this “will have a real and meaningful impact on the delivery of critically needed rental housing” and “support lower rents for residents moving into newly constructed homes”.

The Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Society stated that “The removal of GST on purpose-built rentals is an excellent example of a simple federal policy adjustment that when combined with other affordability measures makes a meaningful difference in local housing systems.”

The Whistler Housing Authority stated that “The removal of GST on new purpose-built rental housing will help to decrease the financial burden experienced by those who are trying to create much needed affordable rental supply across the country. Every financial consideration throughout the development process ultimately impacts the end user.”

From the Resort Municipality of Whistler, Councillor Cathy Jewett noted to me that it would save Whistler $725,000 on a rental project they are building, provided that it is eligible.

This gets me to the only gripe that I have with this particular piece of legislation, which is that we should really look to extend it to projects that are already being built by the non-profit sector. That way, future tenants will be able to benefit from lower rents from these projects; in the end, that is the entire point of this exercise.

I want to contrast this bill with the housing policy and legislation that has been put forward by Conservative Party members, as proposed by their private member's bill and otherwise. Believe it or not, Madam Speaker, their bill and policy would actually increase taxes on purpose-built rentals for projects meant for middle-class Canadians. It would take away the resources that would allow municipalities to get more housing built faster with things like the housing accelerator fund. Given that the Conservatives invested 13 times less on transit when in government than our government has, their commitment to withhold funding to municipalities unless there is sufficient density around transit projects is just another avenue where they would not only cut housing funding but also cut the pathetic amount of funding they delivered towards transit. Well-known housing expert Mike Moffatt said that this private member's bill is incredibly “weak” and would actually substantially increase federal bureaucracy. This is not serious housing policy. This is unintelligible housing policy as crafted by a bully, and Canadians deserve better than that.

The second aspect of the bill that we are debating today would make some significant changes to the Competition Act. It would increase competition in our economy and ultimately lower costs for Canadians. In particular, it would take aim at the failings the Competition Bureau had in ascertaining the reason for high grocery prices, because of some of the structural challenges.

The changes announced in Bill C-56 would amend the Competition Act to allow the Minister of Industry to direct the commissioner of competition to conduct an inquiry into the state of competition in a market or industry. It would permit the Competition Tribunal to compel information to allow it to do its work, as well as to look at vertical collaborations. It would also repeal the exception under the act for efficiency gains brought on by mergers. These new measures would allow the minister to ensure that the bureau is keeping a watchful eye on anti-competitive behaviours in different sectors.

By looking into the state of competition, for instance, in gas stations, we could answer the question of why gas prices are consistently higher in Squamish and Whistler than they are in metro Vancouver. They are often 10¢ a litre higher. Meanwhile, they do not have the 18.5¢ tax that the metro Vancouver transit authority charges at gas stations. By looking into the grocery sector with these new powers, we could answer the question of why the amazing small-scale farms on the Sunshine Coast and in the Sea to Sky corridor are able to produce delicious, nutrient-dense, organic produce at a lower price at farmers' markets compared with the mass-produced, non-organic produce that is found in a lot of grocery stores. I would suggest that these might be two areas that the minister should direct the bureau to investigate with these newfound powers.

Lastly, I want to talk about the efficiency defence. Long ago, Canada brought in the defence for a merger that otherwise would be anti-competitive, if it showed that it would allow businesses to be more efficient so that Canadian companies would become large enough to compete with foreign counterparts. Given how concentrated parts of these sectors have become and how large companies have become, this defence no longer makes sense, if it ever did.

Each of these changes to the Competition Act is very welcome, but much more can be done, and it must be done when a more fulsome update of the act is undertaken.

In particular, I would like to see stronger penalties for anti-competitive behaviour, and I would like for us to take a closer look at the thresholds to ensure that more regional monopolies are tackled as well. However, both the proposed changes to the Competition Act and the removal of GST on purpose-built rentals are very welcome; these things would make a huge difference in tackling the rising cost of living and the rising cost of housing.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noticed my colleague is speaking about economic benefits, and he had spoken to somebody in a town in his riding; I think he mentioned Whistler. He talked about the importance of the GST benefit that is presented in this bill.

I just wonder if he had a date on that actual benefit. I think the Liberal government promised this eight years ago and abandoned it six years ago, but the GST benefit is starting to come back now. The member also criticized, and compared it to, the bill on the floor of the House of Commons put forward by my leader. That is interesting, because he took that shot, but we just had a federal budget here, and none of this was in it. It is late to the game for the government to say it is starting to recognize that there are things it should have been paying attention to for the last six years. Is this coming to the game late? Does he finally recognize this? Is it because we have actually identified this for years in the opposition that the lights are going on, they are seeing what is happening and people are talking about it to him in his riding?

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

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed working with the hon. colleague on multiple different committees.

The contrast with the policy that has been put forward by the Conservative Party is that it plans to get rid of the GST on only purpose-built rentals that are below market, not all rentals. Therefore, I think it is missing part of the puzzle to make sure we can get more rental housing built faster, particularly right now, when we are seeing high interest rates impacting the business case for making those projects happen.

I think it is a very important time for us to be moving forward on these measures because of that. Prior to this, we really tackled low-income and social housing with our national housing strategy. However, given the changing economic circumstances, it is really important that we are bringing forward this measure now.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is very worthwhile. It is welcomed by some, but it is getting a cooler reception from others, depending on the community. That just shows that we cannot please everyone.

Clause 3 of Bill C-56 seeks to amend the Competition Act by adding, after section 10, subsection 10.1(2), which reads as follows:

Before making the direction, the Minister must consult the Commissioner to determine whether the inquiry would be feasible, including with regard to its cost.

My question has three parts.

If the inquiry is feasible but the cost is too steep, does that mean that no inquiry will be conducted? How are we defining what constitutes too steep of a cost? If an inquiry is in the best interests of consumers but does not go forward, are we ignoring the interests of consumers? Whose interests are we then considering instead?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that good question.

We could invite experts to come to committee to get more details on these issues. I know that to conduct these studies, the bureau needs resources. I think that is an issue we should study a bit more. We gave more money to the bureau in budget 2022, but if resources are the problem, then we need to look at that too.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I note that this bill would suspend the GST on purpose-built rental housing, but the 2015 ministerial letter on this issue talked about giving tax breaks for the building of purpose-built affordable rental housing. Can my hon. colleague explain to the House why the present bill drops the word “affordable”?

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

Madam Speaker, this is more inclusive. It is not just for below-market rental housing; it is for all rental housing, because we have a need right now to get as much supply to make sure we are able to meet the very high targets that CMHC said we need to meet: 3.5 million homes on top of what we are already building right now. A big part of this needs to be below-market rentals, but market rentals are also needed, so that we are able to bring down prices overall.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, though I will note that the short title is the affordable housing and groceries act. It is an important piece of legislation. It would help build more rental homes that would be affordable for Canadians and help us to start making much-needed changes to the Competition Act. More competition will create a healthier and more prosperous Canadian economy.

There are two key changes within the legislation. The first would remove the GST from new purpose-built rental housing. The second would make changes to the Competition Act that would enable the Competition Bureau to conduct market studies and would remove the efficiencies exception from merger review. There are also a number of other changes that I will get into in the time that I have. I am going to speak for five minutes on the first part and five minutes on the second part because it is important for us to understand why we are introducing this legislation and why is it important right now.

As we know, over the last almost eight years, our federal government has done a lot on housing. I am very proud of our investments in all of the programs we have implemented. Since 2017, when we introduced the national housing strategy, we have introduced a number of programs. There are about 82 billion dollars' worth of programs that have been introduced. Their purpose is to build supply and support first-time buyers in purchasing their first home. I will run through some of the key programs and initiatives we have introduced.

There have been a number of incentives for more affordable rental units to be built. We have also introduced some disincentives for house flippers and foreign buyers. We have introduced the multi-generational home tax credit. We have made a massive commitment of $1.5 billion to build the next generation of co-op housing, and I am eager for that to get started. We have put in a historic amount of money for rapid or modular housing, which has been a game-changer for most of our big cities across the country. We have introduced a Canada housing benefit, a home accessibility tax credit, long-term supports for the homeless and a number of programs for Canadians trying to buy their first home: the first home savings account, the homebuyers' plan, the first-time homebuyers' tax credit and the first-time homebuyer incentive. We realize, as always, that we need to do more, and more is part of this legislation.

I spent a lot of time over the summer meeting with a number of groups, including groups trying to build deeply affordable housing within Davenport and Toronto, and I want to give a special shout-out to West Neighbourhood House and St. Michael's Homes. They took me through their examples of how they are trying to use the programs at all levels of government for additional housing. They did point out that there are some issues at all levels that need to be addressed, but they are not huge, insurmountable issues. They are working with our programs, are happy with our programs and look forward to us resolving some of the issues with the programs. They are very happy with the introduction of Bill C-56.

I have also met with a number of developers. I met with them not just over the summer but over the last year or so. They indicated that, due to inflation, many of the plans they had created a few years are just no longer viable. That is why our proposing to remove the GST on the construction of new apartment buildings to get more rental homes built faster is so important.

I am sure this has been quoted in the House, but there was a great article by the Canadian press, in which the CEO of Dream Unlimited Corp. said that high interest rates and construction costs had put many projects on pause, but given the federal government's announcement that it would eliminate GST charges off rental developments and the expectation that provinces would follow suit, this has changed the calculation for it. That is exactly the sentiment for many of the developers in my riding.

What are the actual changes being proposed in the bill? It would change the Excise Tax Act so that the goods and services tax would be removed from new purpose-built housing to encourage an increase in the construction of rental housing. These measures would modify the existing GST rent rebate by increasing the rebate rate from 36% to 100% and remove the rebate phase-out threshold for purpose-built rental housing projects.

What are experts saying about this? I took a couple of examples from a long list. Mike Moffat, one of Canada's leading housing experts, called this a “fantastic transformative step.” Toronto's former chief city planner Jennifer Keesmaat has said that this measure could be “the beginning of a sea change.”

This is very popular with developers in my riding and across Toronto. I want to note, before I go to the next section, that provinces such as Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia are already following our lead by eliminating provincial taxes on new rentals. This would of course result in even more building of the affordable rental homes Canadians need.

The second part of this legislation is about measures that would begin a much-needed update to Canada's Competition Act. I sit on the finance committee. It has been just over four years that I have been on that committee, and we hear a lot of concerns from those in the business community, and many Canadians in general, who are worried about our competitiveness. They are worried about the limited number of large companies in what many feel are oligopolistic sectors. They worry about Canada's productivity. They worry about the little business investment we have had in our country, despite historic low interest rates for over 10 years, until a year and a half ago. There is a great recognition that we have a lot to do to improve competition in Canada.

I was delighted when our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry indicated in February of 2022 that he would undertake a review of the act. He wanted to begin with some immediate targeted improvements and follow up with some more consultations to consider some broader changes. We received a lot of feedback, so Bill C-56 gets us started on the changes that were suggested.

What would Bill C-56 do? It would provide the Competition Bureau with powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; remove the efficiencies defence, which currently allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition, even when Canadian consumers would pay higher prices and have fewer choices; and empower the Competition Bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

Our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance spoke in the House on this bill the other day and said:

This bill also seeks to amend the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau so that it can investigate price gouging and price-fixing.

It would put an end to anti-competitive mergers that drive up prices and limit Canadians' choices. It would also enable the Competition Bureau to ensure that big grocery stores cannot prevent smaller competitors from opening stores nearby. Our [federal] government is relentlessly focused on building an economy with stable prices, steady growth, and abundant, well-paying, middle-class jobs.

While this bill includes these measures, it is only our initial response to the feedback we heard during the ongoing consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada. This bill's amendments strike at the core of Canada's competition law and would empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public in its role as enforcer and advocate, and it would allow the country to reap the well-documented benefits of more competitive markets.

Now more than ever, effective and modern competition law and enforcement are necessary to promote affordability for Canadians and to help our economy grow. With our federal government's 2022 amendments to combat price-fixing and the changes proposed in this bill, our federal government is promoting greater affordability and the type of marketplace that allows our economy to grow.

In conclusion, our federal government is relentlessly focused on building an economy with stable prices, steady growth and abundant, well-paying middle-class jobs. That is why this legislation, Bill C-56, is so important. It would provide key changes that may help to stabilize grocery prices for Canadians and would help accelerate the construction of new apartment buildings that are affordable for all Canadians.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I paid close attention to the speech by the member for Davenport, and I would like to ask her two specific questions.

First of all, many of the farmers in my riding continue to talk about the carbon tax, and many of them are receiving bills with about $12,000 per month for the carbon tax alone. These are our food producers, so we know this tax is actually applied, because when a person is charged $12,000 monthly, this money has to come from somewhere, which ends up being from the consumer. Will she support getting rid of the carbon tax, knowing that it has horrible implications on the cost of living?

Secondly, in the farming community, there are lots of people looking for housing, especially temporary foreign workers. Will this housing incentive also assist farmers?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer the second question first, as it is more relevant to the bill at hand.

On the second question, it will help all Canadians. It will help rural Canadians and urban Canadians. That is because it is meant to be a game-changer. It is meant to incentivize far more building of rental housing, whether it is in an urban setting or a rural setting. As I mentioned before, I quoted a couple of experts who have indicated that this is transformational and a game-changer. I think it will help all Canadians, wherever they live across the country.

On the price on pollution, as we know, we have to decarbonize our economy, and I would say that, largely, experts right around the world agree that a price on pollution is a really great way to reduce our emissions. I would say that the residents of Davenport very much support a price on pollution and very much support us moving, as quickly as possible, to a low-carbon future.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course the Bloc Québécois is in favour of this bill, but it will not have much impact.

When it comes to housing, eliminating the goods and services tax on construction will have no impact on lowering rent. That is a concern that everyone shares. This will have no impact on access to home ownership. More importantly, the critical need right now is for social housing. Again, this will have no impact on that.

What are my colleague's thoughts on this?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that I would like to respectfully disagree with him. I had mentioned that I have been on the finance committee for four years. Over the last year and a half, we have disproportionately, and rightly so, spoken about housing and inflation, about how we get started. I will tell members that the rebate of the GST has been one of the top recommendations that have come forward. It is about increasing supply into the marketplace and I think that is going to help overall prices because we are putting so much more supply into the marketplace.

I had also mentioned that I met with a number of constituents in my riding who are trying to build deeply affordable housing. They have indicated that we have amazing programs. We have to make some adjustments to make it easier for them to apply and deal with some irritants, but other than that, we have great programs that will lead to deeply affordable housing for our most vulnerable.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, removing the GST on rental housing is a start. This is certainly something that the NDP has been calling for.

We have heard the Conservatives put forward a proposal of selling 15% of federal buildings and lands, and we have seen what that looks like at the provincial level, with Doug Ford and the Greenbelt. We also saw that in British Columbia with what they did with private forest lands. They sold them off. People cannot access the outdoors anymore in some of those areas.

Will my colleague support legislation to ensure that all federal lands and buildings are not sold but leased, and that they go for non-market housing, so that there is certainty that they do not just end up in the pockets of developers, as we are seeing right now in Ontario with what just happened with the Greenbelt?

We need to make sure that it goes to the people who need it and that it stays in the hands of Canadians.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say a few things. One is that we have introduced 82 billion dollars' worth of programs, and we will, as a government, always be thinking, every single day, of what more we can do to make sure that we are providing housing for Canadians, deeply affordable housing, and the ability of Canadians to buy their very first house.

Every day, we should be thinking and looking at all options. I am open to all options, and I know that our government is as well.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Carbon Pricing; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Housing; the hon. member for Dufferin—Caledon, Carbon Pricing.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House to express my sadness and shock over events unfolding on the international scene. For several days now, Azerbaijan has been waging a brutal military attack against the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which the people there call Artsakh.

The attack is very serious. Civilians are being bombed, leaving some dead or injured. The Lachin corridor has been blocked by Azeri forces for months. Now, we are witnessing a majority of the Armenian population flee the region for fear of reprisals. Already, most of the 120,000 people living in the area are heading to neighbouring Armenia seeking refuge. My colleague from Edmonton Strathcona and I have written to the Government of Canada, asking it to seriously consider imposing sanctions against the dictatorial Azerbaijani regime. We cannot keep silent about the blatant human rights violations being committed there. The situation bears many similarities to the forced displacement of a civilian population, which is outlawed by international agreements.

Now, let me come back to today's bill. It touches on themes that are central to people's lives. We have been constantly hearing about the severe housing crisis and the cost of groceries for the past weeks and months. It is hurting workers, seniors, students and families everywhere.

I want to take the time to emphasize one point. We are definitely seeing more and more visible homelessness on the streets in Ottawa and Montreal, but there is also invisible homelessness. I have just returned from a trip to Sault‑Sainte‑Marie and Sudbury. Things are just as difficult there. People are grappling with mental health issues and drug addiction. There are people who do not have a roof over their heads, who are on the streets. This crisis is everywhere. It is a homelessness and housing crisis. There are people who desperately need help.

Earlier today, NDP MPs had the opportunity to meet with Olivia Chow, our former colleague who is now the mayor of Toronto. She told us that 10,000 people are living in Toronto's shelters every night. These shelters are overflowing. Hundreds of people are turned away every day. There are people sleeping in church basements.

In Quebec alone, a recent report on housing and poverty from the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain shows that 173,000 households are in core housing need. That means they have inadequate housing or live in overcrowded housing or in poor physical or material conditions that are affecting their health.

About 370,000 Quebec households are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. Anyone spending more than that is living in poverty. That is the norm, that is the rule, it is 30%. If someone is spending more than 30% on housing, they are living in poverty and are at risk of ending up in a precarious situation. Nearly 400,000 families in Quebec are in this position. Moreover, close to 130,000 households, families and individuals are spending more than 50% of their income on housing. That means they are just steps away from homelessness.

This really illustrates the impact of the Liberals' and Conservatives' decision to walk away from building social housing and co-operatives over the years. What we are seeing right now is the direct impact of that decision.

What is more, rent in Quebec has gone up by 13% in two years, and the phenomenon of renovictions is becoming increasingly frequent. That means that people living in a rental unit in a given neighbourhood whose rent used to increase by small or relatively reasonable amounts have to move because they are being kicked out of their unit. In Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, we are constantly getting messages and emails from people who are desperate, people who are really sad to lose their homes. Right now, it seems as though the government is turning a blind eye to this phenomenon.

Today, we are still seeing the impact of the cuts the Liberals made in 1994. At that time, the Liberals stopped making investments in long-term housing, particularly social housing. The Conservatives were no better. Under Stephen Harper's regime, when the current Leader of the Opposition was a minister, 800,000 affordable housing units were lost. The Conservatives are in no position to lecture anyone. What is more, their solution is pretty transparent. It involves taking public land and selling it to private developers who will use it to make a profit and not to meet people's needs.

The current Liberal strategy is not working, either. All the reports confirm that. All the experts and the community groups working on the ground are saying that the situation is getting worse year after year.

The member for Davenport can keep saying that her government is investing $82 billion in the housing strategy, but the fact is that it is not working. It is failing to meet our extremely pressing housing needs.

Bill C-56 removes the GST on the construction of rental housing, which is a good idea. The reason it is such a good idea is that it was proposed by the NDP. As usual, however, the Liberals are doing things in half measures. The government is giving a bit of a shot in the arm to people willing to build rental housing in order to improve supply. We understand the logic. We need to address the supply side. However, there are no guarantees at all. There is no mechanism or measure to ensure that these homes will be affordable and meet the needs of people in our communities, cities, towns and regions.

Is it possible that this will have no impact on the price of rent? Is it possible that the 5% rebate being gifted will only increase the developer's profit margin? Will we be any further ahead if these developers profit from this gift or from this incentive to build housing which, in any case, will be rented out at $1,200, $1,800 or $2,300 a month? Is this going to help ordinary people or those who have been on waiting lists for social housing? The answer is no. There is still some work to do. We will need to improve this bill.

The Minister of Finance tells us that this measure will help add 30,000 housing units a year. Last year, 270,000 housing units, houses or apartments were built. The CMHC, however, is telling us that we need 500,000 housing units a year. According to my calculations, 270,000 housing units plus 30,000 housing units comes to 300,000 housing units. We still need 200,000 more housing units. This is just a half measure that provides no guarantee that we can help people afford their rent. This is still market logic. The right to housing is not being seen as a fundamental right. The Liberals never talk about it. This bill completely fails to address the fact that housing is a human right, a fundamental right. The Liberals are handing out gifts that will have no impact on the assistance they are trying to provide to the middle class, to workers.

How do we solve this? We need to build affordable housing. That means building housing where the rent does not exceed 30% of an individual's or family's income. It is not particularly complicated.

My NDP colleague from Vancouver East says that we would need a major nationwide construction project in order to build 2 million affordable and non-market housing units, specifically, social housing, co-operatives or community housing. There needs to be an acquisition fund to buy buildings and land and to build housing that meets people's needs. In Vienna, Austria, they have done exactly that. Today, 60% of that city's housing stock is non-market. That is an example worth following. Unfortunately, the federal government is not doing that. None of these ideas are included in the bill before us today. The NDP believes that an acquisition fund is needed to build public housing.

With regard to groceries, we are seeing the crisis unfold day after day. People are making agonizing choices, even having to reduce meal sizes. Grocery prices have gone up 22% since 2020, but not many people have seen their wages go up 22% since 2020. In the meantime, while people are suffering, these big companies are busy lining their pockets. Last year, Loblaws, Sobey's and Metro made $3.6 billion in profits. They are making record profits when people are having trouble paying for their groceries, and the Liberal government is doing nothing.

We in the NDP believe that it is not enough to stabilize prices at the grocery store. Prices must come down. We have solutions to propose. We need to punish the CEOs who are lining their pockets. We need to be able to tax the windfall profits of these major grocery chains, who are using inflation as an excuse to hurt people. The leader of the NDP has introduced a bill that I hope to be able to talk about and that would give the Competition Bureau more power to impose sanctions and investigate. I hope that the Liberal government will follow suit. My colleague's bill contains a lot of good solutions. We have to be thorough and not just go halfway, as the Liberals all too often do.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I know that a number of members have raised the issue of non-profit housing. I just want to amplify the fact that this particular legislation would not preclude that from taking place. More importantly, in certain situations, housing co-ops are already exempt from having to pay the GST. The government has supported organizations like Habitat for Humanity, which has built many houses over the years.

The reason I say that is to emphasize the importance of having the Government of Canada, provincial jurisdictions and different stakeholders all come to the table to deal with the true housing situation of Canadians. We all need to play a stronger role in resolving the problem. Would the member not agree?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but I find it strange that he is saying that we should be pleased that the bill does not preclude the construction of affordable housing. It would be incredibly ridiculous if the bill precluded the possibility of building social and affordable housing. We need to look at this another way. We need to make sure that this gets done, not just hope that it might.

However, there is nothing in this bill about that. I hope that we will be able to improve the bill in committee because, right now, it seems as though this bill is only a half measure. I agree with my colleague when it comes to collaboration and co-operation between the federal, provincial and municipal governments, but we need to harmonize the way we do things because it is really complicated right now. I get the impression that the various levels of government are all creating obstacles.

I do not want to get into who should be blaming who, but we need to all sit down at the table to find solutions with community groups and experts so that we can build truly affordable housing.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. Clearly, he is just as alarmed as we are about housing. In Quebec, we will need 1.1 million units of affordable social housing by 2030 and Quebec is at the top of the list for measuring the extent of the problem in Canada.

Does my colleague not agree that on the one hand, we should vote in favour of this bill and improve it in committee, while on the other hand, we are dealing with an emergency as serious as climate change?

Faster and more generous action must be taken immediately to change things if we want to achieve minimal results by 2030. Winter is coming and it does not bode well at all. I do not think that getting caught up in the details is among our citizens' concerns right now. We are really into something else. We must take much more meaningful and much more urgent action.

What does my colleague think?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague's analysis and how she sees things regarding the current emergency.

We see the situation deteriorate every July 1. Homelessness is getting worse not only in Montreal, but throughout Quebec. I am convinced that my colleague is seeing this in her riding as well. It is an absolutely deplorable phenomenon.

In Montreal, 23,000 people are waiting for social housing. It will take 7 years, 8 years, even 12 years for them to get it, and in the meantime, they are living in precarious situations. They are suffering. They are living in poverty. Yes, it is an emergency.

Some fairly simple things can be done. Federal public lands should be used to build social and affordable housing, as well as co-operatives. These are lands like the Peel Basin in Montreal, which already belong to the federal government. There is no need to even buy it. We just need to be able to get shovels in the ground to build genuinely affordable housing.

Let us start with that. Let us reject the Conservatives' idea of selling public land to private developers and let us instead build public housing on public land.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have a moment to be able to get up and speak to Bill C-56, an issue that I know matters to all of us here in the House.

On September 21, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. This government has consulted and worked alongside the public to establish a tangible solution to alleviate this burden for hard-working Canadians. In doing so, we have arrived at Bill C-56, which would establish the affordable housing and groceries act.

This act is primarily focused on taking a stand against the cost of living crisis and delivering on the government's agenda of making life more affordable for all Canadians. We envision this act would be welcomed by all members of Parliament as it addresses many of the problems our constituencies have raised, by making life more affordable. This act does nothing other than endorse that objective, which is one we all care about.

In our public consultations on addressing the cost of living crisis, we received repeated requests to tackle the rising cost of groceries. The government fully understands that higher prices have made life more challenging for many Canadians and their families. I think we all know that because all of us go to grocery stores. We are surprised at the markup on so many items, as well as the tremendous profits our grocery companies are making on the backs of all of our families.

In May, a young lady from a neighbouring constituency reported that she must leave her home near Jane and Eglinton at 6:00 a.m. to commute nearly an hour to the Fort York Food Bank, and wait additional hours to shop for her groceries. She does this in the hopes of providing food for her children, ensuring they do not go to school hungry, and also to have a hot meal ready for them when they come home. It is very sad that, in 2023, in Canada this is happening.

Today, we are introducing a solution that will hopefully help her and prevent other Canadians from enduring this hardship. Over the past 12 months, we have consistently fought inflation effectively. We have managed to reduce inflation to 4%, almost two basis points lower than all 33 OECD countries, but we need to continue to drive it down even further. That is why last week, we summoned the CEOs of Canada's major grocery chains to Ottawa to devise a plan to stabilize grocery prices by Thanksgiving or face consequences if they fail to do so.

It is quite a challenge to attempt to do this, but I think it is important that the government take to task the different companies so they get a better understanding. They are reaping the profits on the backs of everyone else. They need to be reducing prices as much as they possibly can because Canadians are suffering as a result of what they are doing. If they fail to provide a plan by Thanksgiving, then the government will use whatever tools it has in the tool box to force them to do that.

The opposition leader and his one-liners will not support Canadians, but our effective measures, we hope, will. Finding ways to reduce the cost of living is no easy task. A relevant adage runs along the lines of, “If you don’t miss two or three planes a year, you are spending too much time in the airport.” This government understands that, and that is why it is exploring ways to address the affordability crisis without stifling or controlling the market.

In 2022, our government passed significant legislative amendments to the Competition Act, including provisions to combat price-fixing with some of the world's highest penalties. Since then, we have launched a comprehensive review of the Competition Act and engaged in public consultations with the aim of modernizing Canada's competition framework.

Our government is now introducing amendments that would prevent large business mergers with anti-competitive effects, empower the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies, and halt anti-competitive collaborations that harm small businesses, particularly small grocers. Our government has also bolstered the bureau's enforcement capacity by increasing its funding by $96 million. There have been decisions made in the past by the Competition Bureau that did not align with the message we are attempting to deliver today.

Taking this feedback into account, we have removed the efficiencies exception from merger review. As a unique feature of Canadian competition law, the efficiencies exception currently protects from state intervention mergers that would harm competition, as long as the efficiency gains they generate offset the harm to competition. All of these are very important steps to take to ensure competition is healthy and that there is actually more competition in Canada.

The provision has been a long-standing focus of criticism, often cited as an example of the act’s ineffectiveness and poor outcomes. Many pointed out that the law focuses too narrowly on calculating efficiencies that benefit specific firms over the short run, which, in turn, enables industry concentration and consumer harm over the long run. Again, this is exactly what we are trying to prevent from happening.

Through this initiative, the government proposes to repeal the exception, following which an anti-competitive merger could now be remedied by order of the Competition Tribunal, notwithstanding the efficiencies generated. Abolition of the defence puts competition first and brings Canada in line with international norms.

Our government will continue to work on affordability for Canadians and promote a marketplace that would allow our economy to grow. Through various measures, we provide more authority to the Competition Bureau to better understand anti-competitive mergers that limit choices for Canadians and block competition that restricts Canadians' options.

This proposed package comprises carefully selected areas that could directly contribute to addressing the most immediate concerns, while the government continues to consider further reform proposals to be introduced in the near term through future legislation.

A negation of our constant fight against inflation is the rising cost of rent, which continues to make life increasingly unaffordable for people. We have people throughout our country who are gouging renters and making it extremely difficult to make ends meet for many Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada.

This act seeks to take concrete steps to deliver real-time relief to renters from coast to coast to coast. In these efforts to do this, we will be incentivizing housing unit construction. We are enhancing our GST rebate model, currently at 36%. We will be increasing it to 100%, effectively removing GST from construction costs for new rental units intended for long-term renting, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences.

We know that has already had a big response back from the development community. Yesterday a developer indicated he was going to build 5,000 rental units and would have them in the system very quickly.

The measure also removes a restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, like universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profit organizations, that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing are permitted to claim the 100% GST rental rebate.

This will accelerate much-needed rental housing builds across Canada. This enhanced GST rebate would apply to projects beginning on or after September 14, 2023, up until December 31, 2030. All projects in this timeline must be completed by December 31, 2035.

This rebate will only apply to new builds and not renovations, solely to incentivize supply and fight to bring down the increase in rent costs.

I hope Canadians see an evident and comprehensive response from the government to address the current cost of living crisis affecting us all. This bill presents the most logical steps towards ameliorating the standard of living for many Canadians and keeping us on track to become one of the top G7 countries in reducing inflation. If that is something this House seeks to accomplish, and I know it does, there is no valid reason to oppose this bill.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑56 is certainly very interesting. The discussions that have been held so far with various companies and major food distributors are also, on the whole, interesting. We will just have to wait and see.

What I like about Bill C‑56 is that its purpose includes limiting the action of conglomerates. I will name one that is known by everyone. We have seen the big chart on social media many times: it is Nestlé, which sprawls out everywhere. We want to avoid conglomerates.

However, they do exist. We want to limit them, but we tend to forget that, basically, the people who feed us, the 3% who feed 100% of the population, that is, the farmers, receive nothing more, while prices increase.

What is the government's solution to the fact that those who feed us cannot even earn a decent salary?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, certainly the government is very concerned and investing a lot of money in opportunities in the agricultural community to ensure that farmers can have more than just a comfortable living, but that they can have a good quality of life. We know many of the farmers have their own families that intend to take over their farms when they retire. It is important that the farming industry continues to be supported and that we do everything we can to assist it. The government clearly is investing a lot of money in the whole agro community that continues to supply a variety of funds and additional support.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear my colleague across the way with platitudes for farmers. The real question has been asked multiple times in this House in different ways. For farmers who must hire temporary foreign workers and create housing and shelter for them, will those farmers qualify for the GST rebate on the housing?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, the whole issue is how we need to bring in foreign workers and temporary workers to be able to help pick the tomatoes, cucumbers and all the wonderful stuff we enjoy every day. Finding Canadians to do that is very difficult, so we all know that temporary foreign workers are a very important part of our economy. They have to be treated fairly, they have to be treated appropriately and they have to have decent housing. We know with the past practices we have seen, they lack all of those things. I think a variety of pieces of legislation have been put forward in different ministries that are going to ensure that when workers come they are treated fairly, they are paid appropriately and they are also housed. Whether that will fit into the GST requirements, I do not know. It is a new announcement, but I certainly would hope that there is whatever is required to ensure those workers who are feeding us every day get the support they need.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier one of the member's colleagues had talked about the bill as something that would be “transformational” and so critical, yet I found that a bit hyperbolic, considering we know this is a good first step, but only one of so many that are needed, in terms of housing, affordable housing and much-needed housing in this country. Even economists from RBC are saying that this is one step to improve housing stock, but that it would do nothing to lower rents in the short term.

As such, I would like to hear from my colleague what the government is planning to do to directly support low-income Canadians so that they can pay their rent.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not think we should fool ourselves, and we should not be over the ceiling with anything. These are initiatives that are moving forward. I hope they will be able to materialize very quickly, but I think we have to be realistic. This is legislation that is coming in now. The needs of our communities are out there today, and there are people out there who are homeless and people in low-income families who cannot find housing because they tripled the rents that are required. I would like to see there be some rent controls in the systems that would prevent the doubling of rent.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, right now, far too many Canadians are sitting around their kitchen table with their head in their hands, saying, “What do we do now?” They are filled with anxiety, fear and apprehension about what the future holds, and it is no wonder. As inflation continues to rise, everything continues to get more and more expensive. Young parents, working families, seniors and students are seeing their budgets stretched, and each dollar is not going far enough. This is causing most Canadians to feel a profound sense of hopelessness.

There is nothing more they can do to make things easier. There is nothing more they can do to afford a home of their own. There is nothing more they can do to ensure a better life for their children. They cannot take on any more extra shifts, a side hustle or a better-paying job. There are only so many hours in the day, and whatever extra income they make is immediately evaporated by price increases and tax hikes. Whatever they take home will make virtually no difference toward an achievable down payment on a home of their own. They cannot look for any more ways to save. They can cut back only so much, and at a certain point it becomes unaffordable just to put food on the table or gas in the car. There is no longer any money left over to save toward goals like home ownership, starting a small business or children's education.

Canadians who have worked hard and made sacrifices deserve better than to be left feeling hopeless because of our country's economic situation. They deserve better than to fall farther and farther down each rung of the income ladder, descending from middle class to poverty, and some even farther. They deserve to know that their government is ready to do whatever is necessary to address the cost of living crisis in Canada.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has shown, time and time again, that it is completely out of touch with the day-to-day realities faced by Canadians. It is unable to step up and take responsibility for the situation facing our country, the situation for which the government is directly responsible. To the Liberals, out-of-control inflation is a global phenomenon and not the result of eight years of uncontrolled inflationary spending. Instead of changing course or finding solutions, the Liberals are always looking for a scapegoat. To them, it is far easier to find someone else to blame than to do something that will actually address the staggering cost of fuel, groceries, rent and mortgages.

This is clear once again, based on the contents of Bill C-56, which is supposed to be the Liberals' comprehensive affordability bill to address high grocery prices and rental prices. The proposed legislation sends a message from the Liberals to every Canadian who is feeling hopeless and is struggling to afford the most basic of necessities. What is that message? It is that the government does not care about how hard things have become and that, given the lack of concrete measures in this bill, the Liberals are not serious about making life more affordable.

Since last year, the cost of groceries in Canada has gone up 6.9%. The cost of food is up 18% since 2020. No matter how they look at it, Canadians are paying more and more each month to feed their families. However, Bill C-56 would do nothing to lower food costs for Canadians by addressing the primary reason why grocery prices are increasing: the Prime Minister's carbon tax. The Liberals' expensive carbon tax makes everything more expensive. It affects the entire supply chain from farm to plate: the farmer who is taxed to grow the food, the trucker who transports it, the store that sells it and the family that buys it. After eight years, everyone is paying more and hurting more as a result. Because of the carbon tax, it is now cheaper for Canadians to buy onions that were grown and packaged in Mexico and transported across North America than it is to buy the exact same onions that were grown and packaged here in Canada. It has become unbelievable.

We know that Bill C-56 would not address the most significant driver of food prices in Canada, but what would it do? In Bill C-56, there are measures to ensure increased competition in the Canadian marketplace. Some of these common sense measures were introduced by Conservatives earlier in the year. We support efforts to improve economic freedoms of Canadians through increased competition. However, the massive market share held by Canada’s biggest grocers, Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, is a problem that has been decades in the making. Even if the bill were to become law tomorrow, no Canadian would see their food bill go down. In fact, in the government’s press release for Bill C-56, it admitted that its goal is to stabilize food prices, not lower them.

Just last week in the House, during question period, the Prime Minister said he was glad the rebates Canadians received cancelled out all of the increased costs his government is responsible for putting on Canadians, but that is just not good enough. Under the Prime Minister, high grocery bills are here to stay. That is the difference between this tired, corrupt, out-of-touch Liberal government and Canada’s common sense Conservatives. We believe that the current status quo is not acceptable. That is why Conservatives would lower costs for Canadians by axing the carbon tax and by bringing home more powerful paycheques that would buy affordable food once more.

We know that the government never knows where the puck is going. As with so many other issues, this is the case with the housing crisis facing our country. The government is a day late and a dollar short. The average rent in Canada has now increased by 6.5% since 2022. The costs of mortgages, rent and down payments have doubled, and nine in 10 young people say they will never be able to afford a home. After denying there was a problem and doing nothing for far too long, the Liberals have now proposed in Bill C-56 to remove the GST from new purpose-built rental housing. While this is a step in the right direction after years of broken promises, it is far too limited in scope to make enough difference for too many Canadians who have seen their dream of owning a home shattered.

As part of the leader of the official opposition’s comprehensive plan to build more homes, Conservatives have pledged to remove the GST on the building of any new homes with rental prices below market value. The Liberal rebate proposed here would make it easier for developers to build more expensive homes that only the ultrarich can afford.

I often say that my primary responsibility and the responsibility of the official opposition is to make the government the best it can be. As a Conservative MP, I take this job seriously. While it is good to see some of the measures Conservatives have advocated for incorporated into this bill, it ultimately does not go far enough. Canadians want more action. Bill C-56 shows that the Liberals are not taking housing and affordability issues seriously, and it is just another confirmation for Canadians that the best the Liberal government can be is just not good enough. As more powers of sale take place and as the lines get longer at the food banks every day, the Liberal approach is not working for regular people.

I am reminded once again, just as I was when the government brought in its budget a few months ago and I looked through the first pages, that the tired Liberal government no longer has a vision. There is no vision for this country. Canada should be a world leader, not an international embarrassment. We should be at the forefront of so many sectors, like agriculture and advanced manufacturing, not lagging far behind. We should be a country that can ensure that its citizens have a roof over their head. That is the most basic expectation we can have, but the Liberals have failed in this.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that the member talks about inflation on groceries and that the Conservative Party supports competition, yet when the leader of the Conservative Party was in government with Stephen Harper, that is when we saw the merger of Loblaws and Shoppers. Today, combined, they make up, I think, close to 40% of total grocery sales. There was actually a reduction of competition when the leader of today's Conservative Party was in government with Stephen Harper, yet they say that they support competition. It is somewhat weird to be hearing that. The member says we need to get away from the price on pollution, yet Erin O'Toole, another leader of the Conservative Party, said we should have a price on pollution.

Why should Canadians trust the Conservative Party of today?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would say two things to the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

First of all, the carbon tax relief would be instant for Canadians. The Liberals looked at where they were in the polling, and, all of a sudden, we have Bill C-56. Let us rush, rush again. I would also say, to bring up housing because it is so important in my riding, the Liberals have had, think about it, eight years to build houses. I know there are a number of ridings across Canada where people are living in tents. The snow is about to fly. Here we are with Bill C-56, and the snow is about to fly in two months. Are we going to bus people to Florida?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked a lot about the carbon tax, although he should have focused on Bill C-56. I will elaborate on this because, lately, many Quebec Conservatives have said that there is a second carbon tax that applies in Quebec. From what we understand, this is not true. I am sure Quebec Conservatives would never knowingly state falsehoods, so I think they must not be informed. They did not do their research and did not make a meaningful contribution to the debate.

What we have is actually a regulation that requires oil companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, but with billions of dollars in subsidies to help them do so. Some say that there will still be an added cost at the pump.

Is my colleague saying that the Conservatives are protecting the record profits of oil companies that, in turn, pass the cost of all that on to ordinary Canadians?

Instead of protecting ordinary Canadians, are the Conservatives protecting oil companies’ record profits?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am going to try to make my colleague understand.

In York—Simcoe, people feel that they are on the outside looking in. They are paying the carbon tax, and right now they feel like they are subsidizing China to produce. They are looking around and saying to me, “Scot, we have got onions coming in from Egypt and Morocco. We are losing our competitive edge internationally.” This has got my farmers very worried. The government could have passed Bill C-234 for farmers, and that would have made a huge difference to grocery prices. Farmers are going to have to dry their grain and their beans. Half of my riding is on propane, half on natural gas. We want the infrastructure, and the carbon tax is not working for the people of York—Simcoe.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we have heard that the Conservative leader wants to sell 6,000 government buildings. We know what that looks like, when the private sector gets involved with government. We just saw Doug Ford's government try to sell off the Greenbelt in Ontario, which would have amounted to $8 billion going to a handful of developers, with no assurances that the housing that would have been developed would have been affordable.

There is nowhere in the world that the free market has solved an affordable housing crisis. Does my colleague agree that public land should be in public hands and that any buildings used for housing should be leased out and in the hands of the public for non-market housing? Will he condemn the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for York—Simcoe has time for a brief answer.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always thank my colleague for his support of my plastics bill. I think he has spoken 96 times now on the importance of my plastics bill, Bill C-204, that is going through the Senate again. It will be back in the House.

In support of Lake Simcoe, I am glad he also supports our plan to put 15% of federal government properties into houses that people can afford.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to address Bill C-56, our affordable housing and groceries act, as affordability is an issue of great concern to many of the constituents in the riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, which I have the privilege of representing.

Affordability continues to be a major challenge for Canadians. Despite the inflation rate decreasing from a high of 8.1% last June to 4% last month, prices remain high. As we all recognize, global events, including COVID-19 and the post-COVID economy, the climate crisis and, of course, the unconscionable invasion of Ukraine by Russia have contributed to high inflation worldwide. Even though the Canadian economy has done well, compared to most other countries, it is of little solace to Canadians who are struggling. While global inflation was not caused by the Government of Canada, it is the responsibility of us all to continue to put forward measures to help Canadians.

The pandemic created a unique challenge through the closure of businesses, the creation of labour shortages and the disruption of supply chains. For the first time, for many, we saw some of the worst consequences of an interconnected global economy. The reality was exacerbated by extreme climate events such as flooding, forest fires and heat waves that have swept across countries and continents. In fact, 2023 was the worst year on record for wildfires in Canada. In addition to all that, the war on Ukraine impacted vital food exports that Canada, as well as many other countries, rely on. This conflict has increased global commodity prices, further exacerbating inflation and affordability issues here at home.

Inflation in Canada has decreased to 4% from a high of 8.1% in June 2022, as I have already said, and that is considerable progress. However, the stark rise in oil and gas prices due to large cuts by the Saudi Arabia energy minister and OPEC highlights the precarious nature of this commodity and illustrates that we are not yet at the stable prices Canadians need. A lot of the increase in inflation recently was due to the rise in oil and gas world commodity prices.

A noteworthy point by Tiff Macklem asserts that the source of inflation is from these impactful global events and not, as the opposition believes, that putting a price on pollution is the driving force. In fact, Tiff Macklem, who the opposition loves to quote, calculated that the price on pollution only contributes 0.15 percentage points to inflation, a very small percentage of the inflation we have experienced. This does not take into account the cheques that Canadian households, in provinces that are part of the federal backstop program, receive four times a year, which help to offset these increases. Additionally, while we have no specific estimates of the inflationary impact of climate events, we do know that there has been a great deal of money spent fighting these events. The decreased food supply due to climate change has had an additional impact on inflation rates.

While we must fight the climate crisis, we must also fight the affordability crisis. Thus, we are introducing additional measures to do just that. We are introducing measures to respond to the affordability challenge. With Bill C-56, our affordable housing and groceries act, we are proposing amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act to make rental housing more affordable and encourage greater competition to stabilize prices.

First, we are removing GST on new rental housing for apartments, student housing and senior residences to encourage newbuilds to support the housing crisis. It is not the only answer, but we have heard from many housing advocates that this will definitely help. Increasing supply in all sectors of the housing market will drive down rental rates. This measure is being applied to all rental units that are being built. This plan is a continuation of the Liberal government's 2015 commitment to affordable housing with the social infrastructure funding stream and other programs, so this is building on actions that have been taken.

This government has been putting forward measures to address the housing affordability crisis for years, but we see that more is needed. This is an additional measure that will help increase supply and bring down rental costs. This is also meeting the SDG objectives of reducing poverty, inequalities, improving health care and creating economic growth.

Additionally, we have done many things to address the cost of groceries. I sit on the agriculture committee. We have had two studies on food prices, one on food security and one on grocery prices. A number of recommendations were made in these studies, and the proposed changes to the Competition Act would address many of these.

However, we still need to do more. Therefore, the government, the Prime Minister and Minister Champagne called in not only the heads of the major grocery chains but also the heads of the—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I realize I said a name I should not have.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Yes.

The hon. member may continue.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, they have called in the heads of the grocery chains as well as the heads of major food manufacturers to come speak with the government and work together to come up with further solutions, because we all have to work together. We know when grocery chains are making record profits and CEOs and others in the C-suite are getting high-level bonuses that Canadians need to know they are also concerned about other stakeholders, such as their loyal customers and their frontline employees, who need help given to them as well.

We are proposing reforms to the Competition Act to foster competition across the economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, in addition to these other measures we have taken. Of course, we also gave the grocery rebate to try to help with affordability.

We have modernized competition law and the necessary enforcement to combat price-fixing in all sectors by applying some of the highest penalties in the world. We did it with the help of public consultation to ensure Canadian voices were engaged and heard.

We would also introduce amendments that would eliminate big business mergers with anti-competitive effects, enable the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and stop anti-competitive collaborations that stifle small businesses, especially small, local grocers.

We also need to take the necessary steps to collect public data on the costs throughout the agri-food supply chain, including disaggregated data on costs of primary agriculture food and beverage processing and food retail sectors. We know farmers are working hard across Canada. We know they need support and we do not want to see any more pressure put on them.

In addition, there would be funding for indigenous-led initiatives in remote and northern areas to improve infrastructure that supports food security in the communities. The recommendation recognizes the unique challenges attributed to vulnerable communities in times of crisis and would facilitate measures to support and protect them.

There were several other recommendations made in these studies, and we are following up on most of them.

We know this government has lived through some of the most challenging global events in history. The opposition likes to confuse correlation with causality, but just because something happened at the same time as something else does not mean it is caused by it. We have heard time and time again experts who have cited that the causes of this global inflation are the three Cs: climate change, COVID and conflict. Those are the three major reasons for this inflation, and we are doing everything we can as a government to try to help Canadians fight inflation and deal with the issue of affordability.

All of us here will continue working on affordability to ensure a prosperous marketplace that fosters economic growth and a comfortable standard of living for Canadians and their families. We see them, we hear them and we are acting to correct this affordability crisis.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill C-56, would the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill agree that a band-aid covering an infection does not actually heal the infection and only makes it worse?

When I look at the farmers in my riding, they are the only people I know of who buy retail and sell wholesale. Putting a carbon tax on top of their monthly bills does directly affect our economy. Would she agree with that?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked a couple of different questions.

Band-aids do not heal wounds, it is true, but Bill C-56 is definitely more than a band-aid. We know we need more housing, and this would provide more housing. We have heard it from many experts. This would help Canadians get more affordable housing, especially in the rental sector.

Additionally, on the subject of farmers, absolutely farmers are hard-working. I come from a family of farmers. In my Dutch background, my mother's family are all farmers, and they talk to me. They recognize climate change is a reality and that we need to work on this as well to help them deal with climate events.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Since Parliament resumed, we have often heard the Liberals brag about holding a major summit with the heads of large grocery chains. It is a big show that promises potential commitments, but none of that is binding on the big grocers. We were expecting a response within three weeks, so there is still a week and a half left.

What will happen if the grocers do not decide to voluntarily lower prices? Will a surtax be imposed? Will we go on the offensive on that? Will the government use a coercive approach? After that, where will that tax show up? Will it be passed on to consumers? How will prices be brought down? Will the Liberals impose an obligation to deliver?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are having meetings currently. We believe that the grocery chains and the large manufacturers will come forward with solutions.

In Canada, we all work together. I believe they understand that the thing to maximize is not only shareholder value, it is also stakeholder value in other areas, such as employees and customers.

We are working with them. We will come up with solutions. Certainly, the last thing we want to do is increase prices for consumers. Whatever solutions we come up would not be passed on to consumers.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, for months now, large grocery chains have been ripping off consumers. People are paying crazy prices while the companies make record profits. Now, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is going on bended knee to the CEOs of those companies to ask if they can stabilize prices. Prices are already too high. Even if prices can be stabilized, people will still be paying too much.

Is that the Liberal plan? To stabilize extortion?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the prices are too high. We all understand that. We have all seen that.

We are asking. We are not on our knees, we are meeting with the heads of these companies, both the grocery chains and the manufacturers, to talk to them about what they could do voluntarily to address this with us.

We are willing to see that these exceedingly high profits and bonuses are not okay when people are suffering, unlike the Conservatives who like to blame everything on the price on pollution, not at all looking to the profits that are being made by both the grocery sector and the oil and gas sector when Canadians are struggling.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise for the first time in this session of Parliament to speak to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

The lack of affordable housing has been top of mind in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound as home and rental prices have continued to increase over the last eight years.

To give members some data, in 2015, when the current government took office, rental units were on average $700 a month, I did have a fairly wide variance as I represent a large rural riding, but now that rent is well over $1,000 per month. An average house price in 2015 was $311,000 whereas now it is over $608,000. Further complicating this is home sales are down over 27% below the five-year average, and over 31% below the 10-year average.

This speaks directly to the impact the Liberal government's inflationary deficit spending is having on the economy and the ability for people to get into homes, not only to get them built, but to afford to build them or to move into rental units. This has finally come home to roost with the Liberal government, which is acting now, albeit far too late. It is funny that it finally comes forward with a bill to help make life more affordable for Canadians at the same time that the hon. leader of the official opposition introduced his bill, the building homes not bureaucracy act. It liked the bill so much it decided to take a piece of it and call it its own. I guess we could say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I would offer that it could save itself a lot of work by just passing the more comprehensive bill from the Leader of the Opposition.

One of the aspects of the bill that I question is how it is going to address the immediate housing crisis that Canadians are facing right now. If we read the bill, these rental housing units do not even have to be completed until 12 years from now, in the year 2035.

This housing issue has been going on and I have been hearing about it almost the whole time since I was elected. I hosted a housing task force meeting just over a year ago back in my riding because I recognized that this issue transcends all levels of government, elected officials and stakeholders. Everybody has a piece to play in solving this. Those stakeholders included my counties, health units, realtors, builders, chambers of commerce, not-for-profits, co-op housing groups and the construction sector. I would like to paint the picture of the complexity of this issue we are facing and why this bill does not go far enough. There is the increasing cost of land to build on; rising interest rates; the Nimbyism that is existing at all levels, but in particular at the municipal level; development charges and red tape; labour shortages in the construction sector; high inflation on building goods and everyday goods caused by not only supply chain issues, but more importantly, the carbon tax; and the deficit spending of the Liberal government.

This cost of living crisis has basically exhausted the not-for-profits in my area as the demand for aid continues to increase. They have been calling for the removal of the GST on not-for-profits as well, not just what is being proposed in Bill C-56. Existing landlords are hesitant to rent out their properties due to the challenges that so many Canadians are facing because of a frequency of home takeovers, and the excessive red tape for private investment because federal government programs are too restrictive. Ultimately, removing the GST from eligible purpose-built rentals is just one small drop in the bucket for what the residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound need to see in order to fix this housing crisis.

The government likes to talk about some of its other programs, like the housing accelerator fund. I had the privilege of sitting on the HUMA committee when we first studied the housing accelerator fund, but it has failed to demonstrate its utility. Today, I am only aware of one announcement of any funding going out under that program.

When I asked the minister specifically at committee a year ago about how this is going to help a large portion of Canada, i.e., those of us who live in rural Canada, he admitted on the public record that this funding is geared toward the major urban centres in this country, not for the rest of Canada.

I was lucky enough to question the president of the CMHC at that committee as well about the level of bureaucracy and complications. I will mention a specific example of the challenges that not-for-profits were facing. Ultimately, I was successful in advocating for a change.

There was a not-for-profit senior housing development that was running into roadblocks because of the Liberal government's inflationary spending and the costs that have gone up, as I highlighted earlier, to the point where it had to buy down, according to the CMHC, through its financial institution, the actual lending rate.

It was not allowed to talk or renegotiate that, because now the prices had doubled. I will get into specifics a bit later. It was being told it could not communicate in it. Fortunately, when I had the president there, we were able to come to a solution, but the point is that too much bureaucracy is causing the problems. We need fewer gatekeepers, not more.

I will get into some of the specifics I just mentioned. In this case, the construction costs had gone from $3 million to $7 million for this not-for-profit. That is why it is so important that we change it.

In prepping for this speech, I reached out to a number of stakeholders and not-for-profits in my area to ask how this would help them. They feel it is a step in the right direction, but there are plenty of tangible steps the government needs to take in order to make more substantial changes.

I mentioned charities and not-for-profits. I have Habitat for Humanity in my riding; it is a charity that builds homes for low-income residents, and it suggested removing the GST from the sale of homes being built for charities as well, because that is not mentioned at all in the bill. A challenge it specifically faces is that, when fair market value rises, so does the GST, which makes it more expensive for charities such as Habitat for Humanity to build these homes for low-income Canadians, especially given the affordability crisis that Canadians are facing, which has now reduced the charitable donations these charities are receiving.

Additional feedback I got from charities was to remove the compounding carbon tax and clean fuel standards, as they increase costs significantly for charities, which receive no rebate off these additional taxes.

Ultimately, Bill C-56 contains a number of half measures, ideas taken from opposition parties, including, as I already mentioned, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and, on the competition side, from my colleague from the Bay of Quinte. They have an overreliance on existing programs that are obviously not working, and they are just redoing funding announcements. As I said, while there are some solid measures in this bill that may encourage the construction of more homes, more must be done now to catch up and ensure that Canadians have a roof over their head immediately.

Specifically regarding the housing portion of the bill, the reality is that there is a lot more value in the hon. Leader of the Opposition's building homes not bureaucracy act as a bill, because it goes far beyond just removing the GST from certain new builds. It sets out a road map for bringing homes that people can afford to more Canadians.

Ultimately, if the Liberal government is serious about addressing housing affordability, it would fast-track the Leader of the Opposition's bill and make it law today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I must say, I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative Party today. It is not recognizing the many different things that this legislation would actually do.

It is very easy to critique the legislation and underestimate the degree to which it would help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In fact, yesterday we saw on the floor a concurrence motion to prevent debate on this particular piece of legislation. There is no sign the Conservatives want to let up in terms of allowing the bill to go to committee.

Does the Conservative Party support the legislation today? If Conservative members support it, do they believe the legislation should get to committee some time this month or next month? It would provide relief to Canadians. When do Conservative members feel the bill should go to committee?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not shocked that the member for Winnipeg North is disappointed; I am frequently disappointed in a lot of the stuff that comes from that side of the aisle as well. I am not shocked by his comments.

My point back would be that I believe every MP in the House should have the right to speak to every piece of legislation, because a lot of MPs do not have the opportunity to speak as often as that member does in this chamber. If he would have listened to my speech, he would know that this is one of the most important issues that Canadians are facing in every riding. Every MP in here, if I asked for a show of hands, I am sure would stick up their hand and say that housing affordability is one of the primary issues they hear about daily.

We need to be able to share that, and we should all have the opportunity to speak to it.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's last comment about how much speaking time certain members get. I want to congratulate him on his speech.

I am wondering about something. For some time now, certain Conservative members from Quebec have been passing themselves off as champions of jurisdictional issues in the House. We in the Bloc Québécois are quite accustomed to seeing the Liberals interfere in areas of jurisdiction that are not theirs. Much to our surprise, this bill does not encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces or the municipalities. However, in what my friend described as the Conservative Party's proposals, I see interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. In case my colleague needs a little reminder, subsections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867 give the provinces legislative jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

Am I to understand from this afternoon's debate that the Conservative Party does not want to respect the Canadian Constitution? What is going on?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for not breaking out the French today, but I want to try to get a serious reply back to his question.

We absolutely believe in the Constitution, but as I said in my speech, the challenge we have with housing is that it transcends all levels of government. It requires everybody to work collaboratively and co-operatively together. If he actually reads what we are proposing from the Conservative Party, he would realize that our bill would offer incentives. It would not be interfering in different levels of jurisdiction; it would incentivize municipalities to get more houses built to meet targets. If they cannot do that, ultimately, they would not actually be trying to help solve the problem we are facing, which is that Canadians need a roof over their head. Therefore, they would not get that money, or as much money;

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I are both Ontario-based MPs. It has been asked in the House several times, and yesterday, during conversations about the bill, I was asking about the Conservative housing plan. One of the key things that strikes me is that they want to sell off public assets, yet we have seen the Doug Ford Conservative government do that in a very problematic way in Ontario. It is at the point where it has been quite controversial, in fact.

As such, I want to hear that the Conservatives would not specifically do that at the federal level and that they would not follow their Conservative colleagues in that regard. What is their plan, specifically, for selling off those public lands?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into the specifics of our plan. Our job right now is to criticize. Maybe that is even too harsh of a word. I would like to say that we will hold the government to account to ensure the legislation it is putting forward is the best possible for all Canadians.

If the member is concerned about provincial politics, I encourage her to resign as a federal member of Parliament and run for provincial parliament. I am sure there are openings available. We will have a plan as soon as the next election is called, and the NDP—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, today I rise to address this chamber with respect to Bill C-56, specifically its amendments to the Competition Act. This is the regime that enables the Competition Bureau to protect our economy from actors and acts that would unduly and artificially increase prices and decrease product choice for consumers. An empowered Competition Bureau means a Canadian marketplace that is more innovative, efficient, and, most important, affordable. In my home province of New Brunswick in particular, where household incomes on average are lower than in the rest of the country, we need to use every tool at our disposal to bring down food prices for Canadians and their families.

The series of proposals enclosed in Bill C-56 may be part of the response to a global inflation crisis driving up the costs of Canadian necessities, but they are also a long-awaited package that would better align our competition framework with international best practices.

The bill includes three significant changes to the Competition Act: the abolition of the efficiencies exception in merger review, the ability to compel information during a market study, and the ability to review agreements between non-competing actors that are designed to reduce competition.

The efficiencies exception, a defence that allows anti-competitive mergers to survive a challenge if the corporate efficiencies they are expected to generate are greater than the harm to competition, is unique among advanced competitive regimes. It allows a merger to proceed knowing full well that consumers may pay higher prices, to help the merging companies save costs.

The European Commission, one of the most active and visible competition authorities around, does not treat efficiencies in this manner. Our European counterparts will consider efficiencies as relevant only when those efficiencies are likely to benefit consumers; they never rely on corporate efficiencies to justify an anti-competitive merger.

In Australia, the law itself does not list efficiencies as a factor to consider in deciding merger cases. In fact, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has published guidelines stating that it will not clear anti-competitive mergers even if the new firm would enjoy a lower-cost structure.

Of course, the comparison often used, given our proximity, is the United States. The courts in our neighbouring jurisdiction have specifically ruled that possible corporate efficiencies from a merger cannot be used as a defence to justify an anti-competitive merger. Efficiencies must be pro-competitive and passed through in some capacity to the marketplace and not just the merging companies.

In this way, Canada is out of step, which is illustrated perfectly by the fact that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has successfully challenged a Canadian merger that our own Competition Bureau could not, because of claimed efficiencies. For example, when Superior Plus Corp. was going to acquire Canexus in 2016, the bureau found that the competition would suffer materially in a number of markets. It predicted a lack of remaining competition and higher prices for consumers. Nevertheless, because of the provision in the Competition Act, the bureau had no choice but to refrain from challenging the transaction, as the efficiency gains could be shown to outweigh the anti-competitive impacts.

With no similar constraints, the United States Federal Trade Commission mounted a challenge because of what would be the resulting high rate of concentration in the sodium chlorate market. It also found evidence of the acquiring party's desire to restrict output post-merger, an increased ability to collaborate with competitors, and its desire to neutralize Canexus as a disruptive lower-price alternative.

Without even delving into the important question of whether promised efficiencies are ever delivered, it should be clear that this defence can lead to detrimental effects on competition. It is about time that Canada joined the rest of the world in putting competition first.

I would now like to speak specifically about the market study powers. Our current market study framework is another area where we are out of step. The bureau can periodically study industries to better understand their competitive dynamics and make recommendations to government, such as the retail grocery market study that it released last June. However, the bureau has no means to compel parties to provide any information and instead relies on voluntary submissions, public data or information it already happens to have.

This is not the case in comparable jurisdictions, once again. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to demand a compulsory special report that answers specific questions about an organization's business, conduct, practices, management and relationship to other parties. The European Commission can conduct studies into sectors or agreements across various sectors and can request necessary information or carry out inspections. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can also ask the treasurer to instigate a price inquiry that allows authorities to access information on a wide variety of topics.

All of the above jurisdictions have serious sanctions for failure to comply, ranging from the ability for the enforcers to conduct a much wider study to fines based on the company's annual turnover. Moreover, these studies have proven to be a valuable tool for market insight. The USFTC, when faced with the novel problem of serial acquisitions by dominant tech platforms, launched its version of a market study to compel information on relevant mergers.

Similarly, in 2022, the United Kingdom's competition authority concluded a market study in the music and streaming industry to better understand why there had been a 40% revenue drop over 20 years. The retail grocery code that is currently in effect in the U.K. is also the direct result of recommendations by the competition authority after a detailed market study. Also, the Government of Australia, in response to ballooning electricity prices, ordered a price inquiry that resulted in a series of high-impact recommendations to government, many of which were directly related to enhancing competition.

Canada has had five market studies since 2007: retail grocery, digital health care, financial technology, self-regulated professions and the generic drug sector. Were the bureau empowered with the ability to compel information from elected companies, it is not difficult to imagine just how much more fruitful these studies really could have been.

Lastly, the third reform in this bill concerns agreements in restraint of competition that are made between parties who are not competitors. Sometimes this is called “vertical collaborations”. This has been identified as an issue relevant to restrictive clauses made between commercial landlords and supermarket tenants to keep grocery competitors out of the property, thus limiting competition. The Competition Act has a number of provisions that could apply to some vertical collaborations, but will not necessarily if the specific facts do not quite line up perfectly with the statute. Its most basic provision on anti-competitive collaborations meanwhile is limited to those between real or potential competitors or horizontal collaborations.

Once again, we are the outlier in this approach. Our peers in the United States, Europe and Australia can examine vertical agreements that limit competition, such as by restricting distribution channels or territories of operation. In one notable case, the United States' Department of Justice challenged Visa and Mastercard for their contract terms with merchants that limited consumer options. When our own Competition Bureau tried to mount a similar case, the limits of the Competition Act meant it was forced to bring the case under an ill-suited provision, and it lost. The Competition Tribunal could not issue an order, even though it recognized the competitive harm. It was a viable lesson in the importance of a modern legal framework that reflects how today's marketplace operates.

We have seen that it is time for Canada to join the club, so to speak, and emulate the best practices of our peers. This is why I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill's passage.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on her expanding role, having started in a different political party, moving over to a new political party and actually getting a parliamentary secretary position. Her trajectory is clearly on the rise here, and I congratulate her for that. There is a life in politics, obviously, that requires a lot of advancements and those kinds of things.

I will ask the member clearly if she thinks that advancing this legislation through Parliament would be better served if she paid attention to the bill that was being brought forward rather than just trying to reinvent a new bill. If she were actually serious about it, like her party should have been serious about it, it would have been in the budget last year.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for his kind words. I certainly paid attention, and I pay attention to all the happenings in the House.

Consultations began on this quite some time ago. I think it is important to look at the process when we bring in legislation and involve multiple provinces and territories, and have conversations with retailers and everyone who is going to be involved in what we are trying to achieve here.

There is never a better time to put forward legislation. I am glad that we are certainly stepping up and acting because, as we have clearly stated in this House, affordability and grocery prices are what we are hearing from all of our constituents. As I said, we have to use every tool at our disposal. I am happy to see the legislation now, and again, those consultations began quite some time ago.

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

Madam Speaker, a bill that seeks to eliminate the GST on housing construction should be based on one obvious principle. It should significantly lower the rent paid by current tenants who are having a hard time making ends meet.

Make no mistake, the crisis is affecting all of Canada and Quebec. The cost of housing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is almost as high as it is in Montreal. How will abolishing the GST on new housing construction lower the price of existing housing? Should we not be looking for a solution that regulates or lowers rents instead?

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

We were already hearing from developers across the country about how this was going to incentivize them to really increase that stock and supply. The biggest thing we can do right now on the federal side is to look at those rising costs for rent and homes. It is specifically an issue in my riding as it is for every member of the House.

I have had these conversations with developers, and they are looking for tools. They are looking for that support from the government. This is one really important measure that could help with that densification and increase that stock. That is the biggest thing we can do to bring down prices. It is not going to happen overnight, but we are working as fast as we can.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her new role.

We have heard the Conservatives talk about selling off 15% of private lands and 6,000 government buildings. We saw what happened with the greenbelt with the Conservatives in Ontario. We saw what happened in British Columbia with private forest lands. Basically, it ends up in the hands of developers and it does not create any affordable housing.

What I want to know is whether my colleague will look at creating legislation so that all federal buildings and lands that are used for affordable housing are not sold but leased or transferred back to the indigenous peoples whose lands we sit on. I want to make sure that it does not end up in the hands of and profiteering for developers. We know that the private sector has never solved an affordable housing crisis, ever. We need non-market housing, and we need to work together on that.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, there is a combination of things. Again, this is a multi-faceted issue that is impacting Canadians right across the country. We absolutely have to look at the non-market rentals. We have to ensure that we are looking at models like co-ops. We have to look at every available tool that we have.

However, the private sector does have a role to play. I know that there is certainly lots of vilifying of developers that is happening. I can point to some examples in my home riding. We have an incredible developer, whose name is Marcel LeBrun, who has been integral in putting forward really inclusive and creative ways to deal with our housing crisis.

It is going to take a combination, and we certainly need to bring the developers into that conversation while protecting those who will be impacted by the housing crisis in the country.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Madam Speaker, we see in this piece of legislation that there would be amendments made to the act that would stop big business mergers with anti-competitive effects. I want to know what kinds of benefits the member thinks this could have in her community when it comes to small businesses and especially small grocers.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I come from a province that is very familiar with corporate capture and what can happen when one does not have a competitive market, especially to protect the smaller retailers and grocers, in particular. We are having this conversation. Competition is always better. This is a really big step forward, bringing us in line with some of our other nations as well.

The House resumed from September 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk today about Bill C-56, which is the Liberal-NDP government's attempt at dealing with the affordability issue.

To talk about the legislation itself, we first need to look at where we are in this country, and it is not a very pretty picture. If we look at where we are right now, mortgage payments over the last eight years have virtually doubled in this country from coast to coast to coast. We have a similar issue now with rent all across the country. If we look at the average rents being paid now, that amount has also virtually doubled. This is the track record of the Liberal government, which now suddenly seems to be concerned about affordability for Canadians.

However, the bad news for Canadians does not stop there. It used to take 25 years to pay off one's mortgage. Now it takes the average Canadian 25 years to save for their mortgage. Think about what the difference between those is. Some people might say that is not their problem and that this is a young person's problem when they are trying to get into the market. It is bad enough if it is a young person's problem, but it is also affecting average Canadians right here and right now.

I was recently informed about a person whose mortgage has come up for renewal. Their mortgage was coming from that nice, low fixed interest rate. People will remember those low interest rates the Prime Minister said were going to be there for a very long time, the interest rates the Governor of the Bank of Canada said were going to stay low for a very long time. Based on that, many people took mortgages with a very low interest rate because it allowed them to have a mortgage payment they could afford. However, as mortgage rates have continued to go up, as the Bank of Canada has continued to raise interest rates in order to fight inflation, average Canadians now have to pay the bill as a result of this.

In this particular circumstance, this family has said that it can hold on for about another six months with this increased mortgage payment. They can dig into savings and they can further borrow for about six months, and then they are not going to be able to make the mortgage payments on their home. That is the consequence of eight years of the Liberal government.

Inflation is out of control. I hear it all the time in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon. People come up to me in the grocery store and say to me that they now have to only go to the grocery store to shop bargains. They do not actually have a grocery list, because they can buy only what is on sale. This is all they can afford. After eight years of the Liberal government, this is what people are saying to me in the grocery store. It is a shocking turnaround for Canadians. They are having trouble paying their mortgages. They are having trouble buying groceries. They are having trouble heating their homes as a result of the carbon tax. All of these things are making life more expensive for Canadians.

There is a simple solution. There are actually two very simple solutions the government could implement right away. Number one is that it could cut the carbon tax. We know that would have an immediate impact, because, as has been said by Conservatives in the House of Commons over and over again, the farmers are taxed on farm produce. As they produce it, they are taxed with the carbon tax. Whether that is for drying the grain, driving the combines or whatever, they are paying a carbon tax. When that crop is harvested, the driver of the truck that comes to pick it up is going to pay the carbon tax. When it goes to be processed, there is a carbon tax. When a truck picks it up to take it to the grocery store, there is a carbon tax. At the grocery store, the carbon tax is heating the grocery store; therefore, the store owner is paying a carbon tax as well.

At the end of the day, Canadians cannot afford to pay for food, and they end up saying that they do not even have a grocery list and just go to the grocery store and buy whatever is on sale. If we would have said this to Canadians eight years ago, they would have said that this was not possible. In a country like Canada, food is abundant. We feed the world because we have the best farmers in the world, who are great stewards of the land. If we had said eight years ago that Canadians would only be able to go to the grocery store and shop bargains, that would have been an inconceivable thought, but here we are.

After eight years of the Liberal government, that is the sad situation that Canadians find themselves in. It is very difficult to pay the mortgage, very difficult to buy groceries, very difficult to pay rent and very difficult to buy a house. That is the Liberals' record. That is the context that we look at when they bring in this bill.

This is not a new problem. Conservatives have been talking about this problem for the last number of years. In fact, the Conservative leader, many years ago, said that the inflationary spending caused by the government was going to drive up inflation, which would then drive up interest rates. He is looking more and more like Nostradamus with that prediction. As for me, 18 months ago, I rose to speak about the impact of the carbon tax on food production. I said that it was going to cause a massive increase in the cost of food, and here we are. The Liberal government cannot therefore claim that somehow this is a new problem, that it was unaware of the problem. It was well aware. It was well forewarned and did absolutely nothing about it.

When we look at this particular bill, what is amazing to me is that Liberal members will get up in this House during debate and during question period and talk about how, as a result of tabling this legislation, one developer has said it is now going to build 5,000 rental units. They puff out their chests and say to look at them, look at the amazing things they have accomplished. Well, let us put that into context.

According to the CMHC, we will need to build three million more homes between now and 2030 than are planned or scheduled to be built. The plan is that we will build two million homes. We will have to build three million more than that in order to get back some affordability.

As I have said a few times in this chamber, I went to law school because I was not good at math. However, what I did before I prepared for this speech is decided to get out my calculator and look at this. I saw that 5,000 units out of the three million we need is 0.0016%. If I had a child come home with a bad grade, and the teacher not only put an F on there but said that my son got 0.0016% on the test, I would not be a proud father. However, somehow these members walk around like they have discovered fire with this plan to build such a small number of houses.

It is even worse. To even come up with some of their plan, they had to take from the Conservative leader's plan. With grocery affordability, again, the best thing they could do is cut the carbon tax, which they repeatedly vote against. We know that this would bring the most relief. They also decided they are going to bring in some Competition Act changes, which they also stole from a Conservative member of Parliament's private member's bill. When a government is completely out of ideas, affordability has gone off the scale and Canadians are deeply hurting, what does the government, the brain trust and all of the political advisers they have come up with? Well, they just take what the Conservatives said they were going to do.

They have only taken some of it. What we have here is a plan that is not going to do anything to address the affordability crisis that is going on across the country, and there is a real consequence. I spoke about this in question period. For example, there is Paula in B.C., 71, who is retired. She is now saying that she might have to move out of her house because the landlord is going to sell it. She is also facing a 75% increase in rent as a result of that. That is their record. They have not provided solutions quickly or ones that are going to address the concerns of Canadians.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very fascinated when I hear Conservatives talk about affordability. I think of Doug Ford, Mr. X, the $8-billion scheme and the trip they took down to Vegas. They do not remember it, but they were all at the spa at the same time.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about a meeting that was held on June 25, when four Conservatives were flown over to London, apparently paid for by my cousin Dan McTeague, which I find kind of surprising. The total cost of the meal was $4,690 Canadian. They drank one bottle of wine for $818, a second bottle for $265 and a third bottle for $719, and they topped it off with a bottle of champagne for $1,791.

I do not know a single Canadian who has ever drank that wealthily, yet the Conservatives were guzzling it back. Who paid for this trip and why were they there?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, when members cannot debate the ideas that are put forward, members go to where that member went.

I know the member is new, but there is a difference between the provincial government, which he referenced, and the federal government and federal Parliament, which we are actually sitting in right now. The member might want to take some time to read up on the functions of a member of Parliament.

However, I am glad he brought up sponsored travel, because the member took a trip to Germany, and his total expenses were $10,489.60. This was in 2022, and it does not stop there. In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, he spent 4,300 dollars' worth of sponsored travel to Washington, D.C.

Let us get out the dictionary and look up “hypocrisy”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when they ask questions or give answers, they need to make sure they do not interrupt others.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. He talked about the Nostradamus prediction that would equate to what the leader of the Conservative Party said. I am wondering if he would like to reflect more on comments we have made.

As Conservatives, we have known all the time that living within our means is the responsible way to do government. The previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, said that the deficits this current administration would run would not be small but would in fact be out of control. I think the words were “He has no idea what he is talking about”, in reference to the current Prime Minister.

I wonder if my colleague could reflect on those comments and how true they are.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that all of this was predicted. The affordability crisis we find ourselves in, runaway inflation and high interest rates were all predicted by the Conservative leader.

It is actually a shocking amount of spending. The federal government, under this NDP-Liberal coalition, now spends $176 billion per year every year more than in 2015. I hear from constituents when they raise that issue, and I ask, “What in your life is better?” No one can answer that. All of this spending has really driven the affordability crisis and has not helped the vast majority of Canadians.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, does my colleague think any meaningful measures for social housing could be introduced?

The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly proposed investing 1% of the budget in social housing on an ongoing basis, so that crises like the one we are currently experiencing will be less frequent. Obviously, this measure is less popular because there is nothing spectacular about it. The government could do that instead of introducing half-measures like the one it has presented to us.

I would like to know if this is something my colleague finds interesting and if he would be willing to discuss it.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am in agreement that we have to do more to get more houses built, but I think our plan is better. There is a great number of federal buildings that are underutilized. We should convert those units. I think our plan says we are going to allow 15% to be converted into housing, which is better than coming up with some random number and having the government build it.

Let us remove the gatekeepers, unleash the private sector, turn those buildings over and get them built into all kinds of units, like affordable rental units and other units. That is the path forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Electoral Reform; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, today I rise in this chamber to debate Bill C-56, which would make several important and timely amendments to the Competition Act. A stronger competition framework is good for all Canadians, ensuring that companies are playing fairly, preserving opportunities for new firms to enter the market and ensuring that consumers benefit from more and better choices in the marketplace.

The bill includes three significant changes to the Competition Act: one, the ability for the Competition Bureau to compel information during a market study; two, the abolition of the efficiencies defence from merger review; and finally, the enabling of the review of agreements between any two parties when the agreement is designed to limit competition. These three important amendments stem from the government's extensive consultations, which took place over the last several months. These measures and others like them have widespread support, particularly from Canadians and small businesses. They reflect the concerns raised and respond to the pleas of many stakeholders from a wide variety of backgrounds.

The Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has released a report on what it heard during its consultations. I strongly recommend that all my colleagues review it to gain an understanding of the stakes involved and learn about some of the issues under consideration as the government takes the next steps.

With that in mind, I would like to share some of what stakeholders had to say in support of the measures that ended up in this bill.

Regarding market studies, the consultation drew a significant number of comments on the importance of knowing how our markets function. The majority of stakeholders felt that the Competition Bureau needed access to the best information and that this was the norm in most other countries. The Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project, a think tank dedicated to Canadian competition policy, stated that the lack of formal bureau powers in this area cripples its ability to understand new and emerging markets. It makes the bureau less able to assess if its enforcement decisions have had the desired impact.

OpenMedia, a consumer organization dedicated to an open and free Internet, stressed the need for the bureau to have the power to proactively study new and emerging markets. In markets especially fraught with high levels of concentration, serious and persistent problems need to be detected in order to be tackled.

The importance of a competitive freight transport sector to bring goods to Canadians was driven home during the COVID-19 pandemic and the supply chain difficulties that it brought. A joint submission by the Freight Management Association of Canada and numerous producers and shippers who rely on our transportation infrastructure also came out in favour of a framework for market studies. They highlighted that the international nature of ocean shipping means national authorities need to be even more vigilant in monitoring the behaviour of the companies at their ports. Data collection systems are integral to assessing the impact on Canadian trade and business, and the bureau needs to be able to collect information outside of an enforcement context to properly detect problems.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a national public policy think tank, probably familiar to many members of Parliament, explains how an expanded information-collection power should be supported by traditionalists and reformers alike and serves to fill other information gaps that hinder government.

There was also a wide call for appropriate safeguards attached to market studies. The Canadian Bar Association asked that information requests be subject to judicial authorization and open to challenge by the parties, while the Business Council of Canada insisted that if studies were to be introduced, there must be time limits on their duration and that the responsible minister should provide approval to launch such a study. These guardrails are all provided for in the proposed approach outlined in Bill C-56.

Now I would like to turn to another amendment to the Competition Act, which relates to the efficiencies defence. Long before the public consultation, the Competition Act's efficiencies exception has been a focus of commentary. This provision allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenge if they generate corporate efficiencies that are said to outweigh competitive harm, even if consumers pay the price.

There was no shortage of submissions to the consultation on this particular topic. It is the area of concern that received the most engagement, with a strong majority supporting its abolition. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a national not-for-profit organization that promotes inclusive decision-making and protection of consumer interests, explained how the original policy intent of creating internationally competitive companies had not been met. It felt that the efficiencies defence has, in fact, served to protect domestic companies from competition, at consumers' expense. The Centre for International Governance Innovation has also come out against the efficiencies defence, which it sees as a mistaken attempt to bring more predictability to the law.

Abolishing the defence is the right thing to do in recognition of the increasing concentration of multiple industries across Canada, as well as the corresponding decrease in competition. These factors create a significant drag on the real efficiency of our marketplaces, and the productivity and international competitiveness of our economy.

Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, explains how the efficiencies generated are often only passed on to the shareholders at the direct expense of laid-off workers. The cost savings of efficiencies come from a decrease in personnel, resulting in a less competitive industry that can more easily capture value for those at the top.

Moreover, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union and L'Union des producteurs agricoles, all key players in Canada's food procurement and supply chain, have come out in favour of the abolition of the efficiencies defence as well. Their reasons include a skepticism of the ability for efficiencies to overcome anti-competitive effects and their significant contribution to the ease of unfavourable acquisitions in Canada.

Lastly, I wanted to talk about collaborations as another topic this bill addresses. The consultations also raised the question of whether the bureau should be able to review collaborations between non-competing entities when they harm competition. Currently, the law addresses only agreements or arrangements formed between real or potential competitors, and Bill C-56 would expand that in some circumstances. A majority of those who commented on the matter supported broadening the law.

The Consumers Council of Canada felt that the exclusion of certain agreements from reviewability renders the bureau unable to deal with real competition issues. They explain how commercial relationships established with good intentions by both sides can still lead to unanticipated and unintended consequences, and the bureau should not leave it up to businesses to decide—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would respectfully ask you to confirm whether we have the quorum required for the business of the House to proceed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will check for quorum.

And the count having been taken:

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. Right now we do have quorum in the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers has stressed that restrictive covenants in lease or purchase agreements, a form of vertical restraint that is not currently reviewable as a competitor collaboration under the Competition Act, have a serious impact on the food supply for a significant number of Canadian communities. The International Center for Law & Economics also agreed that collaborations between any two actors have the possibility of harming competition, and that the Competition Act should not be limited arbitrarily in the sorts of agreements that it can review.

In conclusion, the consultation process revealed many significant areas of concern for our Competition Act, informed by each stakeholder's unique perspective and valuable insight into the Canadian economy. The proposals that the government has chosen to advance were chosen to carefully target the most critical issues impacting affordability for Canadians in the near term and were informed by the inputs of a variety of actors.

These three reforms represent much-needed updates to the Competition Act. They allow the Competition Bureau to better serve its mandate and will help make Canada a better place to live and do business. I hope all members will join me in supporting this bill's speedy passage.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my neighbour from Whitby for taking an interest in this very important legislation and debate today.

We were together in Oshawa on the weekend, and I know that he has a strong interest in my community. I received an email today from Christine, which says that she, her fiancé and their two children have been homeless for about five months with nowhere really to go. Her fiancé is on sick leave. She has called every shelter around, from Oshawa to Toronto, Kitchener and back, and from Ajax, Whitby, Bowmanville and Courtice, all the way to Cobourg. Everything is full. Even Cornerstone has a three-month waiting list. Children's Aid is giving them a hotel for a couple of days.

People are hurting, and things are very urgent. I was wondering if my colleague for Whitby could tell us in the House what the act before us would do to provide affordable housing for people in Durham region before the winter.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was good to see my hon. colleague out in Oshawa this weekend as well. We share an interest in fighting homelessness and solving the affordable housing challenges that Canadians find themselves in.

Our government, unlike previous Conservative governments, has made a historic investment, through the national housing strategy, of $82 billion, which has repaired units, built new units and lifted many people out of homelessness across Canada. That is work that is still under way. There is still money rolling out for those investments through the rapid housing initiative, and we have since added measures on.

Bill C-56 would add a new measure, and would be to lift GST for rental construction, which is itself anticipated to help create or unlock 200,000 to 300,000 more units of affordable housing for Canadians.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I was glad I could provide at least some sort of an audience.

I want to go back to the question that my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé asked another colleague earlier.

Instead of introducing measures that are little more than publicity stunts, that may have some short-term effect but that do nothing to provide a modicum of predictability to address future labour shortages, would it not be better to force the government to dedicate 1% of its budget to building affordable and social housing? That would be a long-term solution to prevent future crises. It would be the responsible thing to do.

What does my colleague think about that suggestion?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for helping me find an audience for my speech.

I do not think that these are token measures, and adding 200,000 to 300,000 units of affordable housing or rental construction units is not a small feat. It is a significant amount, and we can couple that with the $82 billion in the national housing strategy and the housing accelerator fund dollars, which are speeding up the process for municipalities to help lead the way on building more affordable housing. I think that these things are, in total, going to help create a more comprehensive approach to solving the housing affordability issues that we have.

There is much more opportunity and additional measures to consider, and I hope to undertake those conversations and listen to the ideas of my colleagues across the way.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member spoke quite a bit about the Competition Act and some of the new amendments, which are welcomed, but I want to talk about what is already existing there in relation to grocery prices.

We know that Loblaws and Shoppers Drug Mart merged about 10 years ago, but there has not been a review of that merger, which is an opportunity that exists in the Competition Act. The Competition Bureau could certainly move forward immediately and review if that merger has been beneficial to Canadian consumers. Does the member support that initiative?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I support the fact that the Competition Bureau's powers needed to be amended and strengthened so that it can undertake market studies and look at mergers that may not be in the best interest of Canadians or in the best interest of a competitive marketplace, which is specifically what Bill C-56 aims to do.

It is outlined in the work that we did when I was on the agriculture and agri-food committee. The Competition Bureau clearly cited in its recent report on grocery price inflation just how limited some of its powers were and how much that inhibited its ability to come to conclusions. I think these powers are a great addition.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to the Liberal government's Bill C- 56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

This is yet another half-baked, half-measure bill from the Prime Minister to solve an affordability crisis that he, himself, and his government have created. After eight years of inflationary taxes and out-of-control spending, Canadians have now found that they cannot afford the Liberal government. They cannot afford housing. They cannot afford fuel, and they certainly cannot afford food.

What makes this bill that much more frustrating is that the Liberals are adding more bureaucracy to try to solve a problem that they created, when there is actually a very quick measure they could enact today that would reduce costs for Canadians significantly, and that would be by eliminating the inflationary carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2. These two carbon taxes and the inflationary aspect of them are making life unaffordable for Canadians.

Today, we saw in a report by the Financial Post that their new initiative, the Canadian sustainability standards board, is actually going to exacerbate those costs on Canadians, especially when it comes to food costs. It is going to add additional bureaucracy to every industry and every commodity, asking them to identify the impact of carbon on every link in the supply chain. This is going to add so much red tape and bureaucracy, and and an onus on every industry, manufacturing every product and growing every commodity, that it is going to make life that much more unaffordable.

The interesting thing is that the Liberals are implementing or imposing these punishing carbon taxes on, for example, agriculture, which is one of the industries that we are a leader in. We are world class in sustainability, in our emissions and in our ability to grow food with the lowest emissions in the world.

The data in painfully clear on the impact the Liberals' carbon tax 1 and 2 is having on Canadian farm families. According to the Canada food price index, a 5,000-acre farm would be paying $150,000 in carbon taxes every single year. There is not a farmer I know that could absorb those types of costs and still remain economically viable.

That is the question the Liberals always seem to forget. They talk about sustainability. I think they get a quarter every time they say it. However, they never talk about economic viability. When these new regulations and taxes are imposed on industry, agriculture or energy, it is impacting their ability to remain economically viable.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer just published a new report confirming the correlation between inflation in Canada and the suffocating carbon tax on our farmers. Diesel will go up 70¢ a litre. In many provinces, gas has already exceeded two dollars a litre.

When I was in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, in the GVA meeting with some farmers, it was $2.08 a litre for gas. It is unbelievable that the government is now expecting Canadians to absorb that and still be able to put food on the table and pay their mortgages. This year alone, the carbon tax collected from farmers, just from on-farm propane and natural gas, was $50 million.

I find it interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change said in his speech on Thursday that he did not know why we were so excited, that the carbon tax does not impact farming. The statistics from the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Canada food price index and just about every commodity group in the country say otherwise.

This is why we have brought forward Bill C-234, which would exempt the carbon tax from natural gas and propane because they are still paying the carbon tax on those two fossil fuels, and that is because there is no alternative. They need these fuels to heat and cool their barns, dry their grain and power their irrigation equipment. This is not something the Conservatives are tossing around, these are indeed the facts.

Those who think those numbers are bad can hold my jerry can. The newest Parliamentary Budget Officer's report on the impact of the carbon tax on farming said that between this year and the year 2030, agriculture will be paying $1 billion in carbon taxes alone.

The Liberals are saying that these costs on farmers, which they do not even believe exist, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirms they do exist, are not impacting the price of food and not the reason we are seeing these high costs at the grocery store shelves.

I do not know anyone, other than maybe those in the Liberal-NDP coalition, who thinks that adding taxes will somehow reduce prices. However, that is exactly what they are saying. As part of this discussion, the Prime Minister has threatened the CEOs of the major grocery chains in Canada, saying that, if they do not stabilize grocery prices by Thanksgiving, there will be tax consequences. He is threatening to increase taxes on the grocery store CEOs and the major chains in Canada.

Is there an issue with competition in Canada? Yes, I would agree with that. We need to do things to improve competition in Canada, which always brings down prices. However, do the government members honestly think and truly believe that if they increase taxes on Sobeys, Loblaws, Costco and Walmart, the companies are just going to absorb those additional costs? There is no scenario where an industry just says, “The government is right; we are going to pay more taxes, and thanks very much.” Of course they are not. They are going to pass them on to the consumers, and that is going to drive up costs even more.

I want to emphasize the real-life consequences these taxes are having on those whom we are relying on to grow the food that we use to feed our families; these growers certainly play a key role in Canada's ability to help feed the world. A fruit and vegetable grower in my riding showed me their power bills for the last few months. They were paying $5,000 a month in carbon taxes alone, plus $800 of GST on top of that carbon tax; it is a tax on a tax. The grower has now decided to close their market in the winter months because they simply cannot afford to stay open. That is fresh fruit and vegetables at a nearby farmers' market and grower, which my rural constituents were able to go to without having to drive into the city. That is now going to be closed, forcing constituents to drive even further. It makes a lot of sense if climate change and reducing emissions is their goal.

A farmer in southern Alberta told me he paid $140,000 in carbon taxes last year, meaning that he could not invest that money in new equipment, which would have been more energy efficient and more fuel efficient. More frustrating for this grower is that he was hoping to have that money to put aside for his daughter, who wants to take over the family farm. She would have been the fifth generation to take over that farm. Now, instead of having that money to invest in his operation, improve efficiency, reduce emissions and help the next generation, where has that gone? It has gone to the Liberal government into general revenue. In fact, again, if reducing emissions and addressing climate change is their ultimate goal, this is doing the exact opposite.

There is another interesting thing. The Liberals want to increase taxes on the grocery CEOs; however, many of the grocery stores in Canada are actually owned by local franchisees. I went to visit the operator at one of the larger Sobeys operations in my riding, to see how things were going. His energy bill has gone up $6,000 a month as a result of the carbon tax. He is trying to absorb those costs, because he is a local business owner. However, he says that, eventually, he is going to have to pass this on to the consumers; otherwise, it is going to have an impact on what he can pay his employees or what he can contribute to local community initiatives, service clubs, sports teams, youth organizations and all those things that business owners try to help support.

The Liberals think that these costs are just magically absorbed by those farmers and small business owners, but they are not; of course, these costs are passed on to the consumer. That is why we see apples up 61%, carrots up 72%, and oranges and potatoes up 76%, just in time for Thanksgiving. The Liberals need to realize that when they increase the tax on the farmer, trucker, manufacturer and retailer, those costs are passed directly on to the consumer. Canadians are paying the price for that.

We are seeing that with millions of Canadians. Seven million Canadians went to a food bank last year. In Alberta, food bank use is up 70%. The food bank in Calgary is supporting 700 families every single day. These are numbers that I know the operators of food banks across the country have never seen before.

In conclusion, if the Liberals really cared about grocery prices and family farms, they could do something right now: They could eliminate their carbon taxes and certainly their plans to quadruple the carbon tax. That, not more red tape and bureaucracy, would make food more affordable for Canadians.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite and I served on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, so he knows we have some disagreements on this.

The Bank of Canada Governor recently said that carbon pricing contributed 0.15% to inflation. That is equivalent to about 15¢ on a $100 grocery bill. The European Central Bank has estimated that climate change contributes as much as 3% to the cost of food per year globally, which is three dollars on a $100 grocery bill. This means that climate change has 20 times the influence that the carbon price has on food prices.

If the member opposite really wants to fight inflation and is serious about it, then why does his party not have a plan to fight climate change?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have had a carbon tax in place for many years, and yet I do not see grocery store prices going down. I do not see life becoming more affordable for farmers.

When I talk to farmers, their number one issue is not climate change. Their number one issue is Liberal government bureaucracy, red tape and carbon tax. It is the biggest stress in their lives.

Farmers in Canada do everything they possibly can to reduce their emissions. That is the thing the Liberals miss. They continue to punish Canadian farmers instead of rewarding them for what they already do. Instead of comparing them to Europe and asking Canadian farmers to get to where Europe is, they are thinking about this backward. What they should do is say they will help get Europe to where we are, with precision agriculture, zero till and 4R nutrient stewardship. Those are the things Canadian farmers are doing, and Liberals had better start recognizing that.

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

Madam Speaker, when debating access to housing, there is one concern that is not mentioned nearly enough: access to affordable housing, community housing and even co-operative housing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I hear conversations going on. I do not know who was speaking, but it was certainly not just the member asking the question.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue can start his question over.

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

Madam Speaker, I was saying that when debating access to housing, the thing we do not talk enough about, in my opinion, is access to affordable housing, especially community housing or even co-operative housing.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague the following question: What could the federal government do to improve access to these types of housing? Could a new law be brought in? What can we do to get more people into affordable housing?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, the first townhouse my wife and I had after we were married was in co-op housing in High River, Alberta. We certainly could not have afforded to start our family if we did not have that option.

Our leader, the hon. member for Carleton, has put forward a plan that will make housing more affordable in Canada, and that is to access 15% of federal buildings that are not being used. These could either be sold to the private sector or developed through a government program. Certainly, the plan would encourage the development of high-density, affordable housing around mass transit.

Those ideas are there, and we certainly hope to have the support of all parties in the House for the bill the leader of the Conservative Party has put forward.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question that was just asked by my colleague from the Bloc.

We had the UN special rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery in Canada, and he spoke specifically about the commodification of housing, where investments concentrate on private housing for wealthy individuals, but similar investments for social housing are non-existent.

The member talked about living in a co-op. Obviously, the New Democratic Party has been calling for co-ops and much more investment in social housing and below-market housing. However, we are not hearing the same thing from the Conservative Party. Would the member support significant investments not only in rental properties but also in below-market housing, in below-market rental properties?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have voiced our support all along. We know that there should be a variety of different options when it comes to housing. However, we cannot impose these things on municipalities, where they are not putting forward land designation and programs in place to do these things.

In fact, there is a town in my riding that has applied to many programs the Liberal government has put forward, but those municipalities that are doing things right do not qualify for those types of programs. These programs are there for the laggards. Therefore, we also need programs in place for those municipalities that have been doing it right and developing programs such as co-op housing.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise and speak to Bill C-56, technically an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

We need to frame the situation that Canada is in right now as a time when the chickens have really come home to roost after years of economic policies of the Conservatives and the Liberals. They told us that our cities would be better off if we let the market and global capital decide the value of our neighbourhoods and gave up the security that we had with union jobs and defined pension plans, if we turned our nation over to the Morneau Shepells of the world to decide what kinds of benefits we should have after a lifetime of working. We see the results.

When I go into stores in my region, people in their seventies, who used to be retired, are now working at places such as Tim Hortons, because they cannot afford to retire. I see the results when talking to men in my region who are 68 or 69 years old, who went back to work underground on the drills because they could not pay their housing costs. Working on the drills is hard for a young man, but 70-year-olds are going back underground because they cannot afford to pay these costs.

Another man I knew said he had to go back underground at 70 because he could not pay for his wife's medicine. We have a government that has talked about pharmacare since my hair was dark and long before that, and yet it still has not delivered. Of course, the Conservatives do not believe in pharmacare, just as they do not believe in the public programs that we and our parents built up over generations, which have been stripped away steadily under the belief in the free market, that we had free market in labour so that people were on precarious gig work. That was Bill Morneau. Members will remember when he told a young generation to get used to it; this would be their new normal. Of course, COVID blew all that away. Young people are saying that this is not going to be their normal, and they have started walking away from these jobs.

We see the situation where people cannot afford to buy their groceries because of the relentless price gouging of the likes of Galen Weston. We will never hear the Conservatives stand up to a CEO. For example, the other day, they were telling us that the price of potatoes in Calgary had gone up 70% because of the carbon tax. Calgary does not get its potatoes from P.E.I. It gets them from Idaho, which does not pay a carbon tax. In Idaho, the reason the price of potatoes went up is because of the climate crisis that is ongoing in the west. This is something the Conservatives will never admit, even in a year where we have lost 14 million hectares of forest lands and where over 200,000 people were forced to be evacuated in Canada, with billions in costs. That is what we get from the Conservatives.

The Liberals talk about it, but emissions continue to go up. The Liberals say they are going to sit down and meet with the CEOs of the grocery chains; hopefully, they will do something. Nobody believes them. We need stronger commitments. I do not know how many announcements and reannouncements I have heard in eight years from the Liberals about their commitment to housing, yet I still do not see those houses being built.

We need to take this issue seriously because of the price gouging that has gone on, the market exploitation and the turning of our cities over to Airbnb, which allowed young people and working-class people to be forced out of the cities they love. In my region, the housing and homelessness issue is at a crisis level. We never saw Doug Ford offer to build any houses in Timmins. He was willing to sell off the greenbelt, but we could use those houses.

This is the situation we are in, so people are frustrated. They deserve a straight vision. They deserve a commitment. How would that commitment look? Certainly, in terms of housing, we know that the market-driven solutions have driven us into this crisis. We know that what worked before, until the 1990s, when Paul Martin walked away on it, was the federal investment with the provinces and municipalities to build housing. The best solution is co-operative public housing that has mixed-income housing. That is what we need.

I need to be able to go back to my communities with a commitment that these houses are going to be built. There is not a quicker driver to build an economy than housing. We could do that today if there was will in this House to do that.

We need to get serious with the CEOs. We have talked about a windfall tax, but we need to actually make them deliver, or we have to start talking about issues like price controls. We know that people are being gouged, and we are in a situation where we cannot allow the oligopoly of grocery chains, because there is no competition, to call the shots, as they are doing. We need to limit their ability to continue to spread their powers as we see Shoppers Drug Mart moving more and more into health care. We simply cannot trust them. We need to protect the public health care system.

These are all the issues that are coming toward us at this time. I mentioned it quickly, but I want to actually really focus on how we are also in the middle of a climate catastrophe. We need to talk about the climate catastrophe. We have the leader of the Conservative Party, the member who lives in Stornoway, a 19-room mansion with his own personal chef, who would make burning fossil fuel free.

We are at an absolute crisis on our planet. We are also at a time when the International Energy Agency said, as of last week, that the end of big oil is imminent because of the incredible investments that have been made all around the world, but not in Canada, on clean energy. There is no place in the world that has more potential for clean energy right now than in the province of Alberta, yet Danielle Smith shut down $33 billion of clean energy projects and rented a truck to drive around Ottawa, telling us that the power is going out in Alberta.

Most premiers spend money to attract investment or to say their province is an energy superpower. Is that not what Alberta said? They said they were a province that could build energy projects and get them off the ground. Instead, she is paying for the gas to go around saying they cannot keep the power on in Alberta. That is the Conservative vision. They are wedded to big oil, an industry that has made billions in the last few years while we got gouged at the pumps.

We will never hear the Conservatives talk about the price gouging that we know is happening. When we go home on a Friday in northern Ontario, we know the price goes up right across the board on those long weekends at the same time; everybody knows it is price gouging, but the Conservatives say they will get rid of the carbon tax and make it free to burn.

I can ask anyone if they think big oil is not going to, if that tax came up, just hoover that up and put it into the profits of people like Rich Kruger.

We are at a time when Canadians are looking to Parliament to actually deliver. In the last election I went door to door talking to people about their concerns. I heard, again and again, that people could not afford to get their teeth fixed. People said they do not trust politicians anymore. They asked how they could get their kids' teeth fixed. I said that if they elected us, we would go back and get a national dental care plan. We are going to get that plan. The Conservatives announced they would spend all summer going around to try to stop that budget implementation, but we are going to get dental care for seniors and children this year.

The other commitment we made, and I am putting the Liberals on notice, is that we made that commitment to pharmacare. We have two more years in this Parliament. If we do not see pharmacare, it is going to be pretty hard to go back and say that we hung out with the son of PIerre Elliott for two or three years. People ask why we are hanging out with that guy. We are hanging out here on this side to get something done. That is pharmacare and dental care.

If we go back to the Canadian people and say we did that, it shows them how Parliament can work and that we can work across party lines. We intend to make sure we can go back to the Canadian people who said that in a time of crisis, New Democrats were there on the issues that mattered to people.

We will stand up and fight for people who cannot afford to pay CEBA back, when the government only gives them an extra 18 days. We will fight for small businesses. We will fight for a cleaner climate. We will fight for the indigenous communities that continue to be ignored. We will fight for pharmacare, and we will fight for dental care. That is why we were elected and that is why we are here today.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I note that my colleague brought up a really interesting point, which is that Conservatives talk about the carbon tax quite a bit, but they seem to stop short when it comes to trying to explain the rising costs otherwise.

There is a very good graph that was recently posted that shows exactly where the price of fuel has increased. Over the last year, the price of fuel has increased, as a result of the carbon tax, by 2¢ per litre. The price of fuel has increased by wholesale margins, in other words, profits, by 18¢ per litre.

Can the member for Timmins—James Bay provide some insight as to why the Conservatives are so hung up on talking about the increase of 2¢ per litre as it relates to the carbon tax and not the 18¢ per litre as it relates to the profits received by these oil companies?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative leader announced he was going to spend all summer during the hottest summer in history, as Canada was burning, promoting burning fossil fuels for free. It was so bad he got choked out of a number of the communities that were facing this. Even as their own communities were burning, like when Kelowna was on fire, what did we have? We had the member for Kelowna—Lake Country bragging about fossil fuel burning being free.

The connection between burning fossil fuels and the climate crisis was proven a long time ago, despite the amount of money Exxon spent trying to suppress that. The Conservatives have no plan. Only recently, they said they have something called technology. They do not really know what it is because they are against battery plant investments, solar and geothermal, but they are into burning the planet.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I heard the member talk about palling around and burning fossil fuels.

In 2020, the member took a trip to Washington on sponsored travel, when most Canadians could not travel. In 2022, the member took a trip to Germany and burned fossil fuels worth $10,489. He talked about palling around with Pierre Elliott Trudeau. On this trip to Germany, he palled around with a group that actually did a joint press conference with Hezbollah, which is now a terrorist organization.

Can he explain to his constituents why he is palling around with Hezbollah terrorists?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was pretty bizarre, but I am not surprised. When I was in Berlin, I was actually meeting with the chancellor about clean energy. We met with the chancellor, unlike the four Conservatives—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member had an opportunity to ask a question. If he has other questions, wishes to raise a point of order or table a document, I would ask him to wait until it is the appropriate time.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was quite the honour to meet with the German chancellor and talk about hydrogen. It was a real honour to meet with representatives of the German Bundestag on whether Canada can supply clean energy.

That is rather different than the four Conservatives who got flown over to London, apparently by my cousin, Dan McTeague. The one bottle was $1,791 for champagne and he wants to talk about affordability. I am sure the member gets really high and happy when he gets a little bottle of Spumante Bambino, but they were spending $1,791 for a single bottle of champagne.

Who paid for that trip? Why were they there? People knew why we were there. We were meeting with the German government because we stand up for Canada. They were over there boozing it up for whatever reason. Let us know who paid for that trip.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order. The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member would like me to table a document showing who he actually met with in Germany, so there is proof that the meetings I talked about are true.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would be more than willing to let them table it, if they table all the receipts and who actually paid for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

That is becoming a point of debate.

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Shefford.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, throughout this debate, I will try to bring us back to the matter at hand today, Bill C‑56.

Yesterday, at a meeting with entrepreneurs, I was asked what happened to the $900 million for housing. What does my colleague think of that?

It might be important to release that money as soon as possible. In Quebec, that money is eagerly awaited. It is time to try to stop this procedural wrangling.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, the money has to flow. We have so many housing proposals out there and they are getting turned down one after another by the Liberal government or the money is just sitting there. We are not seeing the money flow. We are hearing the words flow but we need to see the money flow.

The House resumed from October 3 consideration of the motion that Bill C‑56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑56. It is a government bill that would amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

Like my colleagues, I see this as an attempt by the federal government to respond to spiralling housing and grocery prices. It is true that rising interest rates are hurting many families, who are seeing mortgage payments take up more and more of their family budget. We need only imagine the situation of single-parent families, young people, students and immigrant families. I will spare the House the full list.

However, I am sure my colleagues will understand why I have doubts about the effectiveness of certain measures in Bill C‑56. When we look at the specifics of the measures put forward by this government, we see realities that are very often based on gender. Women often bear the brunt. What troubles me is the situation of the people who are paying the price for these increases. Thousands of families in each of our ridings are in that boat. Even more outrageous is the fact that seniors are once again left out in the cold, as are the most disadvantaged members of our society.

To find solutions to address this housing crisis, we must listen more to the organizations working on the ground. I want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, who has travelled all over Quebec. During his tour, he took part in an activity in my riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The activity drew over 25 people, which is a large number, and a lot of solutions were put forward. We must listen to organizations on the ground, such as the Association des groupes de ressources techniques du Québec, or AGRTQ, the Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes, and other non-profit organizations, as well as co-operatives, which are too often forgotten. The government needs to get projects off the ground and renew funding for initiatives that are working.

The YWCA, an organization that also works in Quebec with women in need of transitional housing, reminded us on Tuesday that it is important to shift public policy toward gender equality. In this crisis that affects our constituents, it is important to remember what organizations expect of us, namely better alignment and more flexibility and agility.

The housing shortage is dire. The government has to encourage the construction of rental and residential housing. It also has to renew the social housing construction program to provide more transitional housing and more affordable permanent housing.

Bill C‑56 includes provisions relating to competition that will make a difference in the longer term. What a shame the government did not act sooner. It is kind of late in the game. In 1996, there were 13 grocery chains; now there are only three.

Let us look at the three main measures in Bill C‑56.

First, it gives the commissioner of competition real investigative powers. Once Bill C‑56 is law, the commissioner will be able to compel a person to testify or produce documents. That has not been possible up to now. I was at a summit organized by the Competition Bureau this morning. I could see that people are taking action on this. They are ready and willing. There were over 700 people online. The room was full. Clearly this issue matters to people. Waiting this long for competition reform may well cost us, though. I will have more to say about that later.

The second measure prohibits agreements with non-competitors aimed at reducing competition. For example, when a grocery store signed a lease with a shopping centre, it was common practice to include clauses prohibiting the shopping centre from renting space to another grocery store. That type of practice will now be prohibited, and that is a good thing.

The final measure, which we are very pleased with, responds to requests from my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, who has been calling for an end to the efficiencies defence for mergers and acquisitions. This measure may come too late, as the five major players' powerful position in the food industry clearly shows.

I want to stress the fact that one major challenge remains. We must continue trying to find a way to enhance competition in the food industry or this bill will not meet its real objective. Once a company is in a dominant position, there is no incentive or requirement for it to make room for more competitors. Introducing new competitors is the only way to prevent pricing arrangements and to permanently entrench the concept of affordability, meaning affordably priced goods and services.

My colleagues must be accustomed to hearing me talk about the reality in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, because the government needs to understand that it often acts too late for our communities.

I want to talk about this because Abitibi—Témiscamingue has been affected by the loss of competition in the food industry. To know where we are going, we must know where we are coming from. In conversation with locals in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, and particularly in Rouyn‑Noranda, the topic of the Montemurro grocery store is bound to come up. Montemurro was the pride of the region. The business continued expanding until 1966, when it purchased the wholesaler ADL.

ADL used to buy up half the fresh vegetables grown in the region. At one point, it was supplying 25 independent markets from northern Ontario and Abitibi—Témiscamingue all the way to Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. Its sales totalled $270 million. Its distribution centre and administrative headquarters were based in Rouyn‑Noranda. My colleagues can imagine how much development leverage our regional agriculture sector had through that company.

In 2006, Sobeys arrived on the scene. What was the result for people in my region? From 2006 to 2013, ADL pared back its distribution activities, becoming a mere transfer centre. Our local products and our local agricultural production gave us significant business opportunities and the ability to supply fresh local produce, but local production was greatly affected by this change.

Prior to the merger of Sobeys and ADL, vegetables from all over our region were sent to Rouyn‑Noranda. Since the merger, they have to travel further before ending up on our shelves. Unfortunately, items like tomatoes from Guyenne have to go all the way to Montreal before ending up back in La Sarre, the next town over.

Unfortunately, for reasons of efficiency, these acquisitions are approved as a formality. The government did not oppose these mergers and acquisitions. Today, Sobeys, Loblaws, Metro, Costco and Walmart control 80% of the food market. That is the situation I am referring to when I say that the measure set out in Bill C-56 will close a loophole, but it comes much too late for food markets. ADL was the last major wholesaler in Quebec, and maybe even in Canada.

A few people in Quebec still managed to make their mark in the market. The people in Amos are very lucky because they can still count on a wholesaler, Ben Deshaies, who is based in Amos. This business model of buying local is incredibly important to us. The Deshaies family deserve a lot of credit for being able to succeed, thanks to the entrepreneurial qualities passed down from generation to generation, despite a near total lack of competition in this sector.

It is time to act on the many demands that the Bloc Québécois has put forward in the House and at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. Thanks to the lack of competition and the encouragement of oligopolies, the major players are taking advantage of their market share to raise prices.

In my opinion, it is essential that the minister avoid making cuts to processors and farmers. Quebec's food processing companies are economic drivers that help support many families and create jobs across Quebec. They have already made their contribution and are facing considerable pressure, particularly in communities close to those resources.

It is striking to see that farmers and processors are no longer making money but that consumers are paying twice as much. Between the two, someone is making a profit. That is the trouble. That is where the problem lies. It is often the same company concentrating resources and distributing them.

It has also been striking to see the headlines in the news over the last two weeks about the federal government pressuring the major supermarket chains to take significant steps to stabilize or even lower food costs. I recently read one farmer's opinion in La Tribune. He noted the importance of short supply chains for our food security. That is what the member for Berthier—Maskinongé always says, and he can never say it enough.

That same point has been raised by many farmers in Témiscamingue. The public markets in our regions now offer a variety of high-quality products. It is time to support them by buying our produce there, but it is also time to encourage permanent, year-round measures. I would also encourage my colleagues to pursue our discussions in greater depth. It is essential for us to delve deeper to find solutions. Although Competition Bureau studies are useful, we need to react thoughtfully to red flags.

The proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-56 can help prevent the situation from getting worse in the future by tightening up the rules governing business mergers and acquisitions. However, they will not fix the existing problems. The damage has already been done, and Bill C‑56 does not present any forward-looking solutions for fixing it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, one thing the government has done is support Canadians through difficult times. We understand and appreciate the whole issue of the cost of living. That is one of the reasons we came up with the grocery rebate, in essence supporting somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians.

The legislation we have before us today is in recognition of the fact that we need to see more competition. The minister has met with the big five grocers, if I can put it that way. We want to see lower prices. We want to see more stabilization.

What would the member do, in addition to the many things we have already done, to assist Canadians on this very important issue?

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

Madam Speaker, the current situation is that Canada has let oligopolies take over. That is true in the food industry, and it is also true in the banking sector. Taking action to fix that may require more courage, but it will have an impact on people's wallets. This situation also exists in the gas industry. It would take more courage for the House to address these issues. It is also true in telecommunications.

As with the reform of the Competition Act, I applaud the progress that has been made by the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. I was there for his presentation this morning at Canada's competition summit. There is now a willingness to act that I believe was needed. For several years, I have also been urging the Standing Committee on Industry Technology to take action on competition reform, which is an important solution.

However, at this time, no action is being taken about the oligopolies. I look forward to seeing what splashy measures the government proposes when Parliament returns.

Will they have any impact? How can the government take a coercive approach with the large chains without raising prices and passing the cost on to consumers? I am very worried, so I look forward to getting some answers.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to share a story. There are are four grocery stores just a block away from where I live. One of them is a major chain store, like the oligopolies my colleague is talking about. Another one is a small independent grocery store owned by a Portuguese family. All their children work there. Strangely enough, the prices at the small independent store are sometimes half of what the chain store charges. Inflation, however, supposedly affects everyone equally. There has to be something wrong with the logic of the major grocery chains.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks when the Liberals, half-heartedly and almost on bended knee, beg these huge oligopolies to stabilize prices. What is the use of stabilizing prices when prices are already too high and people are going without food?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is in no position to lecture anyone about going down on bended knee and demanding things from the government, but that is another debate.

However, the question remains. Where are the profits going? They are certainly not going to our farmers, who are on the verge of bankruptcy. Things are really tough right now. My region has had a drought, and that is on top of rising input and fuel costs. The challenges are enormous. It is important to strengthen local distribution channels and ensure direct access to farmers. The growing number of intermediaries means that, if everyone takes a share, consumers end up paying more.

Right now consumers have very little direct access to farmers. The major players who control the distribution market are taking so much money that processors are no longer making any money and consumers are paying twice as much.

Local distribution channels must be strengthened. We need to invest in our regions and create public markets and permanent structures that will encourage consumers to visit. That way, we can improve our agricultural industry and our economy.

[Richard Lehoux, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Madam Speaker, when it comes to local distribution and slaughtering capacity, we know the situation could substantially improve. There are only a few abattoirs throughout the regions, in Quebec and across Canada. There is an over-concentration.

Does the federal government have a role to play here?

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

Madam Speaker, there are no abattoirs in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. It is a serious problem for our agriculture. Our farmers have to get their beef slaughtered more than 500 kilometres away. How is it that are we able to get programs to compensate the transportation of livestock, but we cannot get programs that should be fully funded by the governments? Obviously, it is hard to make abattoirs profitable. Having programs, however, would help us create economic diversity.

There is a cost to the quality of meat, the transportation, the environment and others. We need to invest in regional abattoirs.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

The entire world is experiencing a global inflation crisis. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine and supply chain and climate change challenges, inflation is a worldwide issue. Compared to other G7 countries, Canada has fared very well, but that does not mean our country is immune to the factors driving up high prices around the world.

COVID-19 was an unforeseen global crisis. The world essentially ground to a halt. Canada has performed relatively well through the pandemic recovery thanks to the resiliency of the Canadian economy and in part to the programs the government introduced to support Canadians and business owners. However, just because Canada is doing better than many other G7 nations, that does not mean Canadians are not experiencing difficulties.

This past summer, I spoke to many constituents in Surrey—Newton who had concerns about the price of housing and the price of groceries. Therefore, I am very pleased Bill C-56 was the first piece of legislation the government introduced this fall session. Due to global inflation, the government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Although we have been introducing measures that have helped Canadians, we must continue to do more to provide targeted support. Bill C-56 addresses what we would do to help build more rental housing and to try to curb the rise in prices we have seen in grocery stores throughout the country.

Making housing more affordable is something we must tackle, including where the federal government can influence the activities within the marketplace so all Canadians have the opportunity of owning a home. Bill C-56 puts forward legislation to encourage the construction of much-needed purpose-built rental housing. We are proposing to eliminate the GST on the construction of new apartment buildings, student housing and seniors residences across Canada. Working on housing supply is an important part of what the federal government is doing to help Canadians. For a rental unit valued at $500,000, the GST rental rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief to developers and builders. This tool would help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need and that families want to live in.

This legislation would also remove a restriction on the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and certain not-for-profit organizations, could build or purchase purpose-built rental housing and be permitted to claim 100% of the enhanced GST rental rebate.

We are also calling on provinces that currently apply PST or the provincial part of the HST to rental housing to join us by matching the federal rebate for new rental housing. It is very encouraging to see that certain provinces would be participating in this program. We are also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning, and we are encouraging them to build apartments near public transit in order to have housing accelerator fund applications approved.

Launched earlier this year, the housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities unlock new housing supply, targeting approximately 100,000 units across the country. I look at lead times for projects, particularly in the Lower Mainland and more particularly in Surrey, and they are up to two years. To bring that down, this $4-billion bill would help cities hire more planners, inspectors and plan checkers so the process can be passed and there would be more inventory in the market. It would also support the development of complete low-carbon and climate-resilient communities that are diverse, affordable, inclusive and equitable. Every community across this country needs to build more homes faster so we can reduce the cost of housing for all Canadians.

Through the one-time grocery rebate issued in July, we delivered targeted inflation relief to 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and the families that needed it the most. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we know that more needs to be done to address the rising cost of groceries. This is why we are taking immediate steps to enhance competition across the economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, to help stabilize costs for Canadians.

With Bill C-56, we would also be helping Canadians by stabilizing the price of groceries. We are introducing a set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act that would ensure more effective and modern competition law to promote affordability for Canadians and help our economic growth. This bill would empower the Competition Bureau to take action against collaborations that restrain competition and consumer choice, in particular in situations where the larger grocery store chains prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby. The government is taking concrete steps to help stabilize food prices and improve competition in Canada. Canadians can be assured that the government will continue to work day in and day out to bring them much-needed relief.

Bill C-56 builds on other measures that the government has introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians. We are supporting 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, including over 28,000 children in Surrey—Newton, with families this year receiving up to $7,400 per child under the age of six and $6,300 per child for children aged six to 17. We have increased old age security, have enhanced the Canada workers benefit and have also reduced fees for regulated child care by an average of 50%, moving toward $10-per-day day care by 2026. Six provinces and territories have already reached that goal. In my own province of British Columbia, the capacity has doubled on this $10-a-day day care system.

We have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians depend on, and we are working on helping Canadians put food on their table, pay their rent and be successful within their respective communities. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family. Making life more affordable is a key part of that. I urge all members of the House to support this legislation to help Canadian families.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, like other Liberals, this member just lists off in his speech a long list of new Liberal spending. It is record spending, of course, as everybody knows, not many times more than previous governments but many billions of dollars more than previous governments.

Many of them have talked about the fact that they are subsidizing, through a grocery rebate, 11 million Canadians. Does the hon. member recognize that the fact that the government needs to subsidize groceries for over a quarter of our population is a sign of an absolutely devastatingly bad Liberal economic policy?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of the fiscal prudence our government brought to Canada. Our government absolutely understands that our job is to balance fiscal responsibility and compassion, and we have done that.

If we review our record, Canada has the lowest deficit in the G7 nations. Canada also has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canada's AAA credit rating was reaffirmed just two weeks ago. Canadians can afford to be compassionate to the most vulnerable among us, and we will be. That is why we gave this grocery rebate. Now we know that we need to work on the Competition Act, as well as bringing in more housing so people can have an affordable lifestyle.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we passed a bill in the House that allocates $4 billion to a housing accelerator fund for municipalities. The federal government cannot talk to Quebec municipalities; it has to come to an agreement with the Quebec government. Negotiations are under way, and the share due to Quebec comes to $900 million. I would like to remind everyone that housing is a provincial jurisdiction.

According to what we learned this morning, the federal government is nitpicking and dawdling. It is having a hard time choosing a colour for the tiles and the carpet. Then it questions whether a given apartment should have 8 or 14 lights. What a waste of time. Again, this is a provincial jurisdiction. There are currently 10,000 people in Quebec who do not have a roof over their heads.

What will it take to get Ottawa to send that $900-million cheque?

We need it now.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, I totally understand how important this $4-billion accelerator fund is to the municipalities, particularly in Surrey—Newton. As I said earlier, the wait-list for the plans and projects is too long. We have to bring it down. We need to have those efforts with Quebec. Similarly, all those efforts are not only needed in Surrey, but they are needed across the country, including in Quebec.

The housing minister recently met with Minister Duranceau to pursue the work the hon. member is talking about. We hope that, in the coming months, municipalities, Quebec and the Canadian government will work together, hand in hand, to help municipalities have more housing supply for Quebeckers.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's speech typifies what we are hearing from the Liberals. There is a recognition of the crisis of high food prices, and they talk about stabilizing them. That would be stabilizing them at the highest level ever with some of the highest margins ever. They have called in the CEOs, who were previously found guilty of price-fixing with bread. Studies have shown that margins have gone up during the pandemic.

What is the member expecting these CEOs to do with these voluntary measures?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are also looking to give more powers to the Competition Bureau to conduct marketing studies and compel information from companies so a decision can be made to bring the prices down.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is such an honour to rise for my first debate on such an important issue that not only the residents in Oxford are facing, but also Canadians across the country.

Before I begin and dive deep into Bill C-56, I would like to take a few moments—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

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

Madam Speaker, the interpreters are signalling that there is feedback. I am not sure whether it is from an electronic source close to the microphones, but the interpreters are hearing a thud.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members to keep their phones and earpieces away from the microphones and not on their desk because it creates problems for the interpreters.

I would ask the member speaking to make sure his interpretation earpiece is off and that there is no phone beside the mike.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, as this is the member's maiden speech, would it be acceptable for him to restart his speech from the beginning given the challenges we have had technically?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will do that, but I want to remind all members of the House to make sure that they are prepared, and that includes having phones and earpieces away from the mikes.

The hon. member for Oxford.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today for my first debate on such an important issue facing not only Oxford residents but also Canadians across our country.

Before I dive into Bill C-56, I would like to take a few minutes to quickly recognize all those who made my journey to this chamber possible. First there is my great campaign team and the hundreds of volunteers who showed up and knocked on doors. There is also a strong riding association, my family and friends, and my great Conservative caucus colleagues, who came out, knocked on doors, put up signs and helped me to take my seat in this chamber today.

I am truly blessed to be representing the great riding, one of the best ridings, of Oxford. We are a great community with so much potential. We are the best dairy farmers in Canada. We are the best agriculture sector in Canada. We have the 401 and 403 intersecting in my riding, making it a great transportation logistical hub for Canada. We have the leaders in the auto sector and two massive plants in my riding, with Toyota in Woodstock and CAMI in Ingersoll. We are leaders in hospitality in the food industry. Many members may have heard of Shaw's Ice Cream or Jakeman's Maple Farm, and both are in Oxford.

We are a great community with so much potential. Why? It is because of our people. We have hard-working, dedicated, committed folks who want to roll up their sleeves and get things done, which is the story of my family.

Like many Canadians, I do not come from privilege. I am a proud son of immigrants. My mom came to Canada from India from a dairy farming family back in India and dad was working class. They came to Canada with $10 in their pocket and a dream for a better life, not just for themselves but also for the next generation, and they worked hard. Growing up, I saw them both work in factories with 16-hour shifts. They picked up the odd shift on weekends whenever they could to make ends meet. Growing up, we picked strawberries to put food on our table. That is the story of other hard-working Canadians as well. We all worked. Nothing was given to us. We knew that if we worked hard and played by the rules, we could earn an honest living and get ahead in this country.

This is why it is an honour of a lifetime to be standing here in this chamber because only in Canada can a proud son of immigrants, a son of factory workers, take a seat in this chamber and be a public servant to Canadians, which is why I do not take this role lightly. I will be one of the hardest-working members of Parliament in this chamber. I will give it everything I have. I will serve with humility because I know that in public service I am serving, and Canadians are my boss. I work for them. I will always stand up for what is right, not what is easy. I will always be a strong voice for the voiceless.

The stakes are high in our country. After eight years of this Liberal-NDP government, Canadians are struggling. The Canadian dream that my parents came to this country for is sadly starting to fade away.

To address the issue at hand today, Bill C-56 is the Liberal's response to addressing an affordability crisis that they themselves created with failed leadership, weak policies and simply incompetence, which is why they are looking around for ideas, and they are looking at the Conservative caucus for ideas. I do not mind that at all. I understand that they like to steal ideas, which is not a bad thing because Conservatives have common sense ideas that will get our country back on track. We will bring affordability to coast to coast to coast for Canadians.

However, it does break my heart to see half of Canadians living paycheque to paycheque. Seven million Canadians are now struggling to put food on their table. There are 1.5 million Canadians who are now visiting a food bank. These are our friends, our neighbours, our relatives, and one in five are now skipping meals.

In my riding, we have great organizations that have stepped up to support the most vulnerable. One of them is in Tillsonburg, which is called the Tillsonburg Helping Hand Food Bank. It has great volunteers who are working hard to make sure they support our community. I met with Dianne and the team, and they told me that food bank usage is up 60% just from last year.

Another shining light in my riding is Operation Sharing. It does great work with the homeless community. When I spoke to Shawn Shapton, he told me the exact same thing, that we are at a crisis point that has never been seen before.

I remember speaking to a single mom when I was knocking on doors in Woodstock during my campaign. We had a conversation, and there were tears coming down her face. She was concerned for her family. She was worried that she would not be able to feed her children and provide for the newborn son she had just had.

When I was in Tavistock, I met a senior who worked all his life, did everything right and saved money, but now he is on a fixed income and is looking for a handout from his daughter. That is not the Canadian dream my parents had.

What really bothers me is when veterans, who served our country, and working-class Canadians, who are now struggling, are being pushed to potentially end their lives with the MAID program. That is not the Canadian dream.

When the government finally wakes up and talks about affordability, what is the first thing it does? It gets the cameras out, stages a photo op and calls grocery CEOs. Canadians do not need more photo ops. They need more food on their tables.

The Liberal-NDP policies, such as the carbon tax, do nothing for the environment, but they do punish Canadians. They make everything more expensive, including heating their homes, putting food on their tables and putting gas in their cars. It punishes our farmers in Oxford, who have seen their input costs skyrocket. When they are heating their barns, drying their grain and running their operations, they are paying tens of thousands of dollars for that.

However, members do not need to take my word for it. The government's own Parliamentary Budget Officer said the carbon tax is going to cost farmers a billion dollars in the next few years. It punishes our truckers, who ship our food, and it ultimately punishes Canadians who buy the food. Our common sense Conservative team, led by our great leader, will axe this failed tax and put more money back into hard-working Canadians.

It does not end there. Liberals have created a mess in housing as well. Way back when, we could go to work, earn an honest living and buy our dream home. Now that dream of home ownership is starting to fade away. Housing, rent and mortgage payments have doubled. Nine in 10 young Canadians feel they will never be able to buy a home.

I met with a young couple in Norwich last week. We had coffee and were talking about their future. They told me that they did everything right. They went to school, got decent jobs and saved their money, but it is still not enough for a down payment. They are still living with their parents, and it is a barrier to them starting their own family.

For years the Prime Minister and the government have been telling Canadians that they have an affordable plan. I watched the minister stand to say they have a plan and now, all of a sudden, he has switched and is saying that housing is not a federal responsibility. Real leaders do not hide and make excuses. They find ways to get things done.

That is why the Conservative leader and our strong team have put forward a plan. We are going to remove government gatekeepers who are blocking construction. We are going to incentivize our local townships and municipalities to build more homes. We are going to make sure we have affordable homes for Canadians.

The Liberals gave us a long list of challenges after they broke Canada, but I believe deep in my heart that, with the right leadership, we will get our country back on track. With the Conservative leader as prime minister, we can restore the Canadian promise that Liberals have broken. We are going to bring home affordable homes, and we are going to bring home affordable groceries. We are going to bring it home.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, I would like to welcome my hon. colleague to the House, and congratulate him.

I am really positive about Bill C-56 and how it would strengthen the Competition Act. I wonder if the member could comment on this approach and on whether he thinks it would have positive impacts in lowering grocery prices across the country.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the best wishes coming from the other side of the chamber.

What I do know for a fact is that staging photo ops with grocery CEOs will not solve this problem. They are trying to take our plan, which is a great plan, and I commend them for that. We need to use common sense thoughtful policies, which I do applaud the Liberals for taking them from our leader and caucus. However, photo ops will not fix the problem. We need real, concrete solutions. They have been at the helm for eight years. This is not a new problem.

For us, it is about getting practical solutions that will give Canadians relief, solutions like scrapping the failed carbon tax. That will provide relief to hard-working families right away.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, I want to congratulate my colleague on his election.

One thing I did not hear in his speech was about corporate profits when it came to grocery prices. We know that corporate profits are contributing over 25 times the impact than the carbon tax, according to the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He cites that the carbon tax is 0.15% in terms of its contributions to the overall impact of inflation.

I would like to hear whether my colleague believes there should be an excess profit tax on the big grocery stores like Sobeys, Metro and Loblaws, which had a $3.6-billion profit just last year alone. We saw grocery prices skyrocket. I hope my colleague can talk about the corporate greed and the impact that is having on inflation.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's wishes, but I am also concerned, because those members have been part of the government for the last eight years. It is the NDP-Liberal government that has caused the problems we see today. They should be pushing this legislation through their colleagues on the other side.

The carbon tax is driving up the cost of our groceries. We would scrap that tax. For them, it is about CEO photo ops; for us, it is about bringing home real solutions for Canadians.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election and his first speech in the House. I think that he spoke with remarkable aplomb. I congratulate him.

He talked about Conservative solutions to the housing crisis. The Conservatives want to talk to cities. That does not work. That entire strategy does not work at all. In Quebec, the federal government cannot talk directly to cities. That is done through Quebec. Housing is a provincial jurisdiction. Moreover, the crisis is not quite as serious in Quebec as it is in the rest of Canada—for example, in Toronto and Vancouver—because Quebec stepped in when the federal government withdrew from housing for 30 years. For 30 years, Quebec created programs that actually provided for social housing while nothing was happening in Ottawa.

Does my colleague not agree that, if the federal government wants to develop strategies, it must talk directly to the Government of Quebec and send in the money?

The federal government has fiscal capacities that Quebec and the municipalities do not have. It must reach an agreement with Quebec to ensure that the money to build housing will be released as soon as possible.

[Arpan Khanna, Conservative, Oxford, ON]

Madam Speaker, last year, we built the same number of homes that we built in 1972, but our population has gone up significantly.

When the member says that there is no solutions and asks how we will work with the government, we have federal funds that will go toward infrastructure. We will ensure that before we give a dollar to municipalities, it will be tied to success, to building more homes. If municipalities build more homes, they will get a bonus. They will get more rewards.

Our plan is to work with our local mayors and give them support. We will work with our provinces and build more affordable housing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to rise today to speak to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

We know that the bill calls for two important aspects: to remove the GST from construction costs on new rental units and to enable the Competition Bureau to conduct better investigations, while also removing efficiency exemptions during mergers to improve competition.

With respect to the removal of the GST, the New Democrats have been calling for this, but it will not meaningfully reduce rent payments or create social and co-operative housing effectively, and we absolutely need that. However, the bill would be part of a bigger comprehensive approach that we want to move forward to address the affordable housing crisis.

With respect to the Competition Act, the bill is a start at reining in and regulating monopolies, but it would not go far enough to support Canadians on their desire to control these monopolies and the impacts they have on our economy.

We know that in the eight years the Liberal government has been in power, it has been the New Democrats who have been bringing forward solutions to get help for people, like this GST removal on housing, although it would not go far enough or have enough restrictions to deal with competition.

I am going to speak about a couple of things. We know the bill is a little too late with respect to the housing crisis, but I will speak to that first.

Le us look at the impact of housing. I am the critic for the NDP for mental health and substance use. We know that the cost of housing is escalating. There is a lack of affordable housing and the available occupancy rates are at historic lows. This is having a huge impact on people's mental health and stress levels, and this is a long-standing issue

When there was a minority government in 1972, the NDP worked with the Liberals to create the national housing strategy, which developed 18,000 to 25,000 units a year until 1992. In fact, I am one of the many Canadians who grew up in co-op housing, so I am a beneficiary of that housing. I lived first-hand the experience of having safe and secure housing for my family and my parents. I saw what that could do. In fact, I can go back to that co-op today and see many of the people with whom I grew up. Their kids and their grandkids are living there as well.

However, since the Liberals pulled out of the national housing strategy in the early 1990s, both the Conservative and Liberal governments consecutively failed to dive back in. As a result, we have lost between 18,000 and 25,000 units a year for over 30 years. Now our non-market housing availability is at 3.5%, and we do not have to look far to see what 3.5% looks like.

If we go outside the doors of the House of Commons, we will see homeless people. I can go to Port Alberni, a medium-sized city in my riding, or a small city in my riding, and I will see homelessness. We can go to any big city and we will see homeless people everywhere. However, we can go to Europe, where places like the Netherlands is at 35% non-market housing and Vienna it is at 60%, and we will not see the scale of homelessness that we see in our country.

We know it is so much more expensive to not provide people housing. There is the cost to hospitals, a cost to all our systems. It could eventually impact our prison system, as we know.

Ben Perrin, the former public safety adviser for the Stephen Harper Conservatives, hosted an event the other night. He has a new book called Indictment, about the reform of Canada's justice system. He talked about how the lowest cost approach was to put people in proper housing. That would cost a fraction of what it would cost if we did not, in terms of the prison system, hospital system and health care system. We need to get back into affordable housing.

We keep hearing this from the Conservative Party. We heard the leader of the Conservative Party talk about divesting, selling off 6,000 government buildings and the divesting of 15% of public lands. What would that look like? We just saw what happened in Ontario with the Conservatives under Doug Ford. It looks like profiteering, profits for developers. In fact, a handful of developers would have made $8.3 billion almost overnight, donors of the Doug Ford government. This is what it looks like when Conservatives divest public lands. Public lands belong in public hands, not in the pockets of developers.

The B.C. Liberals, who have now rebranded themselves as B.C. United, did the same thing. They sold off $493 million worth of public lands to the private sector, to donors of their party. That was worth $860 million just a couple of years later.

The Conservative ideas of selling off public lands ends up in the pockets of developers. We need to fix this. I am bringing forward a plan to do that. We know we need 3.5 million homes just to meet the demand by 2030. This is going to take a wartime-like effort to do that. We have to work together in the House if we are to achieve that. We have to remove barriers, and we need to provide guidelines and regulations so we do not have another Greenbelt or the scam like we saw in British Columbia, when the Conservative and the right wing get into government.

We need to ensure a regime is put in place. I put forward a motion at the government operations and estimates committee to do just that, to look at selling or leasing. We should not ever sell public lands. That should never, ever happen. We should only lease public lands. Public lands belong in public hands. I cannot say that enough.

If we do lease or use government buildings, it should be done with free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples whose lands we live, work and reside on. Also, they are the most impacted when it comes to homelessness, overcrowded housing and housing needs. They have to be part of the conversation; they cannot be left out.

I urge all of us to work together to provide regulations so that we never see a Greenbelt-style divestment of housing or government lands. That is not going to create affordable housing. That is not going to solve our housing crisis.

We heard from Leilani Farha, former special rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, regarding this bill, which lacks a lot. She said, “I thought we were worried about affordability for tenants not developers! Average rents in Canada are now more than 2,000/mos. If the GST waiver is going to make a difference it must be conditional on building affordable units. Public value for public dollars.“ I want to thank her for that comment.

When I talk about how 3.5% of our housing is in non-market housing right now, over 30% this year is in corporate interests in REITs. We have seen corporations buy up a large amount of our residential housing stock. That needs to stop. We need to get to the opposite. It should be 30% non-market housing and 3.5% corporate housing. That is the problem. It has to get flipped on its head.

I will speak quickly, because I only have a couple of minutes left, about the Competition Act. Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro had $3.6 billion in profits, and that went in the pockets of the owners. The co-op in my hometown of Tofino had $12 million in sales in groceries, $16 million at the gas bar, $28 million in overall sales, and they gave back a 5% dividend to their members. They kept 0.5% for capital costs and improved services.

We need to ensure we have an excess profit tax on these excess profits for grocery store owners, and use some of that profit to support models like the co-op model. We know that that 5% went back into the hands of the people in my community. With the private sector, that money went into the pockets of people like Galen Weston. That needs to be discouraged. We need to find a better way forward.

We hear the Conservatives talk about the impact of the carbon tax. It is 0.15% of inflation, according to the Government of Canada. Eight in 10 families get it back. What they do not want to talk about is that they are fighting for the two in 10. It is a diversion tactic. The Conservatives do not want to talk about who they are really fighting for. If we do not do anything and put a price on carbon, then it is shouldered by the eight in 10 of all Canadians. If we do nothing, then there will be a carbon adjustment at the border, but the Conservatives do not want to talk about that. That would cripple industry in our country.

The truth is that grocery store prices have had a 56 times increase than the carbon tax impact on food and services, and 26 times in terms of the corporate greed and profit when it comes to grocery stores. I want to put things in perspective.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I do not agree with my friend and colleague's comments in terms of demonizing the private sector. The private sector is going to be an important partner to get us out of this housing crisis. However, I also do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to demonizing municipalities.

My friend and colleague talked about working with municipalities to build the non-market housing supply. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, who has demonized small-town mayors and municipal councils, we have worked with municipalities; our housing accelerator fund is one example of that.

Why is it important to work with municipalities rather than making them out to be the demons, as part of our housing crisis that we have today?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, let us face it: the Liberals' and Conservatives' free-market developer-style model has not worked. I sat in local government and if they actually put money on the table for non-market housing, that would get gobbled up in a heartbeat. Municipalities want to be partners, but they do not have the resources. They have been downloaded on and downloaded on since 1992 by Conservatives and Liberals consecutively. They need resources for non-market housing. They will deliver it. The municipalities will work with the private sector. There is an opportunity to work together, but it does not mean giving up public lands. It means that we can work together in leasing out projects and working with the development community in that way.

The current method of Liberal and Conservative policy when it comes to the developer-driven model is not going to work. It has never worked anywhere around the world that an affordable housing crisis has been solved by the private sector and a free-market approach.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's raising grocery costs. Let us put some things on the record here: The day after the photo op with the five retailers, the retailers decreed to their suppliers, starting with the largest one and the second ones following suit, that they would accept no price increases from their suppliers for the next 12 months. The PBO's analysis of the carbon tax is not specific around food inflation. It is a general analysis. Food production is energy intensive.

If this hon. colleague were to convince his government partners to put a profits tax that would take the entire retail profit into the form of a tax into government coffers, that would lower the cost of groceries from a $25 set to $24, which is 4%.

With carbon tax being applied to the farmer, to the trucker and to every step of the process, with retailers saying they will not absorb it and there are no price increases, who should pay that carbon tax? Is it the farmer, the supplier to the farmer, the trucker or the distributor?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Governor of the Bank of Canada said the impact of the carbon tax is 0.15% of inflation. However, we look at oil and gas companies, which are having record profits; these big grocery stores are having record profits; and the big banks are having record profits. We can look at other countries, like Britain, where the Conservatives are in government, by the way; they have an excess profits tax on oil and gas. We cannot even get Liberals in Canada to do that; never mind Conservatives. We do not need lobbyists for oil and gas here on the Hill because the Conservatives are the lobbyists for oil and gas and that is the truth. It is a diversion.

The reality is that we need an excess profits tax on these industries that are runaway, causing inflation and really harming Canadians every day with the costs that are being downloaded on them. We really need to have an honest conversation and not this diversion method of deterrence.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech and his plea for off-market housing. I think that is the direction we need to take.

I would like to ask him a question that is a bit more specific. We have a structural problem. Quebec alone needs 1.1 million housing units by 2030. If we mobilized all of the resources in Quebec, the maximum number of units that construction workers could build per year is 80,000, and that is if all home builders participate. We would need to build 200,000 units in Quebec alone. I do not have the numbers for Canada, but I am sure they must be similar.

I agree with my NDP friends that we need an acquisition fund so that we can acquire existing housing, but we also need to find other solutions.

Does my colleague have any other solutions to suggest?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comment and we are on the same page: that we need a wartime-like effort. We need to use every tool in the tool box to deal with this. Right now, the government does not have a plan. It has no plan on how it is going to build 3.5 million homes, and this is what we need to do in this chamber. We need to have that conversation and bring forward ideas. Like I said, let us use some public land, but let us keep it in public hands, leasing and working with the private sector to ensure that we can build affordable non-market housing.

This free-market approach will not work. It has not worked anywhere in the world to solve an affordable housing crisis and it is not going to start working now. I want to work with my colleague because we need a plan and right now the current government is a rudderless ship. Removing the GST on rental housing is low-hanging fruit.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to join the debate today virtually to continue the discussion of Bill C-56, which aims to and claims to address the dual affordability crises of the affordability of housing and of food and groceries.

There is no question on any side of this House that we are seeing very difficult conditions for most Canadians, and particularly for anyone who is not in the billionaire class. We are seeing very difficult conditions in affordability, particularly for those who are not in the housing market yet and need to find ways to meet increasingly challenging costs of rent, and, for those who are in the housing market, the increasingly high costs of maintaining their mortgages as interest rates rise.

It is with some irony I remember that during the early days of the COVID crisis, and I would say probably it was in 2020, we had at the Standing Committee on Finance the then Governor of the Bank of Canada, Stephen Poloz, appear. Some of the members said to him that we were spending this money and asked him what would happen afterward. They asked if we would suffer inflation. I remember the former Governor of the Bank of Canada said, on inflation, “That's a problem I'd love to have.” They were so certain at that point inflation was not the threat and deflation was the threat.

What happened? It was not that his analysis was wrong; it is that conditions changed dramatically. Why are we seeing rising food prices? Let us look at food for a minute and then look at housing. Bill C-56, while well intentioned, would not make a big difference for Canadians in the cost of housing or food. That is not because the Liberal government is malevolent, but it is because it has taken the wrong approach, as have the Conservatives. We really need to look at this and ask if we can really fight what we are seeing in rising costs or if we should make sure we top up government revenues, sources, such that we can provide the sources of income and revenue to Canadians so they can survive what is coming at them economically.

Let us step back and look at this. Certainly, the fact we went from a fear of deflation to inflation was an unexpected event. Putin's attack on Ukraine had the effect of driving up oil prices all around the world. The attack on Ukraine also had an impact on food prices, because, as we all know, Ukraine is part of the breadbasket of the world and provides grain in massive exports, which have been significantly challenged by blockading Russian ports.

Occasionally we have grain deals that let grain go through, but there is no question the biggest impacts on driving up prices in Canada in our grocery carts have been Putin's attack on Ukraine, the rising costs of fossil fuels as a result, and the supply chain disruptions in growing food and shipping out grains. This is combined with climate crisis events, which have created droughts, which affect access to food, and which have created extreme weather events. As an example, there are the extreme weather events that affect the island of Mauritius where most of the vanilla is grown. There are massive typhoons that keep hitting because of climate change, which drives up, by the time it goes through the supply chains, the cost of ice cream in Canada because vanilla costs more.

We are looking at a complex web of pressures that have driven up prices. If we look for guidance on what we are now experiencing, there was a 2005 book called The Long Emergency: Surviving the End of Oil, Climate Change, and Other Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century by James Howard Kunstler. He accurately predicted what we are experiencing: war, climate crisis and instability in fossil fuel production as we hit peak oil. That is what he was looking at in 2005 when the book came out.

We need to look at this and ask if we are able, with Bill C-56, to confidently say to Canadians that this will bring prices in their grocery carts down. I do not think we can, and I do not think anyone wants to say that or hold out this false hope to Canadians. We actually need to look at what we are facing. The climate crisis will drive up the price of certain foods. As long as the war in Ukraine persists, we are looking at cost impacts throughout our economy. In fossil fuel production, where Russia has hit Ukraine, it has also had an impact on fossil fuel production and on excess profits to the fossil fuel sector.

Let us step back and examine it. The approach of this bill is to create more supply for rental housing, which is good as far as it goes. I do not think any of us on any side of the House object to the idea that we should take the GST off the construction costs of building more affordable rental housing. Will that solve our housing crisis? Not when we allow short-term vacation rentals, such as the Airbnb sector, to continue to suck up what we have as available homes, making them inaccessible to people who want to live there. We must provide a very different model for how we use buildings that should be homes because they have become investment properties. The more we can take speculation and investment interests out of housing, the better off we will be, which is why the Greens have been calling for ages to get rid of real estate investment trusts, which operate to make money off housing in a way that was never intended.

I completely agree with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, who mentioned in his speech the importance of co-op housing. We need to return to that.

It is a complex question on two key issues. Looking at this, we can approach rising prices by saying that we are going to do what we see in Bill C-56, and I am certainly going to vote for Bill C-56, which is trying to get a Competition Act extension to look at the lack of competition in the grocery food sector. This is good as far as it goes, as the big five control too much, but that does not go to our immediate problem, neither does getting rid of the GST on building rental housing. We need to make some rather large structural changes, like not having our GDP growth depend so much on rising home prices. Breaking our cultural addiction to rising residential home prices would make a big difference.

What do we do in the short term? We need to turn to excess profits taxes on the oil and gas sector and grocery chains. We did this with the Canada Revenue dividend during the COVID crisis. We should return to it and extend it so it applies to excess profits in the oil and gas sector and grocery chains. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that if we extend the Canada dividend to just oil and gas excess profits, we would have $4.4 billion more.

We need to make sure Canadians have the money in their pockets to be able to keep a roof over their head and have nutritious food for families. That really means bringing in a guaranteed livable income. How do we afford a guaranteed livable income? We essentially did it with COVID benefits, which rolled out quite quickly and did not require needs testing. A guaranteed livable income would protect the most vulnerable in our society from increased energy prices, housing prices and grocery prices. How can we afford it? We bring in an excess profits tax on the oil and gas sector and grocery chains, as well as continuing it on banks and insurance companies. The key to this is in Motion No. 92, introduced recently by the hon. member for Kitchener Centre. We need other MPs to support an excess profits tax, so I would ask members to sign on as seconders to the motion.

We have to stand back and say that we cannot guarantee people that the climate crisis is not going to affect food prices, because it is. Until we have an end to Putin's attack on Ukraine, what we are really seeing in the oil and gas sector is war profiteering. We must not allow these multi-billion dollar multinational corporations to rake in billions in profits, which is really impacting people who can barely afford to make it to the end of the month.

With my remaining 40 seconds I will say this. Let us step back and use a different lens. Let us tax where we need to tax excess profits and get that money into the hands of Canadians who need it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I want to make reference to the member's statement with respect to Airbnbs. It amplifies the need for the government to recognize the roles we all play. One way to meet the needs of Canadians for housing is for all levels of government to work together, federal, provincial and municipal. Airbnb is more of a local municipality issue, so it is best for the municipalities to deal with that. From a national perspective, it is important that we demonstrate leadership on a number of fronts, which I believe we have demonstrated.

Could I get the member's thoughts on how important it is that all levels of government work together to meet this situation?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my hon. friend, the parliamentary secretary. We should get Canada to work together, to think like a country, and get all of our orders of government to work together just as well as the European Union does, with 27 separate sovereign nation states and 30 official languages. Canada operates like a group of separate fiefdoms, each going in their own direction and not wanting to co-operate with each other. I do not understand why, but that is the nub of many issues, from the climate crisis to the affordability crisis.

Just to make a quick point about Airbnb, yes, it is municipal. The City of New York has been brave and put in a rule that short-term vacation rentals cannot be for less than 30 days, because they were seeing too much available housing being sucked up into the market for Airbnbs.

We do need to act. Municipalities need to act, but they are going to need supports, provincially and federally, to take on what is essentially a multinational giant.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, a recent study by C.D. Howe Institute determined that in Vancouver, the gap between the construction costs and market price of a new home is almost $1.3 million. The hon. member is from the province and from the Vancouver area. Can she tell us why this is happening and what the solution is for such a thing?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, as a resident of Vancouver Island who cannot afford a home here, we rent and our rent has gone up. I am not going to say for one minute that I am one of the Canadians having a hard time of it. We all know what we make as MPs. However, what happened to the Vancouver housing market started with converting homes into investment properties.

I am not trying to blame everything on the previous Conservative government, so forgive me, but this did start under the Harper government with a $1-million investment fast track for getting residency in Canada. What we have is a lot of offshore money coming in to buy up million-dollar properties and leave them vacant. That began distorting our housing market in a big way, and we have seen rising home values, as we know.

People will say that is all right, because if they own their own home, that is what they cash in for their savings and retirement. A lot of people in my community who own their own home want to downsize and move somewhere else, but if they sell their home, they cannot find a place to live that is affordable in their retirement once they have divested their property. It is a complicated mess that all started when we stopped treating homes as homes and started treating them as investment properties.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands spoke about the structural issues that led to the housing crisis we are in, issues that have persisted for decades as investment in housing has dropped off. For example, in 2022, the rapid housing initiative, a one-time fund, was not renewed.

Could the member speak about what she has seen over the last 10 years in her time as a parliamentarian with these one-time investments without ongoing, sustained support to address the housing crisis that we are now in?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I offer a big thanks to the member for Kitchener Centre for Motion No. 92. I am hoping we get it through.

The housing crisis is exacerbated, no question, by an increase in the number of Canadians here. I favour more immigration, absolutely, but we need to be planning for that so we have homes for the people who are moving here

We absolutely have to act on real estate investment trusts. We have to break the cycle of expecting rising housing prices to drive our economy and recognize that we need to invest in building sustainable housing with sustainable funding, not flash-in-the-pan, one-time-only housing, as my hon. colleague referenced.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, today I will be speaking to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. This bill is divided into two parts to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. I will be sharing a few points in respect of why the bill is being tabled at this moment and how it relates to small businesses.

I have one point before I begin. On a per-person basis, real GDP growth has declined for four consecutive quarters. Controlling for population growth, per capita GDP declined by 3.5% at an annualized rate, according to RBC.

In many respects, I would sum this bill up as too little, too late. After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government taxing, spending and putting up red tape, the bill before us is just not enough. Inflation, rising interest rates, unaffordable housing and a sense that everything feels broken have left Canadians wondering if their government truly has their best interests at heart.

Indeed, with tanking poll numbers, the Liberal-NDP government veered from its legislative agenda to table this bill before us today after the summer recess. A recent study by Dalhousie University's Agri-Food Analytics Lab found that over half of Canadians are employing more cost-saving measures at the grocery store than they did a year ago, and more than 86% consider themselves more price conscious thanks to rising grocery prices. However, no one has to ask me. All anyone has to do is go to the Superstore, Save-On-Foods or Costco on the weekend and look at the faces of people when they see prices.

Food Banks Canada recently reported that one in seven of their clients is currently employed. Canadians are going to work and earning a paycheque, but it does not go far enough anymore. This summer when I was door knocking, I met a young mom with three kids at home. Her husband works in the construction industry and also part time as a mechanic, but despite having a pretty good income, at the end of the month it does not add up, and they are using St. Joseph's Food Bank in Mission. It is a sad state of affairs right now.

I would be remiss if I did not mention that it is Small Business Month. For every dollar that is spent at a Canadian small business, 60¢ is returned to the local economy. For big corporations, that figure is just 11¢. Small businesses employ two-thirds of Canadians. They are truly the backbone of our economy. Unfortunately, the government has long held a disdain for small businesses and the people behind them.

In 2015, the Prime Minister said, “a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes”. Just recently, the Prime Minister once again showed his disdain for small business owners with his half-baked promise of a CEBA loan repayment extension. The CBC proudly touted that businesses would have an additional year to pay off their outstanding CEBA loans and still receive partial forgiveness. Small businesses were thrilled to hear that they would be given more time to weather the economic storm and repay their loans.

Unfortunately, that is not the case. The fact is that businesses will only have an additional 18 days to repay their loans or miss out on the forgivable portion. That is shameful. I wonder if the Minister of Small Business will stand in this House, correct the record and clearly state that the actual extension date for small businesses to receive the forgivable portion of their loans is only 18 days and not a year, as communicated.

After the last election, the Prime Minister said in this House on numerous occasions that the Conservatives' plan on housing was “to give tax breaks to wealthy landlords”. He typecast all landlords as wealthy crooks while ignoring key barriers to building new affordable rental units, namely excessive taxes as one contributing factor. When the government was elected in 2015, it did indeed promise to scrap the GST on new purpose-built rental housing. Was its definition of a landlord a little different back then?

Members on that side of the House love to misquote me about getting the federal government out of the housing industry. What I have said is that the federal government needs to get out of industry's way so that it can build. Funnily enough, they are finally taking that step today, and I am supportive of the measure on reducing the GST on purpose-built rentals.

I will now turn to another portion of the bill, the Competition Act. The bill would repeal the efficiencies defence in that piece of legislation. Canada, I will note, is the only country in the G7 that allows this type of defence. It permits anti-competitive mergers to go ahead so long as the cost savings outweigh the negative impacts on competition. Cost savings are almost always found through job cuts. Just recently, Canadians watched as the government did nothing to stop the anti-competitive merger of Rogers and Shaw. I am glad this defence will not be able to be used in the future.

Interestingly, this is another idea that was brought forward by a Conservative in recent months. This past June, the member for Bay of Quinte tabled Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act regarding the efficiencies defence. Bill C-339 and Bill C-56 make identical amendments to the Competition Act.

The problem here is that while this is a good idea to promote competitiveness in the broader economy, it would not do anything to stop rising prices at grocery stores or the anxiety Canadians are feeling when trying to feed their families and, in this particular week, planning for a Thanksgiving dinner. The cost of lettuce is up 94% across Canada. Carrots are up 74%. Oranges are up more than 77%.

I will note that part of the reason those prices are up so much is that carbon taxes have been rising. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the carbon tax will cost the average Canadian family between $402 and $847 this year. By 2030, the carbon tax will add an additional 50¢ per litre to the price of gas.

Further exacerbating this is the issue of shrinkflation. I remember a time not too long ago when I could buy two pork roasts from Costco for $18. Now, for the same price, we just get one. When Canadians see the title of this bill, it gives the impression that the government is doing something about grocery prices right now. That is false.

While this is an agreeable change to the Competition Act, it would do nothing to address the immediate needs of Canadians struggling with higher grocery costs and the anxiety that comes with that. As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, it is too little, too late.

It goes without saying that when we tax the farmer who produces the food and tax the trucker who delivers the food, those costs are going to be passed on to the consumer. If the NDP-Liberal government really wanted to address the affordability crisis right now, it would axe the tax.

While I will be joining my Conservatives colleagues in voting to move this bill forward to committee, it simply does not go far enough to provide Canadians relief from sky-rocketing prices. While it does contain good policies, it would do nothing to fix the real-time and very challenging struggles faced by Canadians in respect of finding an affordable place to live and paying an affordable price for the food they need to feed their families.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am glad the Conservatives are going to be voting in favour of the legislation.

The member makes reference to groceries and the need for competition. Is he aware that the last major buy-up that reduced competition was under Stephen Harper when Loblaws purchased Shoppers? It had a very profound impact on the size of one company. I think the purchase was over $12 billion.

The legislation the member says he is going to vote in will help deal with issues like that. Does he see that as positive? Does he support that particular aspect of the legislation?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North raises an important point about the Competition Act. The efficiencies clause, which was likely used, but I cannot confirm that, in the context of the merger he referenced, was the same one used in the Rogers-Shaw merger. I am not disputing that this is a positive change. In fact, my colleague from Bay of Quinte tabled very similar legislation in this Parliament. However, we need to do more with respect to the Competition Act to allow for competition to flourish. That relates to the number of grocery stores and the number of businesses offering those services to Canada.

The principal point I am trying to make today is that a change to the Competition Act right now would not impact the prices people are paying at grocery stores. Despite the title of this bill, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, and the short title, the affordable housing and groceries act, it does nothing to reduce the cost of groceries in the immediate term.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.

It is always a bit disconcerting to hear the Conservatives talking about the cost of living. I would like to remind the House that, a few weeks ago, in September, the Conservatives held a convention in Quebec, and it cost $1,700 to attend.

Let me take out my common sense calculator. If we exclude taxes—because if anyone is familiar with taxes it is the Conservatives—it would take a person who earns $15.25 an hour, which is the minimum wage in Quebec, five weeks of work to be able to participate in a three-day convention. That is their common sense. That is the Conservative Party.

In 1986, there were 13 grocery chains. Now there are only three. The Conservative Party was in power for 17 years, often with a majority government.

I want my colleague to name one thing that his party did to amend the Competition Act since 1986.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, in Quebec, voting Bloc means voting to raise taxes. The Bloc Québécois is costing Quebeckers more. Quebeckers will consider voting Conservative because we will lower taxes. We will support families and lower the cost of living.

The Bloc Québécois wants to raise the cost of living for Quebeckers. We will put a stop to that. It is just common sense.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. What I did not hear was any discussion of co-operative housing. I know that the member has co-ops in his riding, and they have made a great contribution to providing affordable housing for families. Does the member support a reinvestment in and reinvigoration of the co-operative housing movement in this country?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am in no way opposed to further increases in co-operative housing across Canada. It has played an important role in providing a safe and affordable place for many of my constituents to live.

However, in order to reduce the overall cost of housing in Canada, we not only need to be taking the measure in this bill of reducing GST payments on purpose-built rental construction. We also need to have a whole-of-system approach to make sure we can produce all types of housing so Canadians have a safe and affordable place to live. It is not lost on members of the chamber that we had more houses, in real terms, built in 1972 than we did last year. We have to do more. What we are doing right now is not enough.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, since this my first opportunity to give a speech since Parliament resumed, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello to all the people in my riding of Thérèse-De Blainville and to once again tell them that they can count on me. I reiterate my commitment to be a strong voice for them in Ottawa.

When Parliament resumed, I told my constituents that we still do not know what the Liberal government's agenda is, but, for us, it is clear that the very top priority must be the housing crisis and the financial situation of seniors. In the current socio-economic context, our choices and actions must be guided by social solidarity.

The bill before us basically deals with two things: the excise tax, as it pertains to housing, and the Competition Act. This is the government's response to a crisis that has been going on for months and, in some cases, even years. It is nothing new. I am talking about a public finance crisis, a cost of living that is far too high for our constituents and an ongoing housing crisis that is only getting worse.

I am still a little naive, and glad of it. When the government announced its big cabinet shuffle last summer, I figured it would gain some momentum and change course. A big cabinet shakeup was announced to send a message, but instead the news was full of examples of how expensive and difficult life was getting for people. Nothing came out of it. After three days we heard the word “housing”, but that was it.

I can say right now that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑56. The bill is a rushed response to show that the government is doing something about housing and the cost of living.

I am a little less naive than before, but not by much. Let me say that this bill does not go far enough and is not ambitious enough. It does not address the situation and falls far short of addressing the current situation.

As far as housing is concerned, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, reported in its January 2023 rental market report that renter households are dealing with a significant increase in costs. In 2022, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment increased by 5.6%, or double the average recorded increase from 1999 to 2022. For new renters it is even worse. The increase is nearly 20%.

If we continue to view housing as an asset then we will never get out of this mess. Housing is a right. Food and housing are basic needs. These are rights. Our response to the housing crisis, for our constituents, needs to be bold.

I think there is a sense of urgency because we are facing a housing crisis that cannot be ignored. The current government has acknowledged this crisis, but the proposed measures, especially this bill that abolishes the GST on new rental housing construction, is a drop in an ocean of needs.

It has been estimated that Quebec will need 1.1 million additional units by 2030. That is six years from now. That is tomorrow. It is an alarming situation that calls for bold, ambitious and powerful measures.

According to CMHC, costs will rise faster in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. There are several reasons for that, including interprovincial migration and immigration. Quebec will be hit much harder by the housing shortage than other regions. CMHC estimates that housing prices in Quebec will double by 2030 compared to 2019. Who is going to tell Quebeckers that their rent will be nearly double in six years? That 102% increase will be the highest in Canada by 2030, even topping Ontario. Granting a reprieve from the GST may seem like a positive measure at first glance but, in reality, it is inadequate. It is high time we adopted far more structural and ambitious solutions.

The government appointed a federal housing advocate in 2022. She wrote a report that I encourage everyone to read. She herself has repeatedly emphasized that the private sector alone cannot solve the housing crisis. Large-scale construction of social and affordable housing is the only real solution. Unfortunately, this bill offers nothing at all for social housing and does nothing to make housing more affordable. Eliminating the GST on rental housing raises questions. How many rental units will it create? How many affordable units will it create? We do not have answers to those questions. Maybe regulations will provide answers.

The answer from an economic perspective is usually supply and demand. If supply increases, demand will be met and prices will go down. There is no guarantee that prices will go down, though. There is no guarantee that this will make more truly sustainable affordable housing available. Everyone in the sector, including non-profits, co-ops and municipalities, has solutions to these problems. They understand the situation. They are on the ground. They know what is needed.

The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, has conducted several studies on housing, the national housing strategy and the CMHC, among others. Some strong recommendations have been made, none of which are about demonizing the private sector. Instead, they suggest that it is time to look at building housing and renovating existing units. It is important to invest in what we already have, which is entirely possible.

The new Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities appeared before our committee. There are currently 4,000 housing units just waiting to be renovated pursuant to the old agreements with the federal government. However, the federal government is not letting any money flow. As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said, we could have housing for these people by July, but the government is dragging its feet.

Approximately $82 billion in taxpayers' money was allocated to the national housing strategy, which is now five years old. Because of bureaucracy and red tape, no energetic action has been taken to meet the public's urgent needs. Nothing has been accomplished.

Five years have passed since the national housing strategy was launched, and there are still five more years to go. The government needs to do a 180° turn.

When a strategy is not meeting the needs, then it can be changed. That is particularly true when the government is creating programs and funds in which it is prepared to invest $900 million, but then it is waiting and failing to take action.

Given the current crisis, citizens deserve answers from their elected officials. It is time to act. This bill deserves—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I very much enjoyed the speech from the member opposite. I have worked long and hard with her at the HUMA committee on many housing studies, as she just referenced.

I always put the province of Quebec on a pedestal when it comes to supporting non-market housing for residents who are in need of affordable housing. I am in the unenviable position of being in the province of Ontario, which has a Conservative government whose approach to affordable housing is to make people rich in the private sector.

My question, and the member emphasized this in her speech, is this: Why is it important that all three levels of government address the national housing crisis we have? In certain provinces it is happening, and they are making inroads. The province of Quebec is a great example, and I would put the province of British Columbia in that category as well. However, here in Ontario it is not working, because we have a provincial government that has no affordable housing programs to match municipal contributions as well as federal. Again, my question to the member is this: Why is it important that all three levels of government work together?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague. It is a pleasure to work with him on such important issues. I thank him for drawing attention to Quebec's initiatives.

There are many people in Quebec who also want to do more, but I think there are important programs in place. Why? It is a matter of political will. Long ago now, Quebec made a social choice to address the issue of housing. Of the three levels of government, Quebec and the municipalities are the ones that have the expertise in this area.

When the federal government decides to use its spending power and do its part to support what is being done, it must do so in only one way. We do not expect the federal government to give a slap on the wrist to the municipalities and governments that are not doing their job. We expect the federal government to support them by giving them—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question and I am going to look to my colleague because I know she has a lot of experience in the labour movement.

If Quebec's major labour unions could step up and give people in the building trades a little more flexibility, would that help increase the number of affordable and social housing units? Costs are the problem. Builders in Quebec no longer want to build social housing because it costs too much. Could we tackle the issue that way?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about big labour organizations.

At the beginning of my speech, I talked about social solidarity. Our communities are better off because of the social and public programs we choose for ourselves. Unions are major contributors to that. I was on the board of the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs for seven years, so I know that those are the kinds of actions such funds take to support the construction of affordable rental housing.

I do want to clarify something, though. Let us consider what is happening right now. Sometimes incentives are made available, but private sector builders are not interested. They would rather miss out on those potential benefits because they do not want to be obligated to provide affordable housing. They want to keep building housing for profit.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech.

I agree that eliminating the GST on rental housing construction is a small measure, too small to fix the current crisis. However, it is an NDP proposal, so I do want to defend it. The thing that has us concerned is that the Liberals went only halfway. They are eliminating the GST on housing construction, but with no guarantee that this will have an impact on the price of rent. There is a risk that this 5% rebate will end up in the pockets of the developer building the housing.

Does my colleague share that concern?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do share my colleague's concern.

That is why I was wondering if getting rid of the GST on rental housing construction was the only proposed solution. We do not know how many housing units will be built. We are not getting these answers.

As far as affordability is concerned, we understand that the government cannot guarantee that, because the builder is the one who will get the GST exemption. Is the builder going to reduce the cost of the housing because it got a GST exemption out of the gate? I think that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, according to the 13th edition of “Canada's Food Price Report”, published in 2023, by September last year, families across Canada were paying in excess of 10% more for their groceries. This year, Canadians' grocery bills have increased by another 8% to 9% or more. Vegetables are seeing the biggest price increases, and as a result, Canadian families are cutting back on their purchases of vegetables and other healthy food choices for their children. About 20% of Canadians report skipping a meal each day, and food banks across the country are seeing record visits by Canadian families.

On this side of the House for the last few years, I have been calling attention to the practices of Canada's big grocery retailers and their lack of competition in the grocery market. For a couple of years now, I have also been asking the Competition Bureau to investigate the grocery chains and their abuse of dominance. For the past three years, I have called attention to the market concentration in the hands of big grocery retailers and to the resulting lack of competition and the consequences for producers, suppliers and Canadian consumers. Producers and suppliers are gouged by what the big grocery retailers demand of them. Canadian consumers are gouged by the prices the big grocery retailers demand at the checkout.

Now, suddenly, the Prime Minister seems to have awakened from sleeping at the wheel to what Canadian families have known as a reality every time they have bought food. Where has the Prime Minister been? Only now has he called in the grocery retailers and introduced this bill? When was the last time the Prime Minister went to a grocery store? When was the last time the Prime Minister had to buy a Thanksgiving turkey dinner with all the trimmings? Families that can afford it will be paying a minimum of $60 to $80 this year for their turkey, let alone all the trimmings. Many families that cannot afford it will just go without. My guess is that the last time the Prime Minister visited a grocery store was some time in the previous decade, maybe.

Canadians cannot afford more of what they have suffered under eight years of the Prime Minister and his irresponsible Liberal-NDP government. Canadians cannot afford this costly coalition. The reason for food inflation is not just too little competition among grocery retailers. Beginning in 2018, the Prime Minister has been gouging Canadian families with a regressive, unfair carbon tax, which we will call “carbon tax 1”, and has been inflating it year over year.

As of April Fool's Day 2023, the Prime Minister inflated carbon tax 1 to $65 a tonne, and by April Fool's Day 2030, the Prime Minister wants to inflate carbon tax 1 to $170 a tonne. However, the Prime Minister has not stopped there. He decided that one carbon tax is not enough, so as of Canada Day, the Prime Minister has added another carbon tax. Therefore, now the Prime Minister is asking Canadians to pay not one but two carbon taxes. Even worse, when the carbon tax is added at the pumps or on their home heating bill, Canadians are charged sales tax on top of the carbon tax.

There is no other way to put this: The Prime Minister and his costly coalition are charging Canadian families tax on tax. However, they do not stop there, with carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2. Between these two carbon taxes, by April Fool's Day 2030, the Prime Minister wants to charge Canadian farmers and truckers 69¢ for every litre of diesel they put in their trucks. It is not rocket science; it is basic math that the NDP-Liberal government just does not seem to get. If it costs a farmer more to grow the food and costs the trucker more to ship the food, it is going to cost Canadian families more to buy the food.

The Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, says that the carbon tax announcements that have it going up increase inflation each year. The leader of “Canada's Food Price Report 2023”, Doctor Sylvain Charlebois, has pointed out that the carbon tax has made business expenses go up. He points to a “compounding effect” up and down the food chain as the supply chain is exposed to increased costs from the carbon tax. I will illustrate. Thanks to the Prime Minister's carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, even with agricultural exemptions, farmers are paying carbon taxes on various parts of their production chain not covered by those exemptions. There are the carbon tax costs of heating barns with natural gas or propane when there are animals being raised. Getting produce, meat, poultry and eggs to the processors with diesel-powered trucks costs more with carbon tax. There is more; there is carbon tax paid on moving that food, with more diesel-powered trucks, from the processors' warehouses to the grocery stores.

The grocery retailers have to heat their stores, many with natural gas, propane or, in some cases, heating oil, so they are paying even more carbon tax. Consumers are travelling to and from the grocery store and are paying carbon tax on the fuel they put in their vehicles. Again, if it costs a farmer more to grow the food and it costs the trucker more to ship the food, it is going to cost Canadian families more to buy the food.

How do we solve this problem of rising food prices and the Prime Minister's costly coalition? First things first, we have to axe the carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition and members on this side of the House want to give Canadian families relief from unfair competition. We want to offer Canadian families relief from the unsustainable burden of carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2. I have one word: enough.

As for the bill, let me make a few observations with respect to grocery retail competition. Sadly, this bill seems to be a lot of fluff and not much substance. The Prime Minister has had eight years to look into this issue and to provide legislation that would put a stop to consolidation over concentration of market share in the grocery chains. This level of coordination of grocery stores into bigger grocery retail chains is reducing competition for consumer dollars. With less competition in grocery retail, Canadian consumers will always pay more. Let me give one example. I have two grocery store flyers, one from Toronto and one from Vancouver, from the same store and with the same items. Vancouver is about 2,000 kilometres, or 1,200 miles, from Central Valley, California, where most of our produce comes from, especially during the winter months. Toronto is about 4,000 kilometres, or 2,500, miles from California's Central Valley.

However, as I compared the two prices given for the same products, the prices for produce were higher in the Vancouver flyer than in the Toronto flyer, for the exact same items, even though Vancouver is about 1,000 miles closer to the producers than Toronto is. Why is this? It is because there is more competition in the Toronto area, with many more grocery stores available for folks. There are many small, independent grocery stores.

The bill makes much of the role of the commissioner of competition, but I have to point out that Canada already has a competition commissioner. Further, Canada already has a competition tribunal. However, Canadians still face high food prices because Canada's competition watchdogs have no teeth. It is not enough to have an official whose title is Competition Commissioner. If the competition commissioner is to uphold competitive pricing in the interests of Canadian consumers, this office has to have real teeth. The competition commissioner should have real power to call into question the excessive concentration of market control.

To sum up, Canadian families are seeing unaffordable price increases year over year in the foods they buy to feed their families. Almost daily, my constituency office is hearing from Canadians, young and old, who are having difficulty getting by. Many do not have enough money to buy groceries after rent and mortgage payments are made. More and more people are visiting food banks. Too many are breaking down in tears in my office because of their inability to pay for the basic necessities of life. Hundreds of my constituents are having trouble making ends meet because of runaway inflation that the Liberal government has caused. Canadian consumers face inflation on food at 8% to 9% year over year. Again, 20% of Canadians report skipping a meal a day just to save money on groceries.

Meanwhile, the government taxes to the max with carbon tax 1 and now carbon tax 2, plus the HST piled on top. It is tax on tax. Enough is enough. Canadians deserve better than a Prime Minister and a government that just seem to go through the motions. The Prime Minister can deny it all he wants, but Canadians know that inflation is real. The bill does not go far enough to address the lack of competition among grocery retailers.

Sadly, the Prime Minister is propped up by NDP supporters and Liberals who sit in the House, and they have not seen a regulation they would not support nor a carbon tax they would not impose to burden and weigh down Canadian families that are just trying to make ends meet by stretching their hard-earned dollars. Canadian families are paying at the fuel pumps and they are paying in their heating bills, and having enough money left over to get their grocery checkout line is sometimes a burden.

It is time for a real change from the inflationary, all-too-costly coalition of the NDP-Liberal government.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, inflation is real. I do not think anyone is denying that.

She mentioned rising rents. We provided assistance, through the national housing strategy. Program after program that has been presented to this House has been opposed by the opposition.

We provided assistance through the rapid housing initiative, the innovation fund and the national coinvestment fund. We provided more support for co-ops, which a lot of members in this House have talked about, as well as the need to drive investments through municipalities and non-profits.

Every time the government has tried to assist Canadians, those in need, some of our most vulnerable population, the member opposite and her leader have chosen to vote against it. Why have they done so?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a one-time payment is not going to do anything to help people in the long term.

One of my constituents, Paula in Wallaceburg, writes, “Lianne, renters need apartments that working people can afford. I make $27 per hour and I have no benefits, and my rent, for a 400-square-foot one-bedroom unit, is currently $1,400 a month, plus electricity, and I have to pay for laundry. Rent needs to come down or I will have no retirement savings left.”

Jolene from Dover Centre writes, “Average, hard-working Canadianss like my husband and I, we have been forgotten”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I need to give time for other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to do a little fact-checking here.

The member talked about the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem. He said that the carbon tax, all of it combined, is contributing 0.15% to inflation. That is 15¢ on 100 dollars' worth of groceries.

What she did not talk about is corporate greed, which is costing $3.90 on 100 dollars' worth of groceries. We know why. It is because Conservatives are gatekeepers for the big grocery stores, for the Galen Westons.

They also do not want to talk about the fact that eight out of 10 Canadian families get a rebate. Why do they not want to talk about that? It is because the truth is they are really fighting for two out of 10 Canadian families, and they know it.

Will my colleague tell the truth that the Conservatives are really fighting for the two out of 10 families that are not getting a carbon tax rebate back and that they are actually just trying to distract from reality?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take offence to that, because I am telling the truth.

What the member is referring to is actually only on food. We can ask the farmers how their bills have gone up with the carbon tax. We can ask how much inputs have gone up. We can ask how much packaging has gone up for products. We can ask retailers why packaging has gone up. It is because the carbon tax is paid on fuel that delivers every single thing along the supply chain, and when the fuel prices go up, everything along the supply chain goes up. Unless we axe the tax, we are not going to see a reprieve. We need to axe the carbon tax and give families back more money in their pockets, not some one-time rebate that was masked as a grocery rebate when it is actually an HST rebate.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech, after hearing other speeches given earlier by the Conservatives or the coalition. Members advised taking action specifically on the supply side of the housing issue. I think that everyone agrees on the need to address the housing supply. I also think that the government has a critical role to play in this regard, and that it is not doing enough.

However, there are two sides to every situation. The reason a housing shortage happens is because of demand, because people want housing. I never hear anyone talk about that in the House, even though it is being discussed everywhere in the media. Why is there a record number of newcomers, particularly temporary foreign workers, yet no one wants to talk about it in the House? It is something under the federal government's control, after all.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, part of the reason we cannot get houses built is because we cannot even get workers to work. A mom of a young adult told me that her son completed college and has a full-time job. He does training, travels as requested and has duties, but he cannot afford to live or rent near work. He lives at home; he drives over an hour each way, paying too much in gas to save for a mortgage or first and last on a rental. He looked into an electric vehicle and put down a deposit to purchase, but he cannot afford the higher insurance, not to mention the higher payments. He could not find any government rebates or incentives. His work, which he absolutely loves, as a very skilled and specialized—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, everyone knows that times are really tough right now. Canadians are suffering; housing and grocery prices are higher than ever, and they continue to go up. There is a real need for the government to intervene and adopt public policies to try to circumvent these circumstances that Canadians find themselves in.

Bill C-56 is a good step toward accomplishing some things, and certainly there are some things in this bill that, for years, New Democrats have called for. However, I have to say that this bill is a very small step. There are so many things that people need from the government to help with affordability.

The bill introduced by the leader of the NDP actually even goes further with regard to the Competition Bureau, which is a part of Bill C-56. His bill, Bill C-352, would impose harsher penalties on companies that fix prices and would better rein in and regulate monopolies in the industry. Currently, the onus to prove that mergers or monopolies are harmful to Canadians is placed upon the Competition Bureau, and that needs to change. We think that the burden of proof should fall to the companies; they should have to prove that their activities are in the interests of Canadians. Bill C-352 would do this. It would better protect Canadian consumers.

Not a day goes by that I do not hear from constituents who are struggling to pay for their groceries, rent or mortgage. I meet with community groups, food banks and shelters that are trying to stretch their services and programs so that they can help and cover more and more people. The people in London—Fanshawe are incredibly generous. When a neighbour needs help, there are many who will do what they can and give what they can, but the government needs to learn from them. It seems to be concerned only with these incremental supports. It is really quite disappointing.

We have had federal governments in power, time after time in this country, that have no real interest in actually ending poverty. They only perpetuate it. In fact, it would cost us less to eliminate homelessness and poverty entirely. We have had both Liberals and Conservatives in government that are only truly concerned with ensuring that those who hold the majority of power, keep it.

We need to deal with the core problem here: For years, there has been a growing divide between the richest and the poorest among us. The truth of the matter is that this country was built by everyone, by all citizens, but not all citizens are getting an equal return on that investment.

I am extremely disappointed with the Liberals' approach of calling in the grocery CEOs for a meeting, wagging their fingers at them and asking them to please do better. It is a government made of people, and it needs to govern for all people. All people have to pay their fair share. We have a responsibility to draft laws to ensure that equality.

The Conservatives would have us believe that the carbon tax is the only thing driving up grocery prices, but if that were the case, then the CEOs' profits would not be growing in the way we have seen them grow. If they were just passing along the increased costs from inflation or from the carbon tax, Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro would not have made $3.6 billion in combined profits in 2022. Those profits are growing by far more than the increase in input costs. Any government or any party that wants to form a government with some common sense and with a seriousness about addressing the challenges that Canadians have been facing at the grocery store has to recognize the role of corporate greed in the equation. Nothing will change for people until we do that.

Long before the pandemic, before these incredible increases in inflation, New Democrats were recommending a windfall profit tax. Other governments around the world are doing this. We can use our legislative powers to stop price gouging, price-fixing and greedflation. We need to address the extreme profits these companies enjoy at the expense of people in my riding and in all our ridings.

I also want to talk about the other piece of this bill concerning the removal of the GST from construction costs on rental units. Again, this is a good first step, but it is a small one. It is one that New Democrats have long been calling for. When it comes to housing, we have seen Liberal and Conservative governments ensure that housing is entirely a financial issue.

I believe that housing is a human right. We cannot rely solely on a market-based solution when it is about a human right. If we truly want to resolve the housing crisis that has been growing for over 30 years in Canada, we need a wide range of solutions.

New Democrats have made several proposals. One I would like to talk about right now is the inclusion of an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations. This would give them an opportunity to buy affordable social housing when organizations or companies decide to sell them. This non-profit acquisition fund could help alleviate the housing crisis.

We have seen a lot of real estate investment trusts or big corporate landlords swoop in and buy buildings. They have fast access to capital, and they have a lot of money in reserve that they can use to buy these places.

Again, in my riding, there are residents who live in the Webster Street Apartments, and they are being renovicted. I have raised this issue in the House a number of times, asking for the government to help them. Sadly, my calls have fallen on deaf ears.

Ultimately, a Toronto-based corporation purchased rental units in my riding that were formally reasonably priced. They made small renovations, sometimes painting or removing partial walls, and then they told the existing residents that they would be charged an additional $1,000 a month in rent. These residents are seniors, people living on ODSP, single moms and people on fixed incomes. They cannot afford that significant increase in their rent.

They are now having to leave their homes. Some of them have lived there for decades. They have created a community. They feel truly a part of the building with their neighbours; they know who their neighbours are. However, they are being forced to leave that home.

The creation of a non-profit acquisition fund could have helped stop that kind of renoviction and helped the people in my constituency who live on Webster Street.

The government must also adopt policies that will help address the critical shortage of social and affordable housing. There is no mention of that in Bill C-56. We know that there are opportunities to work with the government and other parties to ensure that Canada can take strategic approaches, including non-market solutions.

There is no doubt in my mind that a public policy intervention is required in order to get a handle on this situation. We have reached this moment of crisis because, for 30 years now, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have largely said that they will leave housing up to the market. However, the market has not produced solutions around affordability.

The market has an important role to play in the building of housing or the delivery of groceries, for that matter. However, the government has to create a balance. There is currently no balance. We cannot leave it solely to the market. A lot of housing needs in Canada will never be met by the market; meeting these needs would not be profitable enough.

That is why we need a strategy that pushes private actors into making affordable suites available as part of their holdings. It is why we need governments to take responsibility, as they did in the 40s all the way up to the 90s.

Unless we get governments back to the table and take responsibility for the creation of social housing, we are not going to see an adequate resolution to this crisis. That is one of the things that has changed significantly in Canada since the 1990s, where the government said that it actually did have a responsibility and an obligation to invest in social housing. Sadly, we had a Liberal government that stopped that. In Ontario, we had a Conservative government that stopped that in the 90s.

We need to get back to that level of investment and commitment. We cannot continue to see current governments, such as Doug Ford's provincial Conservative government in Ontario, being in the back pockets of wealthy developers. Again, this is about balance.

We need a meaningful engagement of not-for-profit and co-operative sectors to build social housing. I need to see that in Bill C-56. I would love to see that in the bill.

There are so many things I want to talk about in terms of affordability and housing, but I will conclude with this: Food and housing are not just commodities. These are not things people can do without. They need them to live. They cannot solely be the subject of profit-driven markets, with no checks or balances or regulations on that greed.

My constituents, and all people in Canada, have the right to live a dignified and healthy existence; we have an obligation here in this place to give that to them. New Democrats will always fight for that equality and fairness.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I remember very clearly, going right back to 1993, that I was advocating that the federal government play a role in housing, but every political party inside the House of Commons opposed such involvement. A lot has changed under the current Prime Minister.

The current Prime Minister is the first prime minister since the early 90s who has made a clear statement that we have to invest in housing. He has brought forward a national strategy of housing, from virtually day one to the legislation we have today, where we are, again, saying that the federal government needs to play a role.

Yes, it is important, and it is nice to see that we have a national government that wants to play that federal role, but all the stakeholders need to come together in order to deal with this housing situation properly. This includes non-profit organizations, other levels of government and, of course, the federal government. Would the hon. member not agree with that?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, this needs a whole-of-government approach, and all partners need to work together. This has become a crisis that governments have watched happen, which they have created over the last 30 years. However, there have also been a lot of gaffes in the federal government's provisions of some of the solutions New Democrats have been calling for. There have been a lot of delays. Knowing that they have created this crisis over the last 30 years, now we have to have a huge response to it.

I would tell the hon. member to put his money where his mouth is, stand up, stop making just announcements and do what is needed.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from the NDP has been part of the government for the last year and a half, and now the government is blaming the government for the crisis we are going through. How can she explain that?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. New Democrats are not members of the government. We are trying to use some of the power we have to deliver on the commitments we made to people on the doorsteps. We have not seen anything from the Conservative Party because all they do is criticize rather than propose solutions and work with the government in providing some help for constituents.

I am proud of my track record. I am proud that I am able to provide dental care to the people who need it and, hopefully, pharmacare, if the government will play ball with us on that. What has your party done to actually provide—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would remind the hon. member that I cannot answer that question.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I cited earlier the impact of corporate greed in our country. It is about $3.90 on a $100 bag of groceries. The carbon tax, which the Conservatives try to spin as the major contributor, is 15¢ on a $100 bag of groceries.

We know corporate profits are going into the pockets of Galen Weston. In places like Tofino, Hornby Island and Ucluelet, there are co-op grocery stores that give the profits back to their members. Does my colleague agree that we should charge an excess profit tax on corporate greed to fund co-op models when it comes to the grocery business?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my hon. colleague more.

I really liked what he said earlier in this debate when he referred to the Conservative Party's focus on the carbon tax as a diversion tactic. They are ultimately trying to cover up for and be these huge lobbyists for the oil and gas companies that receive those extreme profits, which we need to put excess taxes on.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, following up on that point, as the member for London—Fanshawe likely knows, the carbon tax, in the last year, added two cents a litre to the cost of gas. Excess profits of the oil and gas industry added 18¢. That is why I put forward a motion that calls for a windfall profit tax on oil and gas companies, specifically looking to work with members of all parties to do something extremely reasonable and responsible to get at the corporate greed that she is speaking about.

Could the member speak to her support for doing so?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been calling for that for a long time. My entire speech was to get at the point that there is no balance. The government's responsibility is to provide a balance, and that is out of play right now. We need to ensure that people pay their fair share, and those are the kinds of ideas that need to get to them.

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

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, or the so-called affordable housing and groceries act. I call it a sham, a desperate attempt by this desperate government to make Canadians think it is tackling these problems by using a name that falsely labels the purpose of the act. It is pure propaganda.

Let us talk about groceries. People watching might be surprised to learn that the bill has literally nothing to do with groceries. Once it is passed, grocery prices would not suddenly drop because of anything in the bill. The bill is, in fact, about something else entirely. It would make amendments to the Competition Act.

First, it would remove the efficiencies defence, an idea Conservatives first proposed, but we never said that it was a solution to high grocery prices because that simply would not be true. However, what its removal would do is make it more difficult for major corporations to merge using economies of scale and savings as an argument. The bill would also introduce new market study powers and give the Minister of Innovation the power to order expensive market studies, which many argue would politicize the process and is financially onerous for industry. Ironically, the bill would drive up the cost for industry, making food even more expensive.

This does not sound at all like inflation-busting measures to me because they simply are not. Members need not take it just from me. They can take it from the Business Council of Canada, which released a statement saying, “As the Competition Act amendments included in today’s bill will in no way address the inflationary environment now facing Canadians – and could, conversely, worsen inflation by introducing uncertainty and instability in the free market”. This is not a ringing endorsement.

Its president, Goldy Hyder, had more to say. He said that it would “stifle” business through “bad regulation” and called it a “trojan horse”. He went on to say, “Ottawa wants Canadians to think the bill will improve affordability for families by giving consumers more choice...but that’s not its actual purpose nor what it will achieve.” He also said that the government “is acting in bad faith” and that the “amendments came as an ambush” and without proper consultation. As well, he said, “If the government is truly serious about lowering prices...lower import tariffs on certain goods...or eliminate...interprovincial trade barriers”.

However, he is not the only critic. Michael Osborne, the chair of Cozen O'Connor's Canadian competition law practice says of the bill, “Some of the amendments are good, more are bad, but most are useless.”

It is not high praise. It is useless because competition law is simply not designed to solve macro economic problems such as inflation. He pointed out what we have been saying for two years, which is that inflation is caused by expanding the money supply too quickly by loose monetary and fiscal policy.

He went on to say, “By design, competition law cannot limit increases in the money supply; that's the job of central banks...If a lack of competition is responsible for rising grocery prices, then competition law might be able to help. But the evidence doesn't support this.” He also indicated that the bill vests too much power to order market studies with the minister, reducing the bureau's independence and increasing the risk of politicizing competition law enforcement.

It is becoming a disturbing trend with this government to hand power directly to politicians at the expense of other departmental officials. This will lessen the independence of the Competition Bureau and politicize the way that we deal with competition law.

Even if there were more room for competition in the grocery industry, Mr. Osborne opines that removing the efficiencies defence would have little effect on lowering prices given how small margins are on grocery sales. These are damning opinions from industry regarding the efficacy and forthrightness of Bill C-56.

If the Liberals really wanted to make groceries more affordable, they would drop their inflationary carbon tax to stop taxing the farmer who produces the food, the trucker who transports the food and the grocer who sells the food. It is the height of Liberal hypocrisy to claim to be lowering food prices while they are taxing food production and transportation every step of the way.

The bill before us also claims to be the affordable housing act, which is another sham. Although it would reduce the cost of a new build by the 5% GST it would eliminate, it would do nothing to bring down the price of existing housing in the near term.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have more than doubled. Toronto now ranks as the worst housing bubble in the world. Vancouver is now the third most overpriced housing market in the world when we compare average income to housing price. It is worse than New York, London and Singapore, a tiny island with 2,000 times more people per square kilometre. All these places have more money, more people and less land, yet somehow, miraculously, their housing is more affordable.

Canada has the fewest homes per capita of any G7 country, even though we have the most land to build on. That is because we are the second lowest in being the slowest with building permits out of all 40 OECD countries. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years just to save up for a down payment. Only in Canada has housing become so unaffordable so quickly. This is happening because the Prime Minister subsidizes government gatekeepers and the red tape that prevent builders from getting shovels in the ground and our people into homes they can afford.

In Vancouver, nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is due to government gatekeepers adding unnecessary red tape. That means that over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is due to delays, fees, regulations, taxes and high-priced consultants. In Toronto, the added cost is $350,000.

Housing prices have doubled; mortgage payments have doubled. According to the IMF, Canada is the G7 country most at risk of a mortgage default crisis. We have the most at-risk housing market among developed economies. As low-interest mortgages come up for renewal, defaults are sure to rise.

Conservatives have a real plan to get housing built. Our leader and party's act, the building homes not bureaucracy act, would incentivize cities to speed up the rate at which they build more homes every year to meet our housing targets. Cities would have to increase the number of houses built by 15% each year and then 15% on top of the previous target every year. If targets were missed, cities would have to catch up in the following years and build even more homes, or a percentage of their federal funding, equivalent to the percentage they miss their targets by, would be withheld. Cities that exceed that target would get bonus funding; cities that miss it would have their funding reduced. Federal transit funding would be provided to certain cities only when those stations are surrounded by high-density residential buildings.

We would empower Canadians to file complaints about Nimbyism with the federal infrastructure department. When complaints are legitimate, we would withhold infrastructure and transit dollars until municipalities allow homes to be built. It would ensure that CMHC executives cannot receive bonuses unless housing targets are met and applications for new construction are approved within 60 days.

In addition, there will be a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental properties for which the average rent payable is below market rate to ensure that low-income housing gets built in this country.

This bill would also require the housing minister to report on the inventory of federal buildings and land to identify land suitable for housing construction, and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings and land that would be appropriate for housing construction.

The sad reality is that, under the Prime Minister, housing costs 50% more in Canada than it does in the United States. To bring market equilibrium, we need to build 3.5 million homes by 2030. This act will not get the job done.

I find it troubling that the government that caused this affordability crisis because of its inflationary spending and taxes has now brought legislation that blames food producers and grocers. Deflecting blame from itself and using the power of the state to impose a solution on industry is a bullying tactic unbecoming of a responsible and ethical government.

It is time for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Conservatives fix what they broke. This bill is a sham, and the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am sure it will come as no surprise that I totally disagree with what the member is saying. He is making it very clear that he is in opposition to this legislation. For clarification purposes, does the member intend to vote against this legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, I first want to congratulate the member. I know his daughter was elected to the Manitoba legislature this week as the only Liberal in a legislature of 57 seats. Nevertheless, I congratulate his daughter.

What I am against is a government bringing legislation to make Canadians believe it is doing something when it is not. This bill is called the affordable housing and groceries act, but it has nothing to do with making groceries and housing more affordable as—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We will continue with questions and comments.

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I always find it interesting to listen to my Conservative colleagues bash the Liberal government—rightly so most of the time, and I am not suggesting that they are not good at it. However, rarely do we hear anything in the Conservatives' speeches other than criticism of the government's inaction or misdeeds. Rarely do we hear them come up with concrete solutions. There is $900 million of housing money sitting in Ottawa's coffers. It is earmarked for Quebec City to address the housing shortage.

Does my Conservative colleague agree that the federal government should hurry up and release this money unconditionally so that we can find housing for people who do not have a roof over their head and build housing to alleviate the crisis that is currently raging in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague that tangible and effective action needs to take place now more than ever to get housing built. This bill would not do that. An amendment to the Competition Act would not get houses built. While a 5% reduction on the GST is something that I could get my head around supporting, the reality is that it is not going to solve the housing crisis and get the millions of houses built that we need by 2030.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for bringing up the Manitoba election. It gives me a chance to congratulate Wab Kinew as the new premier of Manitoba. He is the first indigenous premier in our country.

My colleague talked about a sham and sheer propaganda. Let us talk about that when it comes to housing. He did not talk about the 30% corporatization of the housing market that is driving up market forces. He did not talk about the profiteering that is taking place and that the free-market approach has not worked. In fact, he did not talk about the Greenbelt scandal in Ontario.

What are the federal Conservatives going to do differently than the Doug Ford Conservatives to ensure we do not have another Greenbelt scandal? They talk about selling off public lands and public buildings. What are they going to do to ensure that it does not end up in the pockets of developers? Public lands belong in public hands.

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

Madam Speaker, if that member had his way, every single house and apartment building in Canada would be owned by the government. We know that government across the country is the worst landlord of them all.

I believe in the private sector building houses. That is the way it has been done throughout our history. In the 1970s, the federal government brought in, for example, the MURB program that incentivized hundreds of thousands of homes to be built. We are not going to do it the socialist way. We are going to leverage the free market to get homes built in our country.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I was prompted to put my hand up to ask a question when the member said that the current Liberal government was responsible for inflation. I hope the hon. member will take this question in the spirit in which it is intended, which is non-partisan.

I am plenty angry with the Liberal government and the Prime Minister for many things, but I do not think it is reasonable to say that the Prime Minister is responsible for Putin invading Ukraine, for climate crises around the world that have impacted accessibility and the cost of various food stuffs, for supply chain disruptions all around the world or for the post-pandemic impacts on food production. There are multiple reasons why we are facing rising prices and they are not exclusively within Canada.

I would like the member to reconsider—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give the hon. member the opportunity to answer.

The hon. member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley.

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

Madam Speaker, a simple Google search by her about economists and quantitative easing increasing the money supply will confirm to her what economists have been saying for a long time, which is that increasing the money supply by $600 billion has diluted the value of our currency and that is primarily driving inflation in Canada.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today with respect to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, and I will get into those two components.

It has been an interesting debate in the House, hearing various land barons talk about affordable living for other people who have to rent from them. However, the mixture of our market right now has brought us to this situation. That mixture of the market was abandoned by then Paul Martin, when we lost our housing initiatives. Since then, the recovery process has been brutal and that lack of stock has led to the problems we have right now in a free-market system.

On top of that, in communities like Windsor, Tecumseh and Essex around my riding, a lot of building has taken place, but they have been more affluent homes, more on the higher end of the market for the profit margins to be higher. That has been one of the problems. We have lost co-operative and other types of housing units that really should have been built during that time frame. Therefore, even when we have had an increase in housing stock, it has not led to the things we want.

Today, at least we are trying to do something with respect to it. It is not a great bill, but it is something coming forward on which we have some unanimity in the House of Commons. The GST is something that even the Conservatives think the they could agree with, which is ironic, because the Conservatives, going back in history, brought in the GST under Brian Mulroney and brought in the HST under Stephen Harper. In fact, we are still paying for that. When the HST was brought in, the government had to grease a couple of provinces to come on board and we had to borrow billions of dollars, on which we are still paying interest.

I have an updated Parliamentary Budget Office paper and also a House of Commons Library of Parliament paper, which is updated every year to show how much interest we are paying from Harper bringing in the HST, and borrowing billions of dollars. We borrowed billions of dollars to bring in a new tax on Canadians.

Therefore, when the Conservatives talk about taxation, they need to keep their history in check. It is good that they are owning up to the GST issue and these regressive taxes that have been put on Canadians. We even had an election at one point in time when the Liberals and Conservatives talked about getting rid of the GST. We can see it still has not happened in the fullness of time, but at least in this instance we are going to support the waiving of the GST tax for new builds. There is a problem, though, that we have to monitor. Are those savings going to be passed on to consumers who are renters and to other people in the market purchasing those homes.

There need to be real incentives to build those homes. To this day, many people enjoy what is called “wartime housing”. After the Second World War, smaller units, with two to three bedrooms, were built and these were affordable for veterans. Those units now have had additional components built on to them or they have stayed the same. They are still very much part of a good market for many people, including in my riding where we have had a lot of veterans, some who served most recently in Afghanistan and other theatres. Windsor, Ontario has always done its part, going back to the War of 1812. We even contributed support for all kinds of different wars and conflicts, and for peace. We still have housing stock from World War II that has never been followed up on, which is a real issue with regard to our veterans, but thank goodness those housing units are there.

I would point out the new residential rebate, which is important. It is probably going to have to get through the Senate, so we are looking at more delays. When we are looking at an opportunity to get something done, we are probably looking at the new year for this. We have a housing crisis right now, so the response of this chamber is at least a modest improvement. However, not everybody in this chamber is willing to support this bill and get it done as quickly as possible. Therefore, we are going to continue to inflate the problem because the bill is going to take some time to get through.

The other component in the bill is the amendment to the Competition Act, which is really important. As I mentioned in a previous debate, the Competition Act needs massive updating. I am really pleased that my leader, the member for Burnaby South, has tabled legislation to fix the Competition Act in some respects.

This bill is going to have a few components too. It would “establish a framework for the Minister of Industry to direct the Commissioner of Competition to conduct an inquiry into the state of competition in a market”, which is important; “permit the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders...to an agreement or arrangement...to prevent or lessen competition; and repeal the exception in section 96 of the Act involving efficiency gains brought about by mergers.” The last one is a bit more technical, but basically the “efficiency gains” argument is really outdated in Canada.

We can prove that it would be less competition if there were a merger, and the Competition Bureau can prove that as well, but at the same time the merger can go ahead at the expense of people just because there would be a better profit margin. Therefore, we need to get rid of that altogether.

One thing that is really interesting about the situation we have right now is that both Conservative and Liberal governments have constantly allowed mergers to take place, resulting in the loss of Canadian jobs. We had the Lowe's takeover of Rona. We have seen where that has backfired. Some of the Rona stores are now being reopened.

Target took over Zellers, and then Target closed all its stores. By the way, at the time of the takeover, Zellers was the only department store making money and had benefits for its workers. The workers were paid about 12% more than other department stores. It was a Canadian-owned operation. The Liberal government allowed the takeover to take place. We lost all those stores. Target closed in Canada and moved back, south of the border. It was a complete and utter disaster.

There have been others. We watched Future Shop be taken over by Best Buy. Now there is a lack of competition now in the electronics sector. Future Shop was a Canadian icon store, gone. Now we have the Best Buy option and Amazon online, and very little competition.

I could go on and on about some of the different things that have been allowed to be taken over, basically leading to a lack of competition.

I want to highlight a couple of things with regard to the grocery store retail industry, which is another part of what are fighting for. This is going to help in that situation as well.

The CEOs of the grocery stores came before the industry committee and we questioned them. Unbelievably, on the same day, all three of the major chains cut their hero pay, which was paid during the pandemic, on the very same day. There are still issues out there.

Right now in the retail sector, several different things are taking place. In fact, we can look at some of the media stories coming out. Global and Mike Drolet did a good piece on theft in the retail market, how it was changing, how some stores were closing, not only in the United States but in other places, also potentially here, and the way that stores looked at and handled some things.

I bring this up because it is not a victimless crime. It raises the price of all groceries, with respect to theft and the types of behaviour taking place. Also, the same workers, who were the heroes during the pandemic, have to face increased and complicated situations at the workplace, either defending the products, feeling that they are compromised or having confrontations with customers. What is taking place is very important; it is a culture change.

We can look at the obvious things these grocery store chains have done in the past, such as fixing the price of bread, an important staple for children going to school and for families to survive. They colluded, like the robber barons of the past, to fix the price of bread. There was not only a lack of competition, but there was a coordinated approach on one of the basic human staples, increasing prices for Canadians. What happened? The grocery store chains got a slap on the wrist because of current competition issues.

The government responded by saying that it brought the CEOs in and asked them to at least hold the prices, to hold the line. What a garbage stance that is from the government.

Let us go back in history and look at some of the things that have taken place. Even the Liberal government had issues with its own in calling for corporate tax cut reductions until recently. In fact, some of the former Liberal leadership said that it did not cut taxes fast enough. That was their competition.

These grocery store icons, which enjoy monopolies in Canada, had a reduction of corporate tax at that time. At the same time, these CEOs with big pays were fixing the price of bread. There are other types of malfeasance going on with regard to their operations. They have also been known, as I mentioned, to actually push their workers the hardest and, frankly, in some of the most despicable ways possible.

All three of the grocery store chains cancelled hero pay at the same time. Not only does that stink to high heaven, it tells us the disdain they have for their workers. They had no shame in this whatsoever. There was no shame whatsoever when they were in front of the committee, saying that this was just the way they did business, that it was okay.

This bill is a modest improvement. As members in the House, we have the control to get something done on the GST with regard to housing, as well as on increased competition in Canada. Between the grocery retailers, the telcos and others, we need competition and we need it now.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the comments and advocacy for additional affordable housing resources. I served for several decades as a municipal councillor and looked to higher levels of government for increased spending. It did not come from the province for two decades, it certainly did not come from the federal government for the 26 years that I was a member of city council. It was not until this government arrived and created a national housing strategy that we have seen record investment.

While I take the criticism that we can always do more, it is important to emphasize that we have made investments in municipalities across the country. We have invested a lot in Windsor-Essex through the co-investment fund. That was a $90-million investment. The rapid housing initiative was a $20-million investment.

Everyone gets up and bemoans the fact that we need to do more for housing. I completely get it, but there needs to be some recognition of what the government has done with regard to making historic investments, investments we have not seen since the 1980s. I want to make sure that member is aware of the investments that we have made in Windsor-Essex and other mid- to large-sized municipalities, including rural areas across the country.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, absolutely. This is my eighth Parliament and every government has done some good work on different things. There is no doubt about it. I could run off a list, whether they have been Conservative majority or minority governments or Liberal majority or minority governments. Good things have taken place in every budget, so there are some good things happening.

I appreciate the member's work on city council. I served for one and a half terms on city council. What we have to recognize, though, right now, is that the Paul Martin administration at the time basically broke down the process where we had regular, routine funding for the not-for-profit and housing markets. That has led to systemic problems. That is what New Democrats are going for.

I do appreciate that there things happening, and that is why we support this legislation.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, I share with my neighbour and friend concern about the impact of the cost of groceries on Canadians.

Rather than an excess profit tax on retailers, if we were to wipe out the profit entirely of the retailers for the moment, it would take the price of a bag of groceries from $25 down to $24. Is that sufficiently low for Canadian consumers if that is the only solution being proposed or, if that is not low enough for Canadians, what other solutions would he acknowledge? Higher interest rates are impacting the food value chain and the carbon tax is impacting the food chain. What other solutions would he have?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's work on a lot of initiatives, including helping me with my private member's bill on Ojibway national urban park.

His riding also has a lot of greenhouses, does a lot of production for Canada and there is a lot of shipping. It is not enough to lower it that way. I believe there needs to be more work done.

The United States has antitrust legislation, where it can break up the monopolization. There has to be more work done on that in Canada because some of the grocery retail chains have also bought up many of the pharmacies. We have vertical integration in the industry, so we have even less competition than we saw in the past because other grocery retailers at the smaller levels are also getting absorbed into the vertical integration of basically three conglomerates.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to further explain how exempting rental housing developers from paying GST will address the crying need for affordability. How is this going to lower housing prices to help the middle class and the poorest get by?

Given that this was an NDP idea, from what I understand, can my colleague explain how this will address those needs?

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, something I have some concern about, too, is whether the GST removed from new rental builds will help lower the cost of building the units at that time, but the key component to this would be the follow-up to make sure the savings are passed on to the people buying or renting those units in the future, not only in the short term but in the long term. Sadly, on some that were built, the savings did not get passed on.

For example, in the oil and gas industry, there has been a fight to remove or reduce the GST on some of the costs, but they are never passed onto the consumer, so it is an extra cash grab for corporate conglomerates.

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

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to speak in this place and to add my voice to debate. Today we are talking about Bill C-56, which if passed would amend the Excise Tax Act and implement a temporary 100% rebate on the GST portion for new purpose-built rental housing and amend the Competition Act to get rid of the efficiencies defence, which has been a handy loophole that has been used to let almost any corporate merger go ahead, no matter what it would do to consumer choice.

I want to talk mostly about the housing portion of this.

We are in a housing crisis. Too many Canadians cannot afford to live in their own country. For a long time, people thought of this as just a Vancouver and Toronto problem, but over the past eight years the affordability crisis has reached into every community in Canada. Even in my city, where the economy was devastated in 2015 and where real estate prices actually fell due to the government's implementation of an immediate attack on the energy industry, I am receiving emails from my constituents, who are demanding action on housing. I got an email from Kathy, who talked about her rent going very quickly from $1,600 to $1,800 to $2,200 per month, and that is more than half of her income. I know that every MP in this House is getting these kinds of emails. Rent has doubled, under the watch of the current government, across Canada.

I also get emails from people who believe they will never become homeowners. If someone is a young person today who did everything their thoughtful and nurturing parents told them to do, like studied hard and earnestly, worked hard, got a good education and entered the workforce in a profession or a skilled trade, they would now be earning a good income, which is probably higher than an average income for Canadians. This ambitious young person who might be a nurse, a welder, a lawyer, a teacher or an engineer should have the world at their feet. The promise of Canada for decades was that this young person could now go out and rent a place, save their money for a few years and buy a home before maybe settling down and starting a family, but this is no longer the reality.

How much money can a young person be expected to save in this current environment? What do they do when half their income is going to pay rent? What do they do about the food prices that constantly go up or the prices of gasoline and home heating that go up? The cost of everything due to the government's inflationary deficits and wasteful spending leaves a worker without the ability to save. It would take the typical worker most of their working life to save up for a down payment to buy a typical house, but that would be in vain anyway, because they would not qualify for the mortgage that they would then need to actually go ahead and purchase a typical home.

What are young people today coming out of school to do? Under the government, the country is becoming a place with two kinds of families: families that already own a home and families that may never. The only hope that young Canadians have of becoming homeowners now in most of Canada's large cities is, with help from their parents, if their parents happen to already own a home, the hope that their parents will have the ability and enough money that they can contribute to that large down payment and co-sign the loan. For everybody else, there is just an ever-increasing cycle of rents that rise with shrinking space and quality of accommodation.

The reason for this is quite simple. For years, the supply of houses has failed to keep up with demand. For eight years the government has ignored the failure of supply to keep up with demand. The government has piled on costs and taxes at the federal level to push up construction inputs and it has enabled municipal political allies, who never fail to be the voices of Nimbyism.

Eight years after making a promise on page 7 of their election platform in 2015, Liberals have now figured out there is a problem with access to housing in Canada and are rushing a bill in at the beginning of this fall session to bring about this campaign commitment they made on the elimination of GST on purpose-built rentals.

We see this time and time again. The government creates a problem, and in this case eight years of high taxes, deficits, increased bureaucracy and wasteful spending, leading to inflation, which has led to high interest rates, compounding the shortage of housing supply by making it more expensive, or impossible, for builders to build. Now it wants Parliament to rush through a bill that contains something it promised in the 2015 election and which it has just now gotten around to tabling in Parliament.

Something else happened. The opposition leader tabled the proposed building homes, not bureaucracy act, which also promises to cut the GST on purpose-built rental for construction of below-market rent. The Leader of the Opposition's bill also deals directly with the bureaucratic hurdles to home construction and municipalities that do not want to build new homes.

The Conservative plan is elegant in its simplicity. A Conservative government would make federal infrastructure money contingent on housing outcomes, not housing announcements but actual keys in doors. The Conservative plan would do so not by telling municipalities what to do, but simply by insisting they meet this national policy objective of ensuring that Canadians have a home to live in.

A Conservative government would not bully local councils, like the housing minister recently did in his letter to city council threatening to withhold federal money if city council did not take a particular position on a particular vote. That is not how the Conservative plan would work.

The Conservative plan takes no position on what municipalities do. We would leave that to elected officials, who are elected in their communities to decide how they achieve the objective of increased housing supply. Let us make no mistake, the Conservative government would tie and hold back infrastructure funding if municipalities failed to get keys in doors by increasing the amount of housing stock that is built in their communities. We are saying to municipalities to let the builders build, get on with making sure we have approvals and stand up to the powerful, vested interests that can always come up with a reason that a housing project or a neighbourhood development cannot be approved.

The bill we are debating today seems like it was forced on to the floor by the Liberals trying to catch up to the Conservatives, who already had a plan tabled.

The other part of the bill is actually also stolen directly from the member for Bay of Quinte, who had tabled a private member's bill to abolish the efficiencies defence. I do not have time to get into the efficiencies defence, but I certainly support abolishing it. I have supported it before. I supported my colleague, the member for Bay of Quinte. Also, the previous NDP speaker supports this, and he has talked about competition. I agree with him as well. It is long overdue.

The Rogers-Shaw merger debacle should have been enough to immediately table such legislation, but if a Conservative initiative like that private member's bill is enough to spur the government to action, so be it. That is fine. That is actually Parliament doing what it should, which is debating ideas. If the government sees an idea in two Conservative PMBs, and maybe even an NDP PMB, and wants to copy these ideas and table them as government legislation, great. Let us get it done.

Canadians do not care who tabled what. They just want it done. However, it is a lesson to those who maybe have cozied up and are in this unhealthy coalition with the government. They can be in opposition and still get things done, like tabling good legislation. Let us get good ideas on the table and let us get better policy for Canadians.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, that was a bit hard to listen to.

I was a municipal councillor in the 2008-09 recession, and municipalities individually begged the previous government for assistance on the affordable housing front. We witnessed our affordable housing wait-lists almost double, and so in Hamilton it went from 3,600 families and individuals to almost 6,200 or 6,400, if memory serves me right.

We also collectively asked, through FCM, for the previous government to assist municipalities. Guess who was part of the government? The Leader of the Opposition. This is not a case of playing catch-up, this is a case of making up for lost time. All the years the Conservatives were in government, they had no housing plan.

Now our government has come forward with a national housing strategy that responds to the concerns and requests from municipalities from across the country. Is the member aware of that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am aware of a few things, including that the government has been in office for eight years and is only now being spurred on, kicking and screaming, by the opposition's plan, which has been tabled in this place, to implement something it promised to do in 2015. I know that in 2008, it did not cost $2,200 a month to rent a portion of a house in my riding. I know that in 2008, the mortgage payment on a typical home in Canada was not $3,600 a month. I spent 22 years in that industry. I know a bit about affordability and what people could qualify for then and now.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for calling out and asking for good ideas. We saw the Conservatives in Ontario try a land giveaway of the Greenbelt that was going to put $8.3 billion into the pockets of developers. We hear the Conservatives talking about selling public lands and public buildings.

I want to know if he thinks that what happened in Ontario was a good idea. What would the Conservatives do to make sure that does not happen again when it comes to federal lands? Public lands belong in public hands and not in developers' pockets.

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

Madam Speaker, I am not going to debate Queen's Park politics here. I am not even sure if that part of the question is in order.

As to the member's point about freeing up public lands for development, he raises an important point. It has to be done right. However, it was actually promised by the government in 2015, another broken, ignored promise from eight years ago, that it would examine ways that surplus buildings and lands of the federal government could be made available for residential housing development to meet the overwhelming need for residential property in Canada.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague made an important distinction in the Conservative approach to housing: We are not going to dictate municipal decisions around zoning and around the mechanics of where housing goes, but we are going to set targets and clear expectations. I think this is consistent with both the urgency of the housing crisis we see and the important principle of subsidiarity, which is that decisions should be worked out at the local level with precise details.

We can see across the board right now that not enough is being built. We can use the federal spending power to require that when federal dollars are going in for major infrastructure projects, there is an alignment with targets to grow the supply of housing in this country.

I wonder if the member can share further about how the Conservative principles operating here can really harness growth in the housing supply both by setting national targets in our national interest and by allowing local decision-making to continue.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is exactly right. That is the Conservative approach. There is national government level funding for municipal infrastructure, and that must be tied to national policy objectives like increasing the housing supply. However, it would be up to local governments, responsible to the local voters who elect them, to decide how to meet those objectives, and they would lose their money if they do not meet those objectives.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, we certainly do not have to look very hard or listen very hard to know that Canadians are suffering and that the government's out-of-control inflationary spending is causing tremendous damage to households from coast to coast. I think any member in this place who is taking the time to meet with constituents and hear the concerns they have is hearing exactly this.

Here we are in the House of Commons debating the issue of affordability, and of course the government has come to the table with one thing it believes is the solution. We as the opposition believe that perhaps there are other things that need to be considered, so I will be talking about those here today.

I recently had a phone call with a 65-year-old woman in my riding who is on CPP, OAS and GIS. Combined, she makes just over $1,700 a month. She was calling me because she is incredibly concerned because she cannot afford her rent, her food, her prescription, her car and her cellphone bill.

These, of course, are just essential things; they are part of making life work. There is nothing lavish here. She is not asking to go on a fancy vacation. She is not asking to enrol in any fancy art classes or any extracurricular. She simply wants to live, but the money she makes each month, this set amount, is not enough to do that. This is because the amount she brings in has remained fixed but the cost of everything she has to purchase has, of course, skyrocketed. The reason for that is the government's inflationary spending.

I recently spoke to a couple in my riding who could not afford their rent anymore so they unfortunately had to let their unit go. As a result, they moved into a motor home, where they now reside with their little dog. They move around from one Walmart parking lot to another just trying to get by.

I was speaking to a senior on the phone who was living in a home that was condemned. He was not able to move. He did not want to move, even though he received repeated notices saying that he had to because the home was structurally no longer able to exist and his health and safety were at risk. He refused.

Eventually, authorities had to come and remove him from the home, this elderly man who is in his eighties. He did not have the ability to afford any other available rental in our community. The authorities determined that they did not want to take him to the shelter because that seemed cruel. Instead, he landed in the hospital. He was cared for in the hospital for over a month before he was finally put into an affordable housing unit.

These are the types of situations that are taking place not just in my community but across the entire country. There are people who are struggling to make ends meet. It does not stop with the household and the impact there; it expands beyond that.

I was speaking with people at a local charity. They put together backpacks for kids who would not otherwise have new school supplies. They needed to put together a total of 1,300. They said that in previous years, the number has been closer to 500 or 600. That is shocking enough. That tells us that families are struggling.

Here is the other thing. Our community is incredibly generous, incredibly gracious and incredibly kind and wants to answer the need. Normally they would donate with no problem. These backpacks would be created and it would be fantastic. However, this year, because families are struggling, it was more difficult to find donations.

I was speaking with the director of the local food bank and she was telling me that the clientele has changed. The demographic that is using the food bank increasingly more than any other is single men who are working. They have a job. Those individuals, who are working really hard and wanting to afford life and contribute to society, are having the most difficult time making ends meet.

We know that across this country, a record number of people have unfortunately had to resort to the use of a food bank, not because they wanted to but because they were forced to, because the government decided to spend out of control and tax to the nines. Unfortunately, Canadians have had to pay the incredible cost that comes with that.

The chief responsibility of the federal government is to serve the flourishing of its citizens. Flourishing is something most Canadians probably have a hard time wrapping their heads around. I think right now most of them are just focused on surviving.

When the government is focused on the flourishing of Canadians, it hones in on six things. It hones in on the unity of the country. It hones in on keeping Canadians safe and secure. It hones in on building major infrastructure. It hones in on facilitating economic prosperity, not just for some by pitting one sector against another but for all. A government that is interested in the flourishing of its citizens is also focused on a robust justice system and making sure the rule of law is equally applied, and focused on its place on the world stage and making sure it represents itself well.

I would ask Canadians if the government is interested in their flourishing. I think the answer that would come back to me is no, because Canadians are not better off under the government. They are not feeling cared for by the government. They do not have the ability to flourish under the government.

There are many issues that I could get into, but today we are focused on the economic issues. We are focused specifically on affordability. It is with this issue that I will spend the majority of my time.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, we are watching as the cost of housing, the cost of food, the cost of fuel and the cost of home heating skyrocket. We are watching as Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. We are listening to young people who are feeling desperate. They want hope that perhaps one day in the future they can afford a home.

I recently sat down with a group of young people in my riding and asked how many of them dream of owning a home. The stats say that nine out of 10 have given up on that dream. In my community, all of them raised their hands. They still have that dream. They still have it because they believe that they can work hard and earn it. At the same time, they look at the policies of the government and look at the reality being created for them, and they are struggling to believe that their hope can be fulfilled. However, they still hope.

Why do they hope? They hope because they are confident in themselves. They are confident in their ability to better themselves through education, to land a great job, to work really hard and prosper. However, they need a government that is willing to partner with them, a government that also believes in their potential. They need a government that would also unleash them as young Canadians who are able to bring about great prosperity. That is not the Liberal government.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister's incompetence has led us to a place of darkness where Canadians are finding it difficult to dream from one day to the next. A common-sense Conservative government would free hard-working people to earn powerful paycheques to pay for affordable homes and affordable food and to put fuel in their vehicles. A Conservative government would take away the bridles of red tape and allow people to step into their gifts, talents and abilities and thrive. Canadians are the problem-solvers, the solution-makers and the wealth-generators this nation needs in order to propel forward. Conservatives believe in them.

The hon. member across the way rolls his eyes because he does not believe in the Canadian people, but Conservatives do. Conservatives believe in each and every one of them and their ability to succeed.

Canadians only need a government that is willing to partner with them, a government that is willing to rein in its spending, a government that is willing to axe silly taxes like the carbon tax and a government that is willing to take away the extra red tape and regulation that is put in place to hinder Canadians rather than facilitate their prosperity. After eight years of struggling under the current government and its strict regime, Canadians deserve a government that will free them, that will allow them to step into their abilities, talents and gifts and prosper. That is a Conservative government.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, I probably should have waited to have lunch until after that speech.

For me, the common-sense legislation that we keep hearing about sounds a lot like the common-sense revolution adopted by the Mike Harris government in the 1990s. That political playbook made municipalities the bad guys. It is oddly similar to the narrative that has been picked up by the Leader of the Opposition, who is blaming others for the fact that his government had nothing on the affordable housing file for almost a decade.

It was hard to listen to that speech. It is classic conservatism to create a bogeyman and find someone to blame instead of providing solutions. Our government has provided solutions through the national housing strategy. Every time our government has provided something in an effort to assist some of our most vulnerable Canadians, the member opposite and her party have voted against it. Why?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member across the way said that he should have had lunch before listening to my speech. It is interesting, because I think he missed the point. Sadly, one-fifth of all Canadians actually will not have lunch today. They cannot afford to have lunch today because of this member and his government. Again, he rolls his eyes as if to say that those Canadians who are going without a meal today do not matter. He shakes his head as if to say that these Canadians are not his concern. Shame on that member, because each and every one of us in this place is elected to represent every single Canadian from coast to coast, regardless of their income, their challenges or their abilities. Shame on that member for not advancing—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, if we want to help the less fortunate, the people struggling to pay for their groceries or housing, our first diagnosis has to be the right diagnosis. Who in society is currently benefiting from the government's largesse and spending—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am going to interrupt the hon. member because I do not believe that the member being asked the question is listening. I will therefore ask the hon. member to repeat his question.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is incredibly kind of you. However, I am not expecting an answer that is very long on details.

If we want to help the less fortunate, the people struggling to pay for their groceries and housing, I was saying that we need to make the right diagnosis. To reach a diagnosis, we need to identify the money that we are collectively injecting and that is going to the wrong people. If I were to say that the oil companies managed to rake in $200 billion last year while getting $82 billion in tax credits, people would probably call it an outrage. However, this seems to be what the member is presenting today by talking mostly about the carbon tax and saying that she thinks it is still not enough.

I wonder if she can justify that to her constituents.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member asked who is benefiting from the government's spending. Is it the already wealthy and the big corporations? At the end of the day, I am not here representing them. I am here representing everyday, hard-working Canadians. I fly under the Conservative banner, not the Liberal banner, so I cannot help but be on the side of the everyday person, the person who works hard, gets up in the morning and thinks about their day ahead and hopes they are going to be able to make it through. I am on the side of the person who drops their kids off at school and then rushes off to work; maybe leaves during lunch hour in order to pick up a couple of things and do a few errands; runs back to work and finishes up their full day; runs to day care to grabs their kids; runs home; makes a meal; puts the kids in bed; plops on the couch for half an hour and then heads to bed to wake up the next morning and do the same thing all over again. That is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I know that when it comes to the Conservatives in Ontario, it is the developers who are benefiting when it comes to housing, which is the conversation of today.

We have heard the federal Conservatives talk about selling off government land and government buildings. As New Democrats, we would see benefits in leasing those lands and working with the developers and non-market housing groups to develop housing. My question to the member is this: Is the Conservatives' model more like a Queen's Park, Ontario Conservative, Doug Ford greenbelt model, or would their model actually have safeguards to protect the public from developers and their friends?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would rule that question out of order. It was a provincially based question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I would ask the hon. member to not tell me how to do my job.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Vancouver East.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to enter into this debate.

With respect to housing in Canada, as we all know, we are faced with an intense chronic housing crisis. In fact, I would argue that the Conservatives, when they were in government, were the ones who cancelled the co-op program, which is a proven model in Canada that provides safe, secure, affordable housing to community members. More than that, co-op housing provides a community within a community through that model. What did the Conservatives do in 1992? They cancelled the national co-op housing program.

Now, based on the discussion and the leader of the Conservatives, one would think they are going to be the saviour in addressing the housing crisis, but let us be clear: They Conservatives were the people who helped cause the housing crisis we are faced with today in this country. Of course, after the Conservatives cut funding for housing programs and eliminated the co-op program altogether, we had the Liberals come into office. What did they do? They cancelled the national affordable housing program in 1993, further escalating the housing crisis. The truth is that successive Liberal and Conservative governments failed Canadians. They failed to ensure that there was social housing built, and they failed to ensure that there was co-op housing built, to the point of where we are today.

I still remember, when I was in the community in 1993 working as a community legal advocate, the shock that went through my system and through our whole community when we heard that the government had cancelled the program. Part of my job was to try to assist people, including seniors, people with disabilities, indigenous people and women. There were women fleeing violence and women who needed housing because they were in a domestic violence situation. They needed housing for themselves and their children, and they were losing their children because they could not secure safe, affordable housing. It was not because they were bad parents, but because successive Liberal and Conservative federal governments walked away from them and did not provide the housing that was critically needed then.

Fast-forward to today, and where are we at? We have a situation where, just today, a report came out that in my community in Vancouver East and in the greater Vancouver area, it was found in the most recent study that the homelessness count had increased by 30% from the last count. The truth is that, in many ways, I do not need a report to tell me so, although having that data is really important, because I see it in the community with the encampments that have surfaced. It is everywhere. It has proliferated everywhere. In my riding of Vancouver East, we have a permanent encampment. What is wrong with this picture? We have to ask this question.

Why is it that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed this to happen? It is unjustifiable. Housing is for people to live in; it is not a commodity for investors to use to turn a bigger and bigger profit. That is what has happened over the years since the Liberals and Conservatives walked away from co-op and social housing. They allow the market to flourish and then to benefit from it at the expense of people who need homes. Not only are people unhoused; renters are also getting renovicted. Seniors on fixed income, long-time tenants in a building, are being displaced and renovicted, and they will no longer have access to a home. They cannot afford a home. They will no longer be able to live in the place where they have lived for many years. This was allowed under both Liberals and Conservatives and was escalated, I would say, by their bad housing policy and by their walking away from the people in our communities that are in need.

We will hear the Liberals say that in 2017, they entered back into the housing environment with the national housing strategy. If anybody has taken the time to read it, and I urge all Liberal members to pick it up, the report from the Auditor General indicated they do not even know who is benefiting from the government's programs. In fact, they do not even know whether those who are in need, those who are most vulnerable, are accessing the supports they need. “Incompetence” would be one way of describing it, but it is not justifiable with where things are at today.

Now, the Conservatives have a leader who goes around acting as though he were the saviour. Let us be clear: When he was part of the Harper administration as a cabinet minister, under that administration, Canadians lost 800,000 units of affordable housing. That is close to a million units. A million families or individuals could have had access to housing that they do not have now. What is their solution today? It is more market-driven solutions. Let us be clear: It is the market-driven solutions that the government had relied on that got us here today. Nowhere do the Conservatives in their plans talk about building social housing or co-op housing.

The Liberal program does not talk about affordability. How strange is it? What planet do we live on that we operate in this way? It is no wonder we have a housing crisis. The bill that the government has tabled on the GST piece is to facilitate more housing being built. I want to be clear that we need more housing, but we also need to make sure that the housing that is built is accessible to people, meaning that it is truly affordable for people. It is strange to me that the government decided in some weird, altered universe, in this bill, that it would exclude co-ops from accessing the GST exemption. Why on earth would one do that? It makes no sense whatsoever.

The co-op program, as indicated, is a proven model in the delivery of housing in our communities. Co-ops create communities within communities. One can see it when walking into a co-op housing project. One can see the love within the community and the supports that are there for each other. People take care of each other and they build community with each other. To not support co-ops makes no sense. The NDP will absolutely be moving amendments to address that issue.

The other piece the NDP will doing is calling on the government to amend the bill to allow for existing non-profit housing projects to access this exemption. This would allow for some projects to become viable and, in other instances, for projects to create better affordability for the communities in need. That is what we need to do, to work towards, in that direction. We also need to actually set up some level of eligibility criteria in terms of affordability, to make sure the private developers are not just going to get a benefit but that there is also a further return to the community, and that is on the affordability criteria.

We have to think about housing in a holistic way. The NDP is putting forward these ideas. Above all else, we need the government to build social housing and co-op housing like we used to. Housing is for people to live in and not just to make a profit from.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comments, but I want to ask her a question.

I represent, through my portfolio, the territories. One thing I will be speaking about in the House is the lack of housing in Nunavut specifically. Per-unit costs have risen to $1.1 million because of inflation and carbon taxes. That is why no units were built this year, because it is simply too expensive, as the local government has said.

If it is so bad with the current Liberal government, why does the NDP keep supporting it in the House?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, where the NDP is at is this: Unlike the Conservatives, New Democrats are here to fight for the people and to get more for the people. We are not just here to talk about how great we are and then deliver nothing, having been part of a previous administration that cut housing programs for the people in need. We are creating affordability through different means, and that is why we fought tooth and nail to get the dental care plan.

Yes, the leader of the Conservatives has had access to dental care services all his life through the public service, but most Canadians do not. We will fight tooth and nail on affordability on all fronts.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have heard Conservatives talk about selling 6,000 buildings and 15% of public lands. We only need to look at Ontario, where the Doug Ford Conservatives did a deal for the greenbelt; they sold public lands and put $8.3 billion into the pockets of developers. In my home province of British Columbia, the B.C. Liberals sold private lands to benefit their friends, who were donors to the B.C. Liberal Party.

What policies and framework would the member like to see put in place to protect Canadians from Conservatives, their friends and their donors?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, for the federal government to make available federal lands for the development of housing, first and foremost, we need to ensure there is a public return to the community. The Conservatives do not want to put any requirements in place, because they only want to line the pockets of their pals, the investors and developers. For the NDP, there has to be a return to the community.

In the spirit of reconciliation, we have to make land available by returning land back to indigenous people, first and foremost. Second, for buildings that are made available for development, to turn it into social housing, it has to be social or co-op housing. The rents have to be reduced to below market, so that people can access it and it is truly affordable for the community.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am originally from Nova Scotia, and I look at a history lesson that I think we can all learn from. The private sector does not build housing when we really need it and does not build it in a hurry. The first public housing ever built in Canada was in the wake of the Halifax explosion in 1917, when thousands lost their homes, and governments, including as far away as the U.K., created a fund. The government moved in and built, to this day, some of the nicest and most sought-after housing in Halifax, in the Hydrostone district. It was the first public housing effort ever in Canada.

Within months of the Halifax explosion, the governments had created apartments, temporary but serviceable, for 832 people. They had a roof over their heads. It was done quickly and affordably. We are lacking the sense of emergency, particularly for those who are acutely homeless, living rough or living in tents.

Does my hon. colleague from Vancouver East think we should adopt a strategically different approach to the emergency for people who are homeless?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that the urgency is real. This housing crisis is a chronic crisis. It has been more than 30 years since the government walked away from building social and co-op housing.

To speak to the member's point, it can be done. We just need the political will to do so and for government to say that it will build social and co-op housing, with the models it used to use. When veterans returned from the war, we built victory homes; Canada, at that time, said it would not allow—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Kenora.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to rise today and join the debate on this very important topic. I just want to start by saying that, in Bill C-56, I am pleased to see that the Liberals finally seem to be admitting that Canadians are struggling. Over the last number of years, they have been telling us everything is fine and that the government has a great credit rating with all the agencies. However, we have been raising concerns about the housing costs, the cost of groceries and the cost of living for quite some time now, and I think that the bill being brought forward shows that the government is finally admitting that there is a housing crisis and that its inflationary policies are driving up the cost of groceries for Canadians.

It is also clear to me that it is a tired government that is out of ideas. Within the bill, of course, it is looking to remove the GST from purpose-built rentals, but that is something that has been brought forward by our current common-sense Conservative leader, the leader of the official opposition.

As well, the bill aims to help address grocery costs by removing the efficiencies defence, which currently allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition, even when Canadian consumers would pay higher prices and have fewer choices. This is another Conservative idea. It was brought forward by my friend, colleague and seatmate, the member for Bay of Quinte. I want to thank him for bringing that forward. He is a very smart guy and a decent hockey player, but he brought forward this idea, and it is another one that the Liberals have now adopted.

I want to be clear that I am happy that the government is trying to take some of our Conservative ideas. I will highlight a few other ideas that I would like to offer the government to bring forward, if it is serious about addressing the housing crisis and the cost of groceries.

As we know, after eight years of the NDP-Liberal government, housing prices have doubled. Nine in 10 youth say they will never afford a home, and many families cannot even pay the interest on their mortgages. Now the government's solution is to bring forward more photo ops and, as I mentioned, plagiarize Conservative messaging. The bill takes the Leader of the Opposition's idea from his building homes not bureaucracy act: to remove the GST on purpose-built rentals. It is a good idea, of course, but it is missing a key piece.

Our leader's bill would incentivize more affordable homes, because in order to qualify for the removal of GST, the rental price must be below market value, meaning that more homes would get built and prices would come down. As new homes were built, they would continually bring those prices down in order to qualify. The Liberals' version would not do that. It would allow prices to continue to skyrocket.

I look forward to sharing some more ideas on this after question period.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed I am proud to be here as part of the blue team. It is always an honour to stand in this House and to debate some of the legislation that is before us. Today we are discussing Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. First of all, I have to congratulate the leader of the official opposition who tabled his bill, the building homes not bureaucracy act, of which the Liberals lifted part and implemented it here through Bill C-56.

I also have to congratulate the member for Bay of Quinte for his private member's bill, Bill C-339, which was to amend the Competition Act by further defining the efficiencies defence under the Competition Act. Of course, that was also lifted by the Liberals and put into Bill C-56.

I guess it is true, as Oscar Wilde used to say, that imitation is the sincerest, and I would say the greatest, form of flattery. For the Liberals to take Conservative legislation and put into their own government bills is a form of flattery, and it is one that I think we should really recognize. This is Conservative ideology that the Liberals are implementing here.

I think it is also important to point out that the Liberal government is all out of ideas. It has been eight long years. The Liberals are tired, they are weary and they do not have anything else to bring forward, so they are now going to be going through all the private members' bills that the Conservatives have laid before this House and they are going to be lifting parts they can use of the great ideas the Conservatives have. They are going to put those into their own legislation going forward.

I am looking forward to what else is going to be coming forward from the government. When it comes down to the issues of grocery prices and housing, they have no ideas, and for the eight years we have been watching, things have gotten harder for Canadian families. It has gotten tougher for Canadians to live that major Canadian dream, which is to own their own home, but millennials and young Canadians just do not have that opportunity.

After eight long years, we have mortgage rates that have now gone up to the highest levels in 30 years. We have seen mortgage rates increase 10 times. The Bank of Canada preferred rate has gone up 475 basis points. Rent in this country on rent a two-bedroom home is going to cost, on average across this country, $2,339 as of last month. Canada now has the most expensive housing market in the world, with some communities like Vancouver and Toronto by far the most expensive places to live, and incomes have not kept up with the cost of living.

It is said that societies often come to the brink of collapse when things like putting food on the table and a roof over one's head exceed 75% of one's disposable income. That is what is happening under those Liberals and their mismanagement of our economy and our government. They are really making it impossible.

We talk about the Canadian dream. When I was 21 years old I took out my first mortgage, under the Liberal Pierre Elliott Trudeau government, and paid a 21% interest rate on that mortgage. It is like father, like son, and now we have again out-of-control interest rates, out-of-control inflation and a government that is running up these massive deficits, contributing to inflationary spending. We are in a situation where those millennials and young Canadians are now not doing what we did, taking out a mortgage and paying it off over 25 years. They are taking 25 years to save up for the down payment to go out and buy that new home.

We always talk about how this is impacting our young people, those millennials out there and the 30-somethings who are still living in their parents' basements. It is also impacting seniors. Edna in my riding wrote to me, and said, “Now, everything costs so much more. Many seniors are suffering and don't have the means to get help”. She was talking about her mortgage and insurance on her house, the meagre life insurance she pays for, all the utility bills and her groceries, and she cannot make ends meet. This is in Manitoba where, compared to the rest of Canada, rental rates, mortgage rates and housing prices are still relatively affordable compared to Ontario, B.C., Atlantic Canada and Alberta, yet she is struggling to get by.

What the Liberals are planning here is to give a GST holiday to wealthy landlords who are going to go out and build more rental units. There is no classification on whether this is affordable housing, but they are going to make sure that these are homes that people can afford to live in on their income. They could have looked at what we were proposing. I welcome the Liberals to plagiarize more of the Leader of the Opposition's bill, the building homes not bureaucracy act.

On top of removing the GST over the next five years on new home builds, why do the Liberals not make it easier for all developers so they can build more single-family homes as well make sure we are out there to support the people who want to buy their first home, not rent, whether it is a condo, a multi-family unit or a single home in a new development? Let us make sure that all developers, not just the landlords who are out there, are going to be able to get the GST holiday.

Let us make sure that we are also taking away the bonuses paid to bureaucrats who are part of the problem right now in creating the red tape. I am talking specifically about the bonuses that were paid out to Bank of Canada and CMHC executives. There was $26 million paid out in bonuses to CMHC executives who, in my mind, are part of the housing crisis as they are not addressing it well, and the Bank of Canada executives got $20 million in bonuses. Again, this is the Bank of Canada that keeps increasing the interest rates to try to balance off the inflation that was created. The Liberals printed more money for this bank to borrow and the government continues to use that money to run up these huge inflationary deficits.

The current Prime Minister has now run up more national debt than all prime ministers before him going right back to Confederation. That to me is a crisis. It is about passing on debt to our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. We are talking about intergenerational abuse because of the misappropriation of funds by the government and the lack of investment in the future of this country, which is making it tougher for Canadians.

I have to say if we want to talk more about what the Liberals can take and lift out of the Leader of the Opposition's bill, let us make sure we also talk about getting rid of the gatekeepers by incentivizing municipalities to actually build more homes and doing away with all the red tape that is stopping them.

We want to make sure that we take all the excess land and buildings the Government of Canada owns and convert them into housing.

Let us not stop there. If the Liberals want to take another Conservative policy and plagiarize it, I welcome them to axe the carbon tax. If we want to talk about groceries, which this bill has actually nothing to do with, let us talk about taking away the inflationary carbon tax because it is making food more expensive. I am a farmer. My friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is a farmer. My friend from Portage—Lisgar is a farmer. We were all a bunch of farm kids growing up and are proud of it. When we tax the farmer who grows the food, tax the trucker who transports it to the processor, tax the processor who makes the food, tax the trucker again to get it over to the grocery stores, and then the Liberals not only charge the carbon tax on the grocery stores, but penalize them, fine them, then pass that on to the consumer as well, it means we all pay more for food.

Let us make sure that the Liberals continue to make use of good, Conservative policy, that they do away with all the destructive and wasteful spending on their side and do more to work with our side, follow our lead and take our examples, because then they will make a difference. If they do not, I promise all Canadians they will have a chance to pass judgment on the government, get rid of the Liberals, and bring in the common-sense Conservatives for a better and brighter future.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not really agree with many of my colleague's statements on I think it was the Conservatives' building bureaucracies act and the lack of housing bill.

Calgary City Council voted in favour of the housing task force recommendations. Does the Conservative Party support Calgary's housing task force recommendations?

Do you support the Conservative housing critic's support of those recommendations or do your support your leader's and Conservative Party MPs' opposition of those housing task force recommendations? Could you please tell this House whether you support your housing critic or your Calgary MPs?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member he is not to address questions and comments directly to the members; it should be through the Chair.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman has the floor.