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.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, as reported (with amendment) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.

Motions in amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-56. I think the manner in which the bill has had to be dealt with regarding the programming motion is unfortunate. It is a bill with targeted measures in it for Canadians. It is a bill that I believe the entire House supports. I know that Conservatives voted for it at a previous stage, and the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon stood up and said he supports the bill.

Conservatives have used multiple tactics to slow the bill down in moving along each step of the way, yet they say they support it. I find it really troubling that Conservatives know better than to vote against the bill, because they know it would have a meaningful impact for Canadians, yet that at the same time, they choose to drag it out, delay the vote and delay the actual measures' getting to Canadians. They support the measures but just do not want to see them get to Canadians, because that might make the government look like it is doing a good thing, and Conservatives could never allow something like that to occur, even though they clearly are in favour of the bill.

I find it very interesting that, for months, this has been the unfortunate reality of the bill. It was an extremely important measure by the Minister of Finance, if not the first measure, then one of the first introduced in the House when it resumed in September. It was tabled, and Conservatives continued to put forward speakers on the issue and then finally did vote in favour of it to go to committee, where there was a lot of discussion. We finally had to say that it was time to program it to get it back before the House so we could vote on it so people could get the measures, because it has been three months since it was introduced.

I find that extremely disingenuous. I think it feeds into the narrative of the question from the parliamentary secretary to the House leader a few moments ago when he asked why Conservatives are taking this approach, especially when it comes to something they believe in, support and recognize is so important for Canadians. It comes back to the core fundamental of the Conservative Party of Canada right now that the only thing that matters to it is to delay and to prevent the government from actually doing anything. It will use every procedural tactic to do that, as we have seen with a number of different issues, including the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement that—

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, although today, I do rise with a very heavy heart.

First, I want to begin by recognizing a tragic motor vehicle accident in Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo that took the life of Owyn McInnis. He perished a few days ago. He was a very young man, in his early twenties, engaged to be married. He was from Guelph, Ontario. He was a member of the TRU, Thompson Rivers University WolfPack volleyball team, who was travelling with others from the team. It is just a tragic situation.

May perpetual light shine upon him. I offer his family, loved ones, friends and the TRU community my deepest condolences.

I also want to recognize his teammate, Riley Brinnen, a former resident of Kelowna, who was also on the WolfPack volleyball team. I have read that he has a severe spinal injury. I am not sure about the prognosis. I wish to send him and his loved ones my best wishes for him onward to a speedy recovery.

Owen Waterhouse is another TRU volleyball player, who is also from Kelowna, British Columbia. I just read that Mr. Waterhouse remains in a coma in critical condition.

Again, I extend my deepest condolences to all impacted and those from the Thompson Rivers University community.

There is so much we could discuss here as we dive into the contents of Bill C-56. I often think about the price of housing. I remember when I first got out of law school, my wife and I were saddled with what, back then, seemed like insurmountable loans, probably about $100,000. We thought about how we were going to make it. There is this perception among some people that the moment one becomes a lawyer, one makes a ton of money. That just was not the case. It is still not the case.

I remember being stretched very thin to buy our first home. We had to balance that with a car payment, because our cars were on their last legs. We bought a house for about $350,000. We would think to ourselves how we were going to make it through. It was not going to be easy. That same house today would sell for $700,000, with the lion's share of the increase of the price of that house falling during the past eight years of the Liberal government and more recently the Liberal-NDP government.

Housing has been an unmitigated failure when it comes to this government. What I see in my area of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo is a lack of investment in infrastructure. We have learned that the Liberal government talks a wonderful game. We have wonderful places in my riding, beautiful areas of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo that simply do not have the infrastructure to build.

One of the things I am trying to do in north Thompson in my riding is to bring in natural gas and high-speed Internet. There are companies that would love to expand, especially in the industrial area, and they do not have the places to build or the places to manufacture. If only they had natural gas, they could actually come and build factories or manufacturing operations. We do not see the government doing any of that. It is doing none of it.

The Liberals wants to focus where they think they are going to get votes. That is not what a government is supposed to do. It is either a government to all or a government to nobody. This is precisely why the Liberals had a carve-out, which we just learned about a couple of weeks ago, because the Atlantic provinces voted enough Liberals to be at the table. If only we had voted enough Liberals. Perhaps if I were a Liberal, there would be natural gas funded to those areas, and there would be more natural gas and more high-speed Internet.

People should not be punished because they do not vote Liberal. The Liberal government, unfortunately, has been a government to a few. Now, to top it off, it is refusing to give the same carve-out to people, like people in my riding, who heat their houses with propane. Propane is incredibly expensive. They do not have the option for natural gas, and yet they are still paying a punishing carbon tax, and the government does not seem to care. This is a key issue, because the infrastructure is just not there and housing is at a critical threshold.

There is something that the housing minister and the Prime Minister repeatedly say. If we listen to them when they speak about housing, they frequently say, “We are going to”, “We have just announced” or “We are partnering with.” What we do not hear at all is, “We have done” or “We have completed.” We never hear that, unless it is something about the future, where they will say that they have completed an agreement to do something or that they are going to do it.

Why is it that we do not see results? We saw a cabinet shuffle, and it was obvious the government came out of the summer break and looked at the polls and said, “Boy, housing is a big issue. We better start getting those photo ops.” This is a government that does not govern based on what is good for the people. It governs based on what message it thinks the people want to hear.

I referenced in a question earlier that the government is so quick to get there for photo ops. With any natural disaster, it is there, but what about after a natural disaster when there needs to be rebuilding? What about when we are dealing with displaced people? Where is the government then? Nobody is around for photo ops. That is emblematic of how the government deals with things. We do not need photo ops. We need actual results.

Complicating matters when it comes to housing is the fact that we have mortgage rates that are substantially higher. When the Prime Minister was speaking to a reporter years ago, I believe he said, “Glen, mortgage rates are at an all-time low. Borrow as you see fit.” He said to borrow, borrow, borrow, and people did. Why? People listen to their leaders, so they borrowed and borrowed.

Like me, perhaps their mortgage is coming due. My mortgage is due in 2024. I was recently doing the calculations, and I am going to pay just under a thousand dollars more for my mortgage. I am going to have to write that into a budget. There are a lot of people who do not have the fortune I do to be able to absorb that. That is incredibly problematic, and yet day after day interest rates have skyrocketed, perhaps not as high as we have had them historically, but we did not have housing prices that were this high historically. However, when it comes to a confidence motion, the NDP members vote time and time again to support the government.

If one listens in question period, one would think members of the NDP were diametrically opposed to the government when it comes to housing, yet when the time comes to either close debate or to vote against the government, the NDP will always stand with the government. This is utterly perplexing. I do not understand how a party that is so focused can do this.

I heard my colleague from Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam speak with great passion about helping the poor, about seeing tent cities and how bad the Liberals have failed, and yet when it comes down to a confidence measure the next time, members of the NDP will stand and support the government. If they want to get things done, they should stop supporting the government. Then we may see things actually change. At the end of the day, people are tired of seeing tent cities. I have seen tent cities proliferate in my riding and throughout Canada. That is not good for anybody.

In closing, I want to recognize one final person, and that is Thomas McInulty, Sr. I read he recently passed away. I went to school with his granddaughter. The family has played a significant role in the community of Kamloops, within Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My deepest condolences go to his family. May perpetual light shine upon him.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for really shining a light on the fact that this government and the governments before it, both Liberals and Conservatives, walked away from those operating agreements. We knew for 10 years that those operating agreements would expire for social housing, community by community, and the governments did nothing. Therefore, I thank the member for sharing that.

Today, we are debating what is called the housing and groceries act, but I would like to call it the “finally addressing corporate greed act”, because this is about the fact that corporate greed has been unchecked through a series of Conservative and Liberal governments. It is now at the point where it is harming people and communities to epic proportions.

No longer is every Canadian able to have the essentials of life, starting with having a roof over their heads and food to eat. It is unbelievable that in Canada not every Canadian has a roof over his or her head or food to eat. In Ottawa today, I walked along Sparks Street. We know people are living on Sparks Street and Bank Street. We know them by name. It is unacceptable that they are having to live out in the cold, in the rain, their sleeping bag covered with a tarp, yet the Liberals, who have the power to change this, walk by them every day.

I want to share a story from my community, the juxtaposition of the massive numbers of luxury condos that are going up and at the same time an increase in the number of community organizations that are trying to feed the community through food rescue and recovery.

Food rescue and recovery is a brand new area since COVID. It came out of the need during COVID-19. When shutdowns first came, a lot of food inventory was in restaurants, airline food that needed to be redistributed and all kinds of redistribution. The community groups came to help. They jumped into action. They came to redistribute that food. It is has remained because the grocery chain CEOs saw an opportunity window.

There was a conversation happening in the media that input costs, transportation costs and all kinds of other costs were increasing, so consumers were ready to accept some increases in the cost of goods. However, the grocery chain CEOs saw an opportunity to skyrocket food prices and to take advantage of consumers. In that window since COVID, food prices have become out of control and food rescue and redistribution has become a necessary staple in our community.

Just last week, I was visiting some of those food rescue and food recovery organizations in my community. One of them is operated out of the legion. People were lined up looking for a healthy meal and food for their kids. Kids, seniors and families were all looking for an opportunity to have a healthy meal. The Liberal government has put this burden on communities and community groups with no resources.

At this point in time, I want to talk about an organization in my community that feeds over 3,000 people a month,. It has over 130 volunteers. The logistics of this are very difficult, but the volunteers do it because they love the community and they know people need it.

They applied for the local food infrastructure fund. Someone from the ministry came out, saw the organization and said, yes, that these were the amounts of the grants. The local food infrastructure fund recently responded to the community group, saying that while the program received a high volume of excellent project applications, only $10 million were available for the whole country. As a result, only a portion of project applications submitted would be given consideration for funding and that the group's project application would not be considered.

These are on-the-ground community groups, feeding 3,000 people a month, and the government has a $10-million program for all these kinds of organizations across the country. This is totally unacceptable and it is totally not enough resources.

Just this week, HUMA is doing a study on volunteerism. Those volunteer community groups, including food banks, are saying they are desperately in need of infrastructure money to keep these programs growing. I say this against the backdrop of the fall economic statement and the fact that the Competition Tribunal payment alone in regard to the Rogers-Shaw merger is $13 million, more than what the small groups in our communities that are keeping people fed get.

I will go back to the corporate greed that is harming people in our community and talk about persons with disabilities.

CEOs of corporations not paying their fair share of taxes is hurting persons with disabilities. Right now, the Liberal government is holding back on the Canada disability benefit. It is law. The whole House has said that it wants the Canada disability benefit out in our communities. The government is holding back by not taxing super-wealthy corporations efficiently so we can fund people living on disability pensions who are making less than $10,000 a year. Women with disabilities are disproportionately affected by this, with 58% living on less than $10,000 a year. This month is 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. We know that women are already at a higher risk of gender-based violence, and women with disabilities even more so. This is is totally unacceptable.

I recently sponsored a petition from a disability community. The government filed its response yesterday, and it is not going to do anything about an emergency response benefit for persons with disabilities. There was an article in the newspaper last week about a gentleman who lives on the island. His family was renovicted, demovicted, from its accessible, affordable home. The family members are living in a hotel, using 84% of their income, because it is the only place they can get right now to have a roof over their heads. Those are the choices that the Liberal government has made.

This all relates to Bill C-56. The NDP is going to support bill because it makes some small movements toward addressing corporate greed in the grocery industry and in housing, but it is definitely not enough.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about why it is not enough and why corporate greed has really taken over the essentials and the necessities of life.

I think about the fact that the Liberal government and the Conservative governments before walked away from social housing. What did they do? They commoditized housing. They made it okay for large corporations and real estate investment trusts to buy up apartment buildings and then chop them up into shares, or units, and trade them on the stock exchange. They actually made housing a commodity, literally allowing it to be traded on the stock exchange. Those are the reasons our rents are going up in our communities. It costs $2,600 a month for a one bedroom in my community.

Again, the NDP is supporting the bill. We are happy to see movement, although it is very small. I just want to point out that Liberal and Conservative governments have, for 30 years, let corporate greed go unchecked. It is literally starving out our communities.

The member for Burnaby South has an additional bill, Bill C-352, to address this corporate greed. I hope everyone in the House takes this very seriously. People are living on the street without food.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise at report stage to speak to Bill C-56.

Some important amendments were made at the committee stage that were based on the good work of the NDP leader in his own private member's bill in respect of the Competition Bureau. Those amendments give the commissioner the ability to launch their own investigations without having to get permission from the minister first. They also raise the penalties and make it easier to show an abuse of market dominance.

Right now we have to show there is a dominant market player, that harm has been done by their activity and that they had the intention to do harm. Getting all of those three things together is often very difficult, particularly in respect of intent, because traditionally the commissioner has not had the authority to subpoena documents. Lowering the threshold so that we have to prove market dominance and either harm or intent means that it will be a lot easier to address anti-competitive behaviour. Of course, there are a number of amendments, again based on the work of the NDP leader in his private member's bill, that will be coming to the budget implementation act, Bill C-59, which was tabled not long ago.

The New Democrats are very proud to be working at improving the powers of the Competition Bureau to try to protect Canadian consumers by ensuring that in markets where competition is possible, companies are not abusing their market position to reduce competition.

We are likewise pleased to move forward with getting rid of the GST on purpose-built rentals. We know there is a housing crisis. I have talked a lot about it in this place. Many others are talking about it today, and rightly so. One component of that crisis and addressing it is to get more purpose-built rentals of any kind, including market rentals. However, what we have said all along, and ever since Bill C-56 was tabled, is that it has to be accompanied by direct action to build more non-market housing, because that is housing that can be built and sustained at rents that people can truly afford.

There are Canadians who have the means to pay for market housing but are struggling to find it. There can be a salutary effect on the price of rent, driving it down if there is more supply than there currently is. We know it is a pretty tight market. However, we cannot kid ourselves into thinking that this alone will be sufficient to address the housing crisis.

That is why direct investment in non-market housing is so important. It is why in the budget implementation act that was tabled recently, Bill C-59, which I just made reference to, there is also an amendment that would see the GST rebate extended to co-operatives, which were left out of the government's initial drafting of Bill C-56, something that New Democrats think is very important.

I also want to take a moment to express our disappointment. I had a conversation with the Minister of Finance when she appeared at the finance committee on Bill C-56. The government still refuses to extend the GST rebate to projects with secured funding under the national housing strategy that are led by non-profits, whether through the co-investment fund, the housing accelerator fund or any number of funds available. We would encourage the government to do this as soon as possible by whatever legislative vehicle is required. We are certainly willing to help pass it.

We know there are non-profit organizations that started things out when they looked promising and interest rates were low. They secured government funding and were going to build either affordable or social housing in their community. Then interest rates started going up, and the projects were put on hold because those organizations no longer had the money they needed to make those projects a success. Our point is that, even though those projects may have started prior to September 14, if the GST rebate is extended to those projects, it could be the difference they need to accommodate higher interest rates and nevertheless be able to proceed with projects and get those units built.

We know the government is out there talking about those units as part of the total number that its national housing strategy has funded, even as it knows those units have stalled out and even as there is a mechanism, the extension of the GST rebate to those projects, to get them to move ahead. I think it is inappropriate for the government to be out there talking about those units as if they are going to get built, when it knows full well that the changes in the interest rate have meant those projects are not going to go ahead, even as it refused NDP calls to extend the GST rebate to those projects so they could move forward in any event.

Unfortunately quite unlike the Liberals, New Democrats are not satisfied with the announcement. What we are looking for, and this is the metric of success for New Democrats, is when a family moves into a new unit. The fact that the announcement was made just means the work has begun; it does not mean the work has ended. If we are going to follow through on units that have already been announced, it means extending the GST rebate to non-profit organizations' projects that started in advance of September 14 so that real families can move into units they can afford. That is really important, and I exhort the government again to take another look at it. It is a drop in the bucket cost-wise, and it is going to mean a lot of units getting built for families.

It is an example of the kind of intentional policy we need to adopt and that is absent not only in the Liberals' national housing strategy but also in the Conservative leader's so-called plan for housing. He attached affordability conditions in his plan to the GST rebate. It is not that New Democrats do not endorse affordability, but one of the challenges of that is the GST rebate is meant to make market projects pencil out. If we give a GST rebate but attach an affordability criterion that also stresses the budget, then we end up with the net effect that developers who want to build market rental housing do not necessarily see the financial incentive to move ahead, because the GST rebate is offset by the fact that they have to offer more affordable rent.

That is why we think it is acceptable to have a blanket GST rebate for purpose-built rentals, because it is going to incent market housing, but we need a real policy that addresses the need for properly affordable non-market housing and social housing. That is simply not in the leader of the Conservative Party's plan. It is just not there. He talks about releasing federal land in order to build more housing, but he does not talk about requiring any of that housing to be affordable or social housing.

We talk about the major levers the federal government has at its disposal beyond its ability to tax and spend. One of the big levers the federal government has in order to incent more affordable and social housing is land. Attaching conditions to the release of land is one of the best things a federal government can do from the point of view of developing more affordable and social housing.

This is remarkable, particularly in light of the controversy around another Conservative government, Doug Ford's government in Ontario, taking rules off the development of the Greenbelt, which his government subsequently had to put back on because it was scandalous and because developers were set to get rich, including a lot of developers who showed up at the wedding of the premier's daughter. None of that looked right from the outside, and apparently now not from the inside either.

That is why it is really important, when we talk about freeing up land for development, that the process is transparent and that there is a lot of accountability in that process. If part of the idea of releasing federal land, as it should be, is to create more affordable and social housing, it is all the more important that this be talked about up front, which is not done in the Conservative leader's bill.

What is talked about in the Conservative leader's bill is withdrawing resources from municipalities that do not meet an Ottawa-set target. That is problematic because we know Canada has many different kinds of communities with many different kinds of needs. I, for one, do not believe as a rule that people who are elected to public office at the municipal level are plotting how to kill development in their community. It is quite the opposite. They are looking at how to develop, whether it is businesses, the housing needed for businesses or the underlying infrastructure, such as waste water, sewage and electricity. These are all things people need access to in order to build housing on any particular lot. The idea that municipalities already struggling to get enough housing built in their own community need their resources cut, which will make it harder for them to build the underlying infrastructure that nobody else is going to pay for, makes absolutely no sense. It is a recipe for failure.

What can we do? We can pass Bill C-56. We can extend the GST rebate not only to co-ops but to non-profits with units that were already in the pipeline before this announcement, and a lot more. Hopefully I will get a chance to speak to some of those things during questions and answers.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑56, which has just passed an important milestone. However, it is with a touch of disappointment that we note that a super closure motion has prevented the Standing Committee on Finance, and perhaps even the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, from doing the work that needed to be done in terms of competition. I will come back to that later. In less than 24 hours, the committee determined the fate of changes that could have been made to Bill C‑56 even though there were plenty of good recommendations from committee members and witnesses.

I would remind the House that Bill C‑56 was the first bill to be announced, even before Parliament resumed in September. There was not enough time to consider the government's proposed solution and the expert testimony. Only one solution was put forward in part 1 of Bill C‑56, namely an amendment to the Excise Tax Act to include a 5% GST rebate, based on the sale price, to builders of rental apartment buildings.

I want to talk about housing because there has been a housing crisis in my riding for about 15 years now. The same goes for a number of my colleagues. Federal programs just do not work for the regions, especially not for my region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

Let us do the math. Building a four-unit development in a city like Ville‑Marie in Témiscamingue, population 2,600, is like building 2,000 units in Calgary. Building eight units in La Sarre is like building 1,800 in Montreal. Building 16 in Amos is like building 1,200 in Winnipeg. Building 32 in Rouyn-Noranda is like building 2,250 in Toronto.

Unfortunately, our programs are not designed for regional realities. Fixing the labour shortage means fixing it in the regions and dealing with the public land use issue. More often than not, federal programs focus on impressive stats, but when they fall short of their targets because there is no new housing in the regions, what is the point of the targets? This is simple math, and it may seem simplistic, but it reflects the importance of adapting programs to suit projects in remote regions, including Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation programs.

Our region has been experiencing a housing shortage for the past 15 years. Since 2005, Abitibi—Témiscamingue has reached a healthy balance, a 3% vacancy rate, only once. The vacancy rate has been below 1% seven times. In the last three years, the average price of a two-bedroom apartment has risen from $681 in October 2019 to $845 in October 2022. That is a 25% increase. On top of that, the average price of a two-bedroom built since the early 2000s is $1,250. Without a doubt, this reflects the higher construction costs in the regions.

It is even worse with the construction that is going on right now. When I look at the government's current measures, I do not see anything that will reverse this trend, other than an empty promise for something that could happen down the road under the next government. It definitely will not happen before 2025. I do like the parenthetical interest in co-operative housing. However, those measures are also being put off until later.

It is also important to remember that, in the regions, particularly in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, the majority of our buildings were constructed between between 1960 and 1980. This means that affordable housing, including the units owned by co-operatives, needs to be renovated. Adapting programs would also help provide our regions, including mine, with the tools they need to become economic drivers. It also means addressing concerns about housing, particularly in terms of upgrading. In that regard, I am still waiting for help and for tools from the government.

Part 2 of Bill C‑56 deals with amendments to the Competition Act.

The government could have gone even further and used this as an opportunity to consider modernizing the Competition Act, a crucial subject that was addressed in exceptional circumstances. The committee's recent study took place in an unfortunate context marked by the adoption of a super closure motion in the House the week before, as stipulated in Government Business No. 30. The government deprived itself of the opportunity to consider recommendations from the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, comments gathered in the competition commissioner's consultations and from his excellent brief. This is really unfortunate. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for a comprehensive reform of the Competition Act for years, if not a decade.

It is essential to note the challenges that the Standing Committee on Finance has faced. A single meeting with witnesses was held on the evening of November 27 and lasted until 10 p.m. Members were required to present their amendments, translated and certified by legal clerks, by noon the next day. That tight schedule hampered us from conducting a serious study and properly taking into account the witnesses' observations. Unfortunately, the substitution of Parliament for backroom discussions in the negotiations on closure between the government and the NDP contributed to this situation. Democracy did not benefit from all this.

Despite these challenges, the committee managed to adopt a few important amendments, including some that are worth mentioning. First, we chose to considerably increase the monetary value of fines for serious offences under the Competition Act. The cap is $25 million for a first offence, with harsher penalties for repeat offenders. The purpose is to deter reprehensible behaviour. The existing fines were often perceived as the cost of doing business and did not really have a deterrent effect.

Second, we adjusted the legal threshold required to find a major player guilty of abusing a dominant position to reduce competition. At present, there is a dual burden of proof: It has to be shown that an illegal act was committed and also that this act effectively reduced competition. However, proving that something reduced competition is often difficult, rendering the Competition Act rather ineffective. Our amendment to the bill makes it possible to go after questionable conglomerates and simplifies the law and the prosecution process by making this component more effective.

Third, we gave the commissioner of competition the power to independently undertake a market study. Although the existing act gave the commissioner extensive powers during such studies, he could only carry them out at the request of the Minister of Industry. As we know, the minister is a very busy man, so it is just as well to enable the commissioner to do this himself. Going forward, he will be able to carry out studies more independently, strengthening his ability to proactively monitor and regulate the market.

Lastly, the Bloc Québécois introduced an important amendment that targets the adverse effect that a lack of competition can have on consumers. It is crucial that major players be prohibited from taking advantage of their dominant position or quasi-monopoly over a market, so we can prevent consumers from being exploited through predatory pricing. At present, the Competition Act targets the source of the lack of competition without directly tackling its harmful effects on consumers. Abuses committed over the years, enabled by a lack of regulation and a law that was clearly biased toward industry concentration, left the government indifferent. In committee, this crucial Bloc Québécois amendment aimed to fix this flaw and was adopted unanimously.

This also applies to housing. Unfortunately, for too long, there has been little to no oversight. We have seen very shady conglomerates take over affordable housing that may have been in need of renovation and turn it into unaffordable housing. There have been examples of this in my region and in big cities. That is what helped kill affordable housing, especially in the rental market. It is just as well that the bill tackles this.

There has been a laissez-faire attitude about housing, the oil industry, banks and telecoms for a very long time. This is partly why prices have increased so much.

In conclusion, even though the process was marred by unusual time constraints, the amendments we made to the Competition Act are a step toward more effective regulation that is adapted to current market realities. We hope that these changes will help promote healthier competition, deter illegal practices, and protect consumers' interests.

Nevertheless, I urge the government to give us the opportunity to do what we so desperately want, which is to thoroughly update the Competition Act over the coming year, rather slip it into a mammoth bill. While we are at it, can we overhaul the Copyright Act, too, as well as the many others that fall within the Minister of Industry's purview?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his contribution to the debate on Bill C‑56. However, I would like to put myself in his shoes.

The member works tirelessly, and the work that he does is vitally important, but is seems to me that he occasionally has to defend the indefensible. Would he not like to have a little help from his colleagues, especially on something like Bill C‑56 on housing? Small steps have been taken, but the real big step was supposed to be in the economic statement. However, real measures will not be implemented until 2025. We will likely have a new government by then. His government will not implement any actual solutions for housing until the end of its mandate.

Does that tick my colleague off a little, given that he steps up to the plate day in and day out to defend this government's integrity?

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

Madam Speaker, it is always interesting listening to Conservative members talk about Canada's economy. It is as though there is a dark cloud covering the chamber when a Conservative wants to talk about the Canadian economy. Ultimately, they love using the word “broken” and saying that everything is broken.

I am here to say that there is a great deal of light, opportunities and hope for Canada, especially if we do a comparison with other countries in the world, those in the G7 or G20, on the major indicators. Whether it is interest rates, inflation rates or employment rates, we will find that Canada is always around the top three or four in those categories most of the time, including today. However, this does not mean that we sit back and not do anything because Canada, in comparison to many of those G20 countries, is doing well.

We have seen a Prime Minister and a government that has made a commitment to continue to work at building Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We want an economy that works for all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, which is why we brought forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries legislation. We know that it is important, as a government, to be there in tangible ways for Canadians, and we have demonstrated that from day one.

I have often made reference to one of the very first actions we took to support Canada's middle class, which was a tax break a number of years ago. That was the first real, substantial piece of legislation that we had brought forward. We took it from there, going through the pandemic and the many supports that we put into place to have the backs of Canadians, to get out of the pandemic and tom build our economy. Because of the supports that we put in place during the pandemic, we have rebounded, in good part, out of the recovery. I would suggest that we are second to no other country in the world when we take a look at the million-plus jobs that have been created based on a population base of 40 million people.

When the Conservatives criss-cross the country, and their leader criss-crosses the country saying that Canada is broken, they are misleading Canadians. Yes, there are areas of concern, which is why we bring forward legislation like this. It is legislation that ultimately the Conservative Party does not even want to see passed and that they will filibuster, yet it is there to support Canadians in real and tangible ways.

Bill C-56 deals with the Competition Bureau by giving it more power. I would think that members would want to see that. For example, when we talk about grocery prices, what Canada needs more than anything else is competition. One of the biggest arguments against buyouts of large corporations is the efficiency rule where a corporation will say that, for efficiency purposes, it wants to consume another business, which shrinks the competition. A tangible example of this is when Loblaw bought up Shoppers, which was back when Stephen Harper was the then prime minister. The leader of the Conservative Party today sat in cabinet when Shoppers was acquired by Loblaws. What did they do back then? They did absolutely nothing. That has had more of an impact on the price of groceries than anything the Conservative leader has actually said in the last year-plus to try to bring down prices.

I suggest that his actions back in the day when he was a cabinet minister speak louder on the policies that concern grocery prices than his actions now as leader of the official opposition. Maybe that is one of the reasons the Conservatives are filibustering. This legislation helps deal with that. We realize that when Loblaw acquired Shoppers, it was not necessarily to the advantage of consumers.

It is one of the reasons I take a great sense of pride when grocery stores open in my riding, in particular smaller stores. There is a diversity of grocery stores, whether they are of Punjabi heritage, which provide wonderful foods and a wide variety of products, or the Water Plant stores in the Filipino community in Winnipeg North, and they provide competition. We can see how the bigger chains start selling some of those products. Why is that? It is because of competition. That is why the minister called upon the big five grocery chains to come to Ottawa to justify their prices. That is why the standing committee pushes the issue.

We recognize that housing is an important issue. This legislation would help deal with housing. Prior to the Prime Minister and government, the federal government's role in the last 30 years has been negligible on housing. The housing strategy that was adopted by the government is historic. We would have to go back 50 or 60-plus years to see the kind of investment this government has put in housing.

We finally have a government, under the Prime Minister's leadership, that is taking a proactive approach to deal with housing in Canada. Never before have we seen a government as proactive, but it takes more than just the Government of Canada. We need provinces, municipalities and other stakeholders to also get on board and work together. The Conservative leader says we need to beat them over the head with a stick. We say we need to work with municipalities and the different levels of government to increase housing supply in the non-profit sector.

Whether it is legislation or budgetary measures, over the years we have consistently seen a government that is committed to developing, promoting and encouraging supports for housing. We saw in the fall economic statement, for example, that the Deputy Prime Minister brought forward a proposal to expand non-profit housing co-ops, a true alternative to condominiums, single detached homes, duplexes or townhouses. It is an alternative to being a tenant, and it is highly successful.

The government understands the importance of jobs. Show me a government that has done more to create new jobs, on a per capita basis, than the Government of Canada has provided, in working with Canadians, since the pandemic. If we want to talk prepandemic, over a million jobs were created between 2016 and the pandemic getting under way. This government understands that we have to build infrastructure, support Canadians and create jobs. By doing that, we are supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and providing the programs that are so critically important to support those in need. We also increase affordability, where we can, by bringing in programs such as child care for $10 a day and programs for people with disabilities, significantly increasing OAS for seniors over 75 years of age, investing in things such as CPP years ago so that, when people retire, they will have more money in their retirement.

This is a government and a Prime Minister that care about the lives of Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and our budgetary and legislative actions clearly demonstrate that.

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

Madam Speaker, one of the principle things Bill C-56 would do is that it would remove the GST off purpose-built rentals. That is a policy that is very much designed to incent the building of more market-based rental units.

One of the ways the government could incent the building of more units with affordability conditions would be to release land and tie affordability conditions to released land to ensure that, if there is going to be new units built, that a specific percentage, whether it is 15%, 20%, 30%, 40% or whatever it happens to be, of the new units built on that government land are either affordable or social housing. In the Leader of the Opposition's bill on housing, he has not attached any affordability conditions to the release of public land. I wonder why that is.

We have a measure here that is meant to incent the building of market rentals by removing the GST. We need accompanying measures for affordable and social housing, and it seems to me attaching conditions to land release is one of the best ways to do it.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There are three motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-56. Motions Nos. 1 to 3 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 3 to the House.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Veterans Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I will just pick up on the member's concluding thoughts in terms of the government's not necessarily being an expert. I think it is safe to say that is, in fact, the situation. The government is very much consulting with Canadians on the whole issue of the monument and its conceptual design. It is important to recognize that we are talking not about hundreds of people but thousands of people who provided input. The ones we need to be very sensitive to are, in fact, the veterans and family members of the veterans. I believe that the decision that was made was weighted in their favour. I think that is an important aspect to recognize.

Before I go into more of the details, I would like to put things into proper perspective. It would be wrong for me not to recognize that I do not necessarily agree with the timing of the debate itself and the decision of the Bloc to use a concurrence motion in order to raise the issue, given that there are only days left in the session and there is so much that still needs to be done under the government agenda. For example, many members who would have come to the House today would have been thinking about the affordability legislation, Bill C-56, I think, that was supposed to be debated at this point in time. I know that members, at least on the government benches, very much want to hear debates and discussions on those issues, because they are the ones Canadians are facing today. Canadians are looking to the government and responsible opposition parties to recognize the issues of affordability. The legislation that we were supposed to be debating today, I would suggest, should have been allowed to continue to debate.

I am a little bit disappointed and somewhat surprised that the Bloc used this particular opportunity to raise this specific issue, when the Bloc does have other opportunities to do it. Even given the discretion that is often used with respect to relevance to legislation, the member could have raised the issue he is raising right now in the fall economic statement, not to mention even during this legislation. He probably could have found a way to raise it, to suggest a take-note debate or to wait until there is an opposition day opportunity. In other words, I would suggest that there would have been other ways. However, that is not to underestimate the importance of the issue.

I will give a bit of a background. Prior to getting involved in politics, I served in the Canadian Forces. I had the privilege to march side by side with World War II veterans. I had the opportunity of visiting the legions with many veterans, especially when I was a member of the Canadian Forces, serving in Alberta and doing my training in Ontario and a portion of it in Nova Scotia. I gained a very genuine appreciation of the horrors of war when I saw people at the legions who had the odd drink, if I can put it that way, and would, in tears, try to get through Remembrance Day. There have been many different awkward moments when discussions have become very emotional. Even though the actions of the war were decades prior, to talk about it and relive it would bring tears, along with a wide spectrum of emotions. It was not necessarily from those who fought on the front lines; I could see it at times even with family members.

I appreciated every opportunity I had, especially while I was in the military, to have those talks and express my gratitude and appreciation to those who returned from war abroad. I understand and value the importance of war monuments. It is important that we never ever forget. Like members across the way, on November 11, I too participate in recognizing the sacrifices that have been made in order for us to be here.

I recall an occasion when veterans were present in the Manitoba legislature. I remember very distinctly being in a chamber of democracy where I could turn my chair around and touch the knees of war veterans. That is profound, much like when veterans sit in the gallery of this chamber. It is very touching because it speaks volumes about the sacrifices that have been made so we can do the things we do and can have a society based on freedom and liberty, and that operates on the rule of law. We have been blessed by the many men and women who have served our country and served in the allied forces, who have ensured that we have the benefits today as a direct result of their efforts and sacrifices. It is important we recognize that. It is one of the reasons I find it difficult to say we could have had this debate at another time. I still believe, having said what I have said, that we could have, because of where we are in the session.

There is a lot more we could be doing and saying in dealing with our veterans. As a member of Parliament, I have been aware of many issues in the veterans file. When Liberals were in opposition, we opposed, for example, the number of veterans offices being shut down across the country. Many members at the time raised questions on the issue and challenged the government of the day as to why it would close down offices. There have been concerns with regard to how services are provided to our veterans in a very real and tangible way.

Over the last number of years, a great deal of attention has been focused on Canadian veterans, whether it was the reopening of veterans offices that were shut down by the previous government or the reinvesting and topping off of hundreds of millions of dollars to support veterans. We do that in different ways, whether through direct financial compensation in overall budget increases or through the services provided.

We also recognize, as previous governments have, that we need to do what we can to support veterans when they come home, particularly veterans who have experienced the horrors of war. We need to support those who have returned because of the impact that has on them. I think of Lieutenant-General Dallaire, a former senator, who highlighted many things for Canadians—

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

I just have one other question. Bill C-56 will increase competition or is asking the Competition Bureau to look at that. Do you think that those changes or having an increase in the power of the Competition Bureau will also help independent grocers?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform.

Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day.

For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.