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.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise in the House. I want to give a shout-out to my family, including my daughters, back home in the city of Vaughan. My daughters should all be sleeping because they have school in the morning. I wish them a wonderful day tomorrow.

Before I get into my formal remarks, I will give an example that personifies how we are doing the right thing to grow our economy in this beautiful country and also invest confidently in Canadians and Canadian families, and that is the recent announcement by Honda to invest $15 billion into the Canadian auto sector and the development of electric vehicles, along with the manufacturing plants.

Last week, I was able to join the Premier of Ontario, the Prime Minister, ministers across the board and many of my hon. colleagues of the House for an announcement of $1.6 billion from a Japanese company, Asahi Kasei, to develop separators for electric vehicles. This will create thousands of jobs in the Port Colborne area of Ontario and provide bright futures for families there, something that we believe in. Confident governments and countries invest in their citizens.

A few days later, I was able to visit Vellore Corners Dentistry, Dr. Elena Panovski and her staff, to talk about the Canada dental care plan. This dentist sent out a flyer in my neighbourhood and many neighbourhoods in the city of Vaughan, telling patients that if they are eligible for the Canada dental care plan, they should go to her clinic. The dentist had also put up a billboard along a major regional road in the city. I visited the clinic and met Peter, an 80-year-old senior citizen in my riding, someone who came to this country and worked hard. He had his Sun Life Canadian dental care plan card with him and was at the dentist thanks to the program that we have implemented. That is awesome. That is progress.

We were sent here to do what is right for our citizens. In fact, as of today, over 90,000 seniors have gone to dental care providers across this country. If we do not all clap about that, I do not know what we are going to clap about. Members on the other side are not clapping. Over two million eligible seniors have signed up, have been approved and will receive their cards. Why is that important? It is important because the day I arrived here in 2015, one of the programs that I knew would make a difference in the lives of literally millions of Canadians was a dental care program, and that is what we have done.

We have done so much: the Canada child benefit, raising personal income tax rates on the wealthiest, cutting taxes for the middle class, raising the basic personal expenditure amount, signing free trade deals with countries around the world and being at the table, and we will continue to do so.

This bill will implement important and fiscally responsible measures from the 2023 fall economic statement that support our government's efforts to build more homes faster, make life more affordable and create more good jobs. Our government is working to create a better future for all generations, and Bill C‑59 is essential to making that goal a reality.

With Canada's housing plan and the 2024 budget, we are taking numerous steps to help increase the supply of housing with the goal of reducing the high costs Canadians face. Bill C‑59 promises to support those efforts by helping increase the supply of rental housing in Canada. About one-third of all Canadians rent their homes, but the number of available rental units has failed to keep pace with demand.

Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which received royal assent on December 15, 2023, and the federal component of the HST on the cost of newly purpose-built rental housing introduced a 100% rebate on the GST. Bill C-59 would extend the eligibility for the GST rental rebate to co-operative housing corporations that provide long-term rental accommodation. Our objective, as a government, is to incentivize the construction of even more rental units, and that is what is happening in the Canadian housing market.

We know that our growing, vibrant communities also require critical infrastructure, like public transit, modern water systems and community centres, which is all infrastructure that Canadians depend on daily in their lives. That is why Bill C-59 would establish the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities in the federal lead for improving housing outcomes and enhancing the public infrastructure.

The cost of living is weighing heavily on household budgets. Bill C‑59 would make life more affordable by strengthening competition to help stabilize prices in Canada. We have heard public concerns about increasing corporate concentration and the power of private sector giants.

Complementing the changes introduced in Bill C-56, which I mentioned a few moments ago, Bill C-59's suite of amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act would provide Canadians with more modern and effective competition laws.

As everyone knows in this House, I love capitalism and wealth creation, which lead to higher standards of living, but what I do not like is corporate concentration and measures that are introduced that are anti-competitive by organizations and companies, and that is why we need guardrails. That is why it is smart for us to introduce amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, which the opposite party had ignored for the years that it was in power, and it can remain in opposition for many more years.

Together, these amendments would represent generational changes to Canada's competition regime. More competition means lower prices, more innovative products and services and more choices for Canadians in where they take their business. The amendments are designed to empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public in its role as watchdog and advocate dynamic markets.

Bill C-59 would further modernize merger reviews and position the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. The legislation would also support Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner.

Our plan is also focused on Canadians' well-being. Therapy and counselling play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, our government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible and affordable. Bill C‑59 would eliminate the GST and HST from psychotherapy and counselling therapy.

Our government is also taking care of young families. EI parental or maternity benefits provide essential support to new parents. The legislation would bring in a 15-week shareable EI benefit and amend the Canada Labour Code so that adoptive parents who work in federally regulated sectors have the job protection they need while receiving the new benefit. The legislation would go even further by creating new paid leave for federally regulated employees with a view to supporting families in the event of a miscarriage.

Turning now to Canada's fiscal position, we do know that Canada's deficit-to-GDP ratio is number one in the G7 and G20: we have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our net debt-to-GDP ratio is also in the mid-30s range, which is top-notch. We are one of the few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating. These ratings were affirmed and confirmed after the budget was delivered by the rating agencies, one of which I spent several years working for, and covered many sectors that we talked about in this wonderful House, which continue to employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians and continue to grow our economy.

It has been an honour to rise in this House and, again, I wish all the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge a wonderful Thursday morning and wonderful and safe travels to work.

Report Stage

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act. I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, the landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, which is reflected in a number of important indicators. These trends have been exacerbated by the inflationary pressures our country is facing following a global pandemic and increasing geopolitical uncertainty.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-59 arose out of a comprehensive public consultation conducted from November 2022 to March 2023.

Having heard from stakeholders, the government introduced Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023.

Completing its response to the consultation, the government then presented a more extensive set of reforms by way of Bill C-59. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our laws and promoting competitive markets. The commissioner of competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 are “generational.” I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors would be under increased scrutiny as the bureau would be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. Up until now, at worst the participants would be told to stop what they are doing. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability of the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties are also significant changes to our existing enforcement approach. By relaxing the requirements to bring a case and providing an incentive to bring matters directly to the Competition Tribunal, there would be greater accountability throughout the marketplace and more action on cases that the Competition Bureau may not be able to take.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing, such as applying requirements more broadly so vendors must present the full cost of a product or service up front without holding back mandatory fees, known as “drip pricing.” The law is further being refined to make it easier to ensure that advertised rebates are authentic when compared to a vendor's past prices. Businesses making environmental claims about their products would be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising their benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services in order to make informed purchasing decisions.

I would also like to highlight barriers to repair, which have been an issue of great importance in recent years. Where manufacturers refuse to provide the means of diagnosis or repair in a way that harms competition, remedial orders would be available to require them to furnish what is necessary. This could help a wider variety of service providers offer more options to consumers when choosing where to repair their products.

On top of everything I have mentioned so far, anti-reprisal provisions would also ensure that the system can function. These are included to ensure that workers and small businesses are protected from potential retaliation when they work with the authorities to address anti-competitive behaviour and violations of the act by other parties.

These reforms, along with various administrative changes, aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform. My colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. Nothing exemplifies this better than the enthusiasm shown by members of all parties to strengthen these provisions of Bill C-59 once it reaches the Standing Committee on Finance, especially in light of recommendations made by the commissioner of competition.

The amendments adopted in committee notably relate to merger review, deceptive marketing, and refusal to repair. The committee members were quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and these are the ones that I would like to draw attention to now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that could be excluded from the upfront price are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the product, such as sales tax. Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would now be required to be able to prove that regular price is authentic in order to publicize their discounts.

On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their businesses or business activities, not only specific products, must have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims. On refusal to repair, the committee added some helpful clarifications to ensure that the scope of provision was broad enough.

In sum, amidst the period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation, and improve affordability for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, which delivers on key measures from our 2023 fall economic statement. It is designed to make life more affordable, to build more homes faster and to forge a stronger economy.

This is a key part of our government's economic plan; since 2015, our plan has been squarely focused on improving life for the middle class and those who want to join it. From enhancing the Canada workers benefit to creating the Canadian dental care plan; delivering regulated child care for $10 a day, on average, in eight provinces and territories so far; and providing 11 million individuals and families with targeted inflation relief through a one-time grocery rebate in July 2023, our actions have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians depend on.

In fact, since 2015, our government has lowered the poverty rate by 4.6%, thanks to direct income supports and a strong economy that benefits all Canadians, all the while ensuring that we maintain the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

Compared with before the pandemic, we can proudly say that, today, over one million more Canadians are employed. However, we cannot refute that still-elevated consumer prices and looming mortgage renewals continue to put pressure on many Canadian families or say that there is not more important work ahead of us to address affordability.

When it comes to housing affordability, supply is at the heart of the major challenges facing Canadians. That is why we are taking real, concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-56 proposed to eliminate the GST on new rental projects, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, built specifically for long-term rental accommodations. Bill C-59 goes even further by proposing to eliminate the GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement.

Swift passage of the bill would enable more people in every province and territory to find the types of rental housing they need at a price they can afford. The legislation would also help protect tenants from renovictions, which statistics show are displacing individuals and families, as well as increasing the rate of homelessness.

Our federal government also recognizes the clear link between housing and infrastructure, which is why the fall economic statement proposes to establish the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, currently, Infrastructure Canada. Bill C-59 would formally establish this new department and clarify its powers and duties as the federal lead on improving public infrastructure and housing, so our communities would have the infrastructure they need to grow and remain resilient.

Another important housing measure in the fall economic statement includes cutting the red tape that prevents construction workers from moving across the country to build homes, as well as cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals, which are keeping far too many homes in our communities off the market.

Our government is also providing $15 billion in new loans through the apartment construction loan program, which accelerates the construction of rental housing by providing low-cost financing to builders and developers. As recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, we will be broadening this program by including student residences to help more students find housing across the country. This crucial change would relieve pressure on the housing market by freeing up housing supply that already exists in communities. Budget 2024 delivered a top-up to support the construction of even more units.

In addition, we have launched the Canadian mortgage charter, which “details the tailored mortgage relief that the government expects lenders to provide to Canadians facing a challenging financial situation with the mortgage on their principal residence. It also reaffirms that insured mortgage holders are not required under the regulations to requalify under the minimum qualifying rate when switching lenders at mortgage renewal.” Our goal is to protect Canadians by ensuring they have the support they need to afford their homes.

On a similar topic, I would be remiss if I did not also mention the new first-time homebuyer tax-free savings account, which allows Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free towards the purchase of their first home. We launched this account in April 2023, and to date, it has helped more than 750,000 Canadians, and counting, reach their first home savings goals.

A more competitive economy benefits all Canadians by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses alike. Building on changes proposed in Bill C-56, Bill C-59 would amend both the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to modernize competition in Canada, thereby helping to stabilize prices across the entire economy. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. It also includes modernizing merger reviews, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts in competition analysis and empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations. Finally, it includes broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful. These truly generational changes would drive lower prices and innovation, while fuelling economic growth, helping to further counteract inflationary pressures.

Today, I outlined just a few examples of how Bill C-59 makes targeted, responsible investments to improve affordability, build more homes and build an economy that works for everyone, all while taking care not to feed inflation. These are real solutions that, when combined with new measures announced in our recent budget and Canada's housing plan, will help us tackle Canada's housing challenge while improving affordability across the board. That is why I urge my fellow parliamentarians to continue to support this important piece of legislation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act.

I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals. Before I get into some of the key details of this critical piece of legislation, I feel it is important to highlight the economic context in which this legislation is being introduced.

Countries around the world are dealing with higher inflation due to a global pandemic, further exacerbated by geopolitical uncertainty. Despite the fearmongering of the Conservative members opposite, Canada's economy is remarkably strong and resilient. That is truly due to the hard work of Canadians themselves. A few proof points demonstrate this: Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers; our deficit is declining; and we are one of the only two G7 countries with an AAA credit rating from independent experts. Something that we can all be quite proud of is that Canada received the highest per capita foreign direct investment in the G7 in the first three quarters of 2023. Some may ask why those facts matter. These proof points show that Canada is in an enviable position when it comes to fiscal management. That position is exactly the reason our government can afford to make transformative investments in improving housing affordability and making life cost less.

Unlike Conservatives, who cut support for Canadians, we believe in supporting the middle class through growth and investment. I hear from my constituents often that their top concerns are being able to find an affordable place to live and wanting to find ways to make their day-to-day expenses cost less. This legislation addresses these two core issues head on.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, a landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, reflected in a number of important indicators.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets, to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our law and promoting competitive markets. The Commissioner of Competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023, and Bill C-59, are generational. I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors will be under increased scrutiny, as the bureau will be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability for the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties is also a significant change to our existing enforcement approach.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some more direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing so that vendors must present the full cost of a product or service upfront, without holding back mandatory fees, which is known as drip pricing. Businesses making environmental claims about their products will be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising those benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services to make informed purchasing decisions.

We have also made strides on the right to repair. Thanks to the bill, a wider variety of service providers would be able to offer more options to consumers when they are choosing where to repair their products. These reforms, along with various administrative changes aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international best practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform, and my colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. The committee members were notably quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and I would like to draw attention to some now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that can be excluded from the upfront price, are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the products, such as sales taxes.

Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would be required to be able to prove that the regular price is authentic to publicize discounts. On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their business or business activities, not only specific products, have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims.

This bill goes beyond making generational changes to competition in Canada. It also takes concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-59 proposes to eliminate GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement. This is just one of many measures our government is proposing to ensure that more people across all provinces and territories find the housing they need, at a price that they can afford.

Amidst a period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation and improve affordability for Canadians. It would also get more rental housing built faster so that we can ensure housing is affordable for every generation.

I would urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation, instead of doing what we have seen in committee, which is to slow the bill down. We continue to see the Conservatives try to obstruct key pieces of legislation that are helping Canadians in their time of need, and that is not what we have been put here to do.

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

Part of the powers that were given by Bill C-56 were also to have the minister of ISED—because you are still a part of ISED—direct studies. Has the minister asked at all for reviews or studies on the state of airline competition in Canada, yes or no?

[Melissa Fisher, Deputy Commissioner, Mergers Directorate, Competition Bureau Canada]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you today. My name is Melissa Fisher. I'm the deputy commissioner of the Competition Bureau's mergers directorate. Joining me today is my colleague Brad Callaghan, who is the associate deputy commissioner of the policy, planning and advocacy directorate.

The bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. We administer and enforce Canada's Competition Act, a law of general application that applies to every sector of the economy. We investigate and address abuses of market power, anti-competitive mergers, price fixing and deceptive marketing practices. The bureau also advocates for pro-competitive government rules and regulations.

It’s important to recognize that we are enforcers, not adjudicators. The Competition Act requires us to meet several thresholds and standards, such as proving that there has been a significant harm to competition.

I'll also note that in the case of airline mergers there is a public interest review process that can be triggered by the Minister of Transport. When that happens, our statutory role becomes one of adviser, rather than enforcer. Our role is to identify any competition concerns relating to the merger to the Minister of Transport by way of a public report, and the minister makes the final decision on whether to recommend approval of the proposed transaction.

We've done this in three transactions in recent years—first, the First Air and Canadian North transaction in 2019, then the proposed merger between Air Canada and Air Transat in 2020, and most recently the WestJet-Sunwing merger. We believe it's important to correct the record in light of prior testimony that you have heard. The bureau did not approve these mergers. In fact, our public reports outlined the serious competition concerns that each of them raised.

We also participated in the last major review of the Canada Transportation Act, which was carried out in 2015. Our submission made a number of recommendations to government that we believe would result in lower prices, higher-quality services, and greater innovation in the transportation industry.

In light of recent events that have raised questions about the state of competition in the airline sector, the bureau has been considering the value of a more fulsome study, separate from enforcement matters that review specific transactions or behaviour. With that in mind, we have initiated the process to begin a market study of the industry. This will be our first such study under our new powers, which were granted in December 2023 through Bill C-56. This follows our most recent study of the retail grocery sector.

We intend to study the state of competition in the airline industry and how governments across Canada can improve competition for the benefit of domestic air passengers, as well as the workers and entrepreneurs who enable these services. We will be providing more details on this market study of the airline industry in the coming days when we launch a consultation on its terms of reference.

Before fielding your questions, I would note that the law requires the bureau to conduct investigations in private and keep the information we have confidential. This obligation may prevent us from discussing some past or current investigations.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to appear today. We look forward to your questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions.

I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C‑56 and Bill C‑59.

The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act.

Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?

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

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting such a lively debate tonight. I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech, and I congratulate him on the six amendments that he was able to get passed in committee. He touched on them briefly. I would like him to tell us more about that, but I will ask my question.

There have been a lot of changes and improvements to the Competition Act, some of which were requested by the commissioner of competition. When it comes to the Competition Act, we know that Canada had a long way to go. Bill C‑56 improved the act, and Bill C‑59 and its amendments are improving it even more.

Does the member think that the system is now robust enough that consumers can expect healthy competition at all times, or is there still more work to do in that regard?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Esteemed colleagues, we're in a predicament here. It's really not easy to do what we're doing here.

On the one hand, we have a competition issue and that has an impact on the economy, that's for sure. There are a lot of things being done to address that. The commissioner of competition is suggesting amendments to the bill with respect to the Competition Act. I consider him to be an expert in the field. He's in a position of authority and he's suggesting that we adopt the amendment Mr. Davies proposed to us.

On the other hand, senior officials from the Department of Finance are telling us that some key issues around this could have serious consequences.

Our role is that of legislator, but we're caught between two authorities who are not saying the same thing. That's a real problem.

How did we get here? For years, the government has been promising that it will do a comprehensive reform of the Competition Act, but instead of going through with that reform, it's using a piecemeal approach with this omnibus bill, which deals with a whole host of subjects and acts and implements certain provisions of last year's budget. Meanwhile, this year's budget has been tabled and there's a briefing tomorrow on the notice of ways and means. That's where we're at. We never get to see the big picture.

That leads to situations like the one we're in right now. The government is telling us that we have to look at the Competition Act as a whole. That's its reasoning for rejecting the amendments proposed at the commissioner's request. For example, it's arguing that the threshold would be different in two parts of the act. The government never lets us see that darned big picture.

In my opinion, this shows that the government isn't doing its job well. If they'd wanted to do things properly and ensure that we, elected members who are legislators, had the time to get a complete look at this situation, they would have moved these amendments in a separate bill. That way, we could have taken the time we needed to get a good look at this.

The committee has heard from the commissioner of competition. We've heard the officials' presentations. Now, some officials with us are still making some very important and valuable points. We're flying half-blind, and we can't see the big picture. We're in this situation because the government is doing a bad job, and I condemn the situation.

Yes, the commissioner did say that the issue of his powers to block mergers was largely resolved thanks to the provisions in Bill C‑56 and what's in Bill C‑59. That said, when the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food did its study on grocery prices, the commissioner of competition's arguments were the same ones this amendment is based on, and that committee accepted them. Therefore, if we don't pass this amendment, we're putting ourselves at odds with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

Frankly, I would have preferred that the commissioner be with us to debate this amendment in depth.

We're hearing from public servants that there are some very significant issues. However, their arguments are at odds with the commissioner of competition's request, even though the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food accepted the commissioner's suggestions.

I find myself having to reject valid arguments to decide on this. As it stands, I will support the commissioner of competition's suggestions, agree with the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food and the work it has done, and support Mr. Davies' amendment. Nevertheless, I strongly condemn this situation.

[Samir Chhabra]

I am avoiding the fact specifics of that particular case or example, in the sense that there are a number of important changes to the Competition Act that have been proposed—there's Bill C-56, which has received royal assent, and then again there are changes being proposed here through Bill C-59. I think the key piece to recognize is that on mergers in certain federally regulated sectors, including in finance and including in transport, for example, there's a two-key system. There's the Competition Bureau making its assessment and providing analysis and advice, and then there's also an opportunity for a ministerial decision to be taken. Nothing that's being proposed here or in Bill C-56 specifically changed those ministerial engagements.

[Martin Simard]

It's asking us to opine on the decisions the tribunal has taken over the years.

I think the tidbit about the “least intrusive” remedy is fairly universal. If you look at all the merger guidelines around the world, there's a network of enforcers, and they have this part. I think the notion is you want to stop the harm, but you want to keep, if you can, the benefits of a merger, like efficiencies and so on. I don't think Canada is unique in taking the least intrusive remedy that fixes the problem. I think that's the important caveat.

I agree with you that those were the two things the commissioner highlighted, and he clearly feels that the decisions over time have been too timid and the tribunal should be constrained by the act to be more aggressive. It is also perhaps worth replacing this in the overall reforms of C-56 and C-59, which generally really strengthen...so, no efficiencies defence and stronger abuse of dominance. There's a lot that has been changed.

We were also going to talk about the potentially structural remedies just after this, and there's already the ability now for the tribunal to take into account market share alone, so there's a lot that has been done. Even if the diagnostic is that it was too weak before, there has already been a lot of change to strengthen this, and whether this one is needed or not is a question for the committee.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

First, thank you for being here and for answering all these questions.

I think part of the reason it's so important, at least for me, is, one, we have made some really amazing progress on and generational change to our competition law, and when the commissioner came, he acknowledged that. Then he also said he felt there were two really important additions we also needed to consider for C-59. My ears did perk up at that, because I think he was very happy with C-56, C-19 and, now, the changes around competition here in C-59. However, he then very deliberately said there are two things he really feels we need to have right now. I believe, if I'm correct, the amendment that's before us.... It was when he was talking about merger reviews that he said:

Merger review is our first line of defence for protecting competition. However, when we find that a merger is anti-competitive, the law does not require strong remedies.

That's this one that we're referring to.

Then he said:

The Supreme Court held that the goal of a merger remedy is simply to mitigate the harm from a merger so that it is no longer substantial, and to do so in the least intrusive way. As a result, we sometimes end up with merger remedies that take a strong competitor in a market and replace it with a weaker one.

Do you agree with his assessment on that? Do you agree with those statements?

[Samir Chhabra]

In clause 236, the government had proposed to make an adjustment to the English version of the act to ensure that representations about prices—particularly a discounted product—are presumed to be making the comparison to their own prices, rather than potentially to an unspecified market price or the prices of competitors. This enables the bureau to be much clearer and more targeted about going after any deceptive marketing in this space that takes advantage of a different selling price.

The bureau, of course, has its investigatory tools and the ability to compel information from organizations that are under investigation. Following the passage of Bill C-56, it also has the ability to seek orders to compel information in the course of a market study. There are a couple of different ways that the bureau can get access to this type of information.

My understanding of the change that's being proposed by NDP-7 is that it would introduce additional requirements that include demonstrating or establishing that a business has “sold a substantial volume of the product at that price or a higher price within a reasonable period of time before or after the making of the representation” and that “they have offered the product at that price or a higher price in good faith for a substantial period of time”.

Some considerations before the committee are about whether those time periods are testable, relatable and consistently applied across the board. It's about whether businesses would have the ability to understand what's expected of them in that circumstance and, frankly, what a “substantial period” might mean. Do any interim discounts that were offered for a short period of time in between, say, a Black Friday and then a Boxing Day, obviate the ability to demonstrate it as a discount, if they've done it within previous months?

Those are a few issues for the committee's consideration today.

[Matthew Boswell]

As I set out in my opening, rebuttable structural presumptions are incredibly important and would be a very significant change in terms of merger law in Canada. As I pointed out, it's not some sort of magic thing that we've come up with at the bureau by ourselves. It's an approach they've been taking in the United States for 60 years, including through endorsing it at the level of the Supreme Court of the United States. That's why we make a strong point about how Bill C-59 could be amended. We provide very clear language on how it could be amended to mirror the U.S. merger guidelines.

The other point would be the remedy standard, which is—I went through it in my opening as well in terms of the United States, the European Union and the United Kingdom—to restore competition to what it was before, when you have an anti-competitive merger. That should be the remedy.

Those two amendments, combined with repealing the efficiencies defence—which happened, as you will recall, in Bill C-56—would probably be the most significant amendments to our merger law ever. That's why we're pushing so hard. As the enforcer who sees these things, we're at the coalface every day. That's why we're pushing so hard for these amendments. They would make a big difference.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

All right. We'll have to take a closer look. I also imagine that your office would need more resources to be able to conduct these investigations and have access to all the necessary expertise.

I now have a question about the cost of living. Many of the people we represent tell us about the rising cost of living and the cost of many things, including the grocery basket. Food is becoming increasingly expensive. There are provisions relating to this in Bill C‑56 and in Bill C‑59.

I have a very naive question, where I put myself in the place of the citizens I represent: Can we have hope, thanks to the provisions of Bill C‑59, that the cost of groceries will stabilize and perhaps even decrease? We can't control global inflation, I understand that, but can the measures in this bill give people hope that prices will stop rising as they have and that we'll stop seeing crazy prices?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

That's very good, thank you.

I now turn to the representatives of the Competition Bureau Canada, namely Mr. Durocher, Mr. Boswell and Ms. Pratt.

The letter that the bureau sent to the committee on March 1 states that the amendments proposed in Bill C‑59, as well as the recent reforms made in bills C‑19 and C‑56, represent a generational upgrade to Canada's competition legal framework. All three bills mentioned are budget implementation bills.

Do you believe that reform of the Competition Act, through a bill dealing solely with it, would be beneficial so that parliamentarians can weigh every effect of the act and of any amendments made to such a bill?

[Matthew Boswell]

What I can say is that the amendments we saw to Bill C-19 and Bill C-56, and the amendments that are proposed to Bill C-59, are significant changes to Canada's competition laws. They are generational, in fact. They make positive changes in multiple different ways.

With them, Canada is catching up to the rest of the world. As I've said before this committee, we have been an international outlier on many fronts in terms of how we handle competition in Canada. What we've seen are positive changes to catch us up.

I would say it's not a question of putting a banner up that says, “Mission accomplished” on a ship in New York Harbor. This is constant work that we need to do. There are other things that other countries are doing that we have not yet tackled in Canada, including really talking about how to deal with digital platforms and the serious competition issues that they can present. Other countries are taking very definitive strides in that regard.

To go back to your point about the lack of business investment in Canada, about a month ago, StatsCan put out a report that analyzed a 15-year period that demonstrated quite clearly the decline in business investment across the country. It pointed to competition as a significant factor in the lack of that investment. When you're not afraid of somebody eating your lunch—I'm sorry to use the proverbial term—there isn't that drive to invest in order to get better, produce better products, be more efficient and all of those things. It's a big issue.

The amendments are certainly significant. As you heard in my opening comments, I don't think we could go further, even in Bill C-59, to further strengthen various aspects of the Competition Act in Canada.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to say a huge thank you for the excellent presentations.

I'll start off with our competition commissioner. I have been very worried for years about a lack of business investment by our businesses in Canada. Before the pandemic, we had probably over 10 years of historic low interest rates. Typically, the theory is that if you have low interest rates, companies are going to take the cheap capital and actually reinvest in their companies. We did not see that.

I've suspected that one of the key things is around competition. Our government has done a lot of consultations around competition and how we strengthen competition law. I think we've had three bills that have attempted to strengthen our competition law and update it: Bill C-19, Bill C-56 and now Bill C-59.

Just as a general first question, would you say that collectively the changes we've made to the competition law and the act have made it overall much better and that Canada will be more competitive?

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

We saw that with Bill C-56, too, I think. You've mentioned in the past that it tinkers around the edges.

I really want to get into how we fix competition in Canada. You talked about probably looking more at a focused approach, looking at the Competition Act as a whole. The amendments to these bills fix some of the overlying problems that we've had for years. We know that we have, when we look at mergers that were approved by this government.... Let's start with mergers, perhaps.

We had the Rogers and Shaw merger that was approved. Even though the Competition Bureau said that this merger shouldn't have gone through, the tribunal that was in place said that it should go through. Then what was really surprising was that Rogers sued the Competition Bureau and got over $13 million from it because of the tribunal's reaction.

How do we fix mergers, and if that's one of the main aspects, is that the most important aspect we should be looking at? What are the one or two most important aspects that we should be looking at in the Competition Act to fix?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses for attending today on a very important act, specifically talking about competition.

Canadians know that we have a competition monopoly problem in Canada. Canadians are paying some of the highest fees and have an affordability problem for groceries, airlines, cellphones and banking. We've been very focused on looking at those changes, and the government has brought forth some of those changes and some of those bills.

Ms. Quaid, the first bill you mentioned, Bill C-56, was the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. Of course, we're looking at Bill C-59 now with new changes.

I have a short question first. Yes or no, does Bill C-59 fix our monopoly problem, our competition problem, in Canada?

[Dr. Jennifer Quaid, Associate Professor and Vice-Dean Research, Civil Law Section, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual]

Mr. Chair, Deputy Chairs, members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, good morning.

For those who don't know me, I'm an associate professor and vice-dean of research at the University of Ottawa's Civil Law Section. My areas of expertise are corporate criminal law, general criminal law, business law, corporate regulation and competition law.

I am very pleased to appear before you to share my thoughts on section 6 of Bill C‑59, namely competition-related measures.

Let me add that, although I have prepared this statement primarily in English, I will, of course, be happy to answer your questions in the official language of your choice.

This is the first time that I am appearing before FINA—I'm glad to be here—but it is not the first time that I have appeared before parliamentary committees over the past couple of years, as the government has undertaken a major reform of the Competition Act, the first since 2009. As you know, the reform has been split into three parts: Bill C-19, enacted in June 2022, then Bill C-56, enacted in December 2023, and now Bill C-59 before you.

In the interests of time and given the scope of the proposed reform to the Competition Act, I will make four general points rather than going into detail about the extensive changes proposed, but I am at your disposal to answer questions on any aspects of the reform, and I may very well submit a brief if I have time.

Let me start by saying that the reform has made a lot of changes to the Competition Act, but not enough. Given the amount of political and public attention being directed at the state of competition—or the lack thereof—expectations for positive change flowing from this reform are very high, but are they warranted? To me, this is the central question that cuts across all aspects of the reform. Will we have better and more effective enforcement against anti-competitive practices and will we also at the same time promote better market and business conditions to promote a dynamic and innovative economy?

In my opinion, whether these expectations can be met depends on whether we are prepared to do what is necessary to operationalize the reform in a way that respects the spirit of what is driving the changes. It is also essential that we adopt a mindset of competition law and policy as a dynamic process that adapts to an ever-evolving economy while remaining true to the underlying values that Canadians share.

While there have been many changes to the act, fundamentally, it's still a cumbersome, overly detailed legislative text. This in the past has led to the development of complex analytical frameworks requiring specialized expert evidence. Obtaining remedies to anti-competitive behaviour is difficult, expensive and uncertain.

Many of the changes in the act right now are designed to respond to long-standing criticisms and to enforcement challenges, but I worry, to be frank, that fixing these problems is only.... We're not really addressing the underlying structural problems of how the act is designed. The fact that we've got all of these little different ways of going about characterizing conduct is actually just going to generate new problems. We haven't really done the rethink we need.

I could give one example. There's been an attempt to standardize the way we approach different reviewable practices, but in doing so, the fundamental question is, do we need to do that or could we just have one recourse for anti-competitive practices? Why, all of a sudden, are we blurring the lines between all of these different recourses? To me, that's creating a legal ambiguity that's not going to help anyone. I have other examples, but I'll talk about that in the questions, because I see my time going.

The second thing we need is a mechanism by which the act can be updated on a regular basis. Even with a perfect reform right now, we can't just stop and rest on our laurels. I think it's prudent to think about that now. We've had 15 years between the last reform and now; that's too long. What that means is that we've had to take on a huge reform and split it over three bills, but we've done it in two years. Everyone is still catching their breath, it's been so fast.

Given the pace at which technological and societal changes are occurring, I think it would make sense to plan for periodic review at maybe a three- or five-year interval. That way, we could do things in manageable chunks and not have to use this sort of wholescale giant process and then put it in a budget bill. I think we have to get into that mindset.

The third thing I'm going to raise is that for this reform to work it needs to be supported by adequate resources and expertise. Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 especially add considerable components to the bureau's mandate, and I don't see any new resources coming here. The last ones were allocated in 2021, as far as I know.

I worry for things like understanding labour impacts in mergers and trying to determine whether the bureau can issue a certificate for expertise in environmental issues. Are those things that we should just leave to the existing resources? I think we need to ask ourselves that question: Do we have the resources to make this work?

Finally, this is not the end—and I will close quickly, Mr. Chair. At the beginning of this process a couple of years ago, there was a lot of energy and enthusiasm, and it seemed like there was more audacity and willingness to think outside the box. Then we kind of got into a more technocratic mindset, and what we have before us are a lot of changes, but they are mostly technical and legal.

I think we still need to have that broader conversation about what competition law and policy in the 21st century look like, and we need to do that by consulting people and talking to Canadians about what they want and then maybe having a broader process of approaching it. There's a lot of energy. There are a lot of new voices to the conversation. There's a lot of enthusiasm. I really wish they would do that.

Thank you.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their excellent testimony. I wish I had time for each one of you, but I do not.

I'm going to start off with you, Mr. Bester, for maybe a minute or so. I want to put onto the record that we did have our competition commissioner come before our committee on Bill C-59. He's also been before the Senate, and he was actually before the Senate when he made the following statement:

Fortunately, the changes proposed in C-59, together with the recent reforms made in Bills C-19 and C-56, represent a generational upgrade in our competition law framework. I applaud the Government, Parliamentarians and citizens from across the country for their efforts in shaping this modernization process. It is the product of years of public and expert dialogue and parliamentary debate. The changes deliver on a significant number of the Competition Bureau's recommendations, and will help bring our competition regime in line with international best practice.

I wanted to put that in.

I also want to thank you. You've made some excellent recommendations, and I really appreciated your exchange with Mr. Williams. I actually think there's a lot more we could be doing, but I think we have done a significant amount and I think it's very, very critical that we acknowledge that. I personally would love to see a review right across our whole government around what's stopping competition from happening. I think if we did a whole-of-government review, that would be another excellent step forward.

My next couple of questions are for the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. I'm a very big fan of the work the Canadian chamber does. You do very important work.

Mr. Detchou, you started off by saying the economic competitiveness in the last 12 quarters has significantly declined. I want to put on the record that in the last three years, from 2021 to 2023, we were coming out of a pandemic, so the whole world was dealing with the after-effects of an economic heart attack. I think, as you will see from a lot of what we've put into Bill C-59, that we are transitioning our economy from competitive, growth and productivity perspectives.

On that, I know the chamber was very supportive when we announced the investment tax credit, so thank you. There are some companies, such as Dow, that are already benefiting from the ITCs, and they are creating significant opportunities for workers. Can you maybe initially speak to how important these are in driving investment, innovation and economic competitiveness?

After that I will have a follow-up question.

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

You can tell by my name tag that I'm not a permanent member, but I'm happy, Mr. Chair, to be here again. It's always nice to be at the finance committee.

Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today.

Mr. Bester, it's great to see you back again to talk about the changes to the Competition Act.

We've had a series of bills to amend the Competition Act in this Parliament. The first was my bill, Bill C-339, to eliminate the efficiencies defence. I had another private member's bill, but that was taken with the last government bill on open banking, which is always great. The government followed our lead with Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

I know we've had a lot of input from your group into these bills, but I want to start with what's missing. What recommendations did not get included that are really important to this bill and to competition in Canada?

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

I want to start by correcting something that was said on inflation earlier by our colleague Mr. Morantz. The governor of the Bank of Canada said yesterday that he's not going to cut rates until he sees progress towards price stability for a much longer period. Removing the carbon pricing would not provide that type of sustained confidence, since it's a one-time decrease. This scapegoating of carbon pricing is not only inaccurate as the cause of inflation in interest rates but a shameful distraction. What's really behind the increase is the cost of fossil fuels in Canada.

In my province of B.C. and in metro Vancouver, the price of gas jumped 22¢ in the last month, but the carbon price added only about three cents. What's really behind this is that type of behaviour from oligopolies, global instability and a lack of refining capacity, which means that the fossil fuel industry ends up benefiting from that considerably, but of course we won't hear the Conservative Party talking about that.

I will ask a question to Madame Houle.

You mentioned in your opening remarks that the investments from the Government of Canada should be focused solely on non-market housing, but the reality in Canada is we have a challenge in getting the supply of all types of housing, including market housing, built overall.

Last year, in Bill C-56, we did announce a cut to the GST on all purpose-built rentals, including market purpose-built rentals. I hope you are able to comment on that and on whether you see a role for the federal government to ensure that more supply of housing overall gets built as well.

[Aaron Wudrick, Director, Domestic Policy Program, Macdonald-Laurier Institute]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to the committee for the invitation to appear today on behalf of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

We are a public policy think tank located right here in the nation's capital, and we're here to offer some comments on Bill C-59. I understand one of my colleagues, Philip Cross, has preceded me, but, fortuitously, I don't think we're going to be covering the same territory in the bill.

I'd like to focus my remarks to relate to the competition provisions in Bill C-59.

First of all, I should applaud the government for being seized with the problem of competition. It is obviously a very serious, pressing, bread-and-butter issue for Canadians in this country. I fear, however, that the provisions of this bill, much like Bill C-56 before it, have the wrong focus and risk imposing some well-meaning solutions that will only end up creating other unintended consequences.

In particular, I refer to the changes in the bill that refer to the review of proposed mergers and the right of private action before the Competition Tribunal.

With respect to the merger review, in Canadian competition law, the purpose of the law is to maintain and promote competitive markets.

Why do we care about that? We care about it because we want consumers to benefit. The important thing is that Canadians are benefiting from more choice, more innovation and, most importantly these days, lower prices. That is the purpose of competition law.

The existing merger review process is designed to prevent anti-competitive behaviour, so the focus of the existing law is on bad behaviour. When companies break the law, they should be investigated and punished.

If passed, Bill C-59 would instead repeal sections of the Competition Act that prohibit the tribunal from concluding that a prospective merger is anti-competitive based solely on the size of the parties proposing the merger. This sounds appealing, because in a lot of cases, the size of the market share has an impact on whether or not they have the ability to act in anti-competitive ways. The problem is in treating this as definitive, since it is not the only factor in whether or not a company is acting anti-competitively. Taking this prohibition out and allowing the tribunal to make a finding solely based on market share would have the effect of empowering courts to develop a framework that includes what are known as structural presumptions. In other words, if you are of a certain size, automatically we will not allow a merger. It puts an onus on companies, then, to prove that a merger would not have anti-competitive effects.

In effect, this would shift the focus from behaviour to size. Rather than punishing you if we see you as a company doing something wrong, we're going to presume that you are guilty simply because you are large. I would suggest that this is a problem, for a couple of reasons.

First of all, if you're going to propose this guilty-until-proven-innocent onus, you're going to have to allow a mechanism for companies to prove that they are innocent. This is very difficult to do, because unlike the Competition Bureau, private companies do not have the power to compel information and they cannot compel witnesses. It's a very difficult hill for them to climb. I would suggest that the provisions in Bill C-59 create a structurally unfair asymmetry with respect to mergers.

The news is no better regarding right of private action. This is similar to the concept of a class action lawsuit, which allows private parties who suffer to hold businesses accountable. Again, there is a positive element to this. It allows individual citizens or a group of citizens who are negatively affected to utilize competition law to punish bad actors. That's good. The problem is that they don't have the same guardrails as they do around private class action lawsuits. Right now, if you want to launch a class action lawsuit against a company for bad behaviour, there are certain thresholds you have to meet. Those thresholds are not in place for these measures in Bill C-59. This could open it up to an abuse of process.

I should say, as a former litigation lawyer, that if I were still practising, I would be very happy about these changes because it would be payday for me. There would be a lot of lawsuits and a lot of work. From a consumer's standpoint, though, I suggest that it may end up diverting resources at the tribunal that could be better placed elsewhere. I would suggest that if you're going to keep the provisions around private right of action, there have to be guardrails that are similar to the ones for private class action lawsuits.

That's the thrust of my remarks. I'll leave it there, and I'm happy to take questions.

[Kate McNeece]

I think that's a great question.

As Mr. Weiler said, there are a number of changes largely expanding the rights of private access to many of the different provisions under the act. The way our act is set up is it's relatively codified, so there are specific provisions for different types of conduct that could be seen as contrary to competition, and previously, only certain of those provisions have been subject to private rights of action for private litigants. They've been solely the purview of the commissioner in a number of cases, and by and large, Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 together have expanded private rights of action to most of those areas.

As I said in my opening statement, I think private rights of action are an important complement to the commissioner of competition's work. I think, as you say, the bureau is a body of limited resources and there are ways that private litigants can help fill the gap for our competition enforcement, so I'm generally in favour of a lot of these changes.

It's important that the leave test was somewhat lowered in order to make this more accessible, because I think the previous test was very difficult to overcome since all of a business had to be substantially affected rather than part of the business, as it is now. I think that makes a great deal of sense because certain businesses have multiple business lines, and I don't think they should be barred from potentially addressing a harm to one business line if it isn't in all of their business.

I'm generally in favour of the leave test. We'll have to see how it's interpreted. I think the public interest branch of the leave test is a new concept for Canadian competition law. I'd be looking to the Competition Bureau to consider how they might be supporting assessments that certain actions taken by private litigants may be in the public interest, or maybe there's some guidance from the tribunal, through either litigated cases or otherwise, as to how that will be interpreted in light of existing jurisprudence in analogous areas.

I think we're all very curious to see how that's going to work, but overall, I think this will increase the number of means that potentially affected parties may have for addressing competition concerns and, subject to the leave test and appropriate pleading standards, plucking out vexatious litigants. We don't want that, but I do think an expansion of private access is warranted and is a positive aspect of Bill C-59.

[Mark Schaan]

I think the biggest pieces around competition changes that have impacts on the grocery and food sector were in Bill C-56, for the most part. One is the competitor collaboration piece. We know that one of the factors potentially reducing competition is access to retail space. There are restrictions between, for example, land owners and grocery stores that prohibit the entry of new players within the retail footprint of the broader developer. Two is the market study powers that allow the bureau to understand the particular dimensions. Sometimes that requires information you would normally have to compel, in order to ensure it's accurate.

Both of those are important provisions, but I wouldn't undercut even something like the killer acquisitions piece. There's been a ton of innovation in the food and grocery space, including around some of the direct-to-consumer aspects. Sometimes that's a function of buying up small companies that have some of those tools and widgets that become part and parcel. However, if that becomes an act of dominance by which a player potentially has the controls to further hoard their market share at the expense of competition in the marketplace....

I think those are other elements I would point to, in terms of things that may impact the price of food for your constituents.

[Mark Schaan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question.

The question is correct in that we've made a number of important changes to the Competition Act over a series of legislative efforts, the first being in the Budget Implementation Act of the last budget. There was a set of further measures in Bill C-56, the groceries and affordability act.

That first set of changes were essentially broad, consensus-based measures. The groceries and affordability part targeted a number of key pieces. One was competitor collaborations, or the degree to which the bureau would have the capacity to look at collaborations in the marketplace. Notably, it's not necessarily those among competitors. It's also those in the value chain. It ended the efficiencies defence—the reliance on the presumption of efficiencies as the basis for a uncompetitive merger, or a merger that is significantly less in competition—and introduced a market study power with the capacity to compel information on the part of the commissioner.

This proposition now adds to that in a number of ways.

One is that it allows the commissioner to better use some of those other tools in mergers. Killer acquisitions is one, which is the capacity to have a longer look-back period, in order to ensure there's time to look at transactions that might be very compelling, particularly in spaces such as digital or innovation companies. It might be the acquisition by a very large player of a very small player, one that normally wouldn't be a risk detection but that turns out to be very important for the structure of the business place.

Others include more mergers being notified and making a transaction irremediable, or essentially allowing for a transaction not to close until the merger has been considered by the bureau. A number of others include revamping the enforcement framework, or incentivizing private enforcement, which gives more players within the marketplace access to the tribunal to take on...and to competitive effects, noting that the bureau has only certain capacities. Sometimes a competitor might be best placed to understand the transaction and why it's significantly lessening competition.

We already talked about some of the greenwashing provisions and the ways in which there will be enhanced powers there. It's also clarifying that labour markets are relevant to a merger review, in terms of the degree to which a transaction is changing the skills basis, which might be impacting the worker composition. That is a factor that can be considered.

Then there are a few housekeeping changes.

In sum, I think you'll see that the measures between the first two legislative efforts and this last one build out a comprehensive framework that gives the commissioner not just the powers but also the scope to be able to look at the effects in the marketplace.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I want to thank everyone here today. I think often it takes a room where you see a lot of people who've done a lot of hard work to know that there are a heck of a lot of people working in our government doing really important work, so I just want to say a huge thanks to all of you. I know all of you won't get a chance to speak today, but I thank you for being here. Thanks for your hard work.

Since our competition team is here, I might as well ask a question of them. I know that we've been working really hard as a government to try to improve our competition within Canada, and I know there have been elements in Bill C-56 in addition to Bill C-59 around modernizing our competition regime.

If you could, maybe talk to how the measures in Bill C-59 build on those measures that we've introduced in Bill C-56, which was, I believe, our budget. Thank you.

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

That’s a possibility, but we also gave the Competition Bureau new powers through Bill C‑56. It now has the power to demand information. That’s why the first study was incomplete. People could say “thanks, but no thanks” when they were asked for information. Today, the bureau is better equipped. Furthermore, we’ve invested $90 million to make sure that the bureau has the means to uphold the Competition Act, which will change things.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Champagne, I have only two and a half minutes, so I would ask you to keep your answers short, if possible.

I want to come back to the Competition Tribunal. You once again referred to the Rogers-Shaw merger. Basically, you are saying that you agree that more work needs to be done, despite the passage of Bill C-56, and that you are going to work on it.

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

Thank you for your very relevant question.

The reform of the Competition Act is a three-pronged process, which began with the 2022 budget. Second, there was an update in Bill C-56 and, third, other measures are set out in Bill C-59. It has been said that this is the biggest reform in the past 40 years, since the Competition Act was passed. This law needed to be modernized. For example, under the old version of the act, witnesses could not be subpoenaed. When the committee and people saw that there was a study without—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Sorry to cut you off, but I don't have much time. Yes, we know each other, but not very well. My job is to ask you questions. That is what we are here for.

We are talking about competition. I listened carefully to the answers that you gave to questions from previous speakers. You said that this doesn't make any sense and that more competition is needed. We agree on that, and the Bloc Québécois supported Bill C-56. However, representatives from the Competition Bureau recently appeared before the committee and they told us that Bill C-56 is not enough. They explained that the bill is missing certain measures when it comes to proving that a merger will not harm competition, implementing better standards of repair and so on. Do we agree that more work needs to be done and that we need to avoid being negligent?

I really liked your document with the list of grocery store mergers and acquisitions. I don't want to be impolite, but this shows me that we have been negligent in this sector. How did all of these mergers and acquisitions get approved? When I spoke to the people from the Competition Bureau, they told me that the government should have stopped more of these from happening.

When it comes to another sector that falls under your department, the Competition Bureau representatives told me that the bureau advised against the Shaw-Rogers merger but that the Competition Tribunal went ahead and approved it anyway. The government is putting on a good show with the grocery sector by saying that it wants to take grocers to task and help people, but why then it is allowing similar negligence to happen in another sector at the same time? What is happening? Do changes need to be made to the Competition Tribunal?

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

Mr. Chair, on that note, you know, we're all going to be..., but I want to thank colleagues who are here.

Colleagues from both sides of the House, thank you for being here. I think that this is a committee where we can have one of the most important discussions. We know that grocery prices and the cost of living are a day-to-day concern for Canadians.

I'm really very pleased to be here with colleagues whom I interact with on a daily basis.

Food affordability is a critical issue. It's facing all Canadians. That's why this committee is probably one of the most important in the work because of the work it's doing. Our government, as you've seen, is really committed to stabilizing food prices in Canada. You've seen over the last month and, I would say, the last year that we've been taking decisive action to do so, and we're starting to see results from that.

Last summer our government launched the grocery rebate, which delivered a payment to eligible Canadians, alongside the quarterly GST/HST credit payment. Then, last fall, our government held a series of meetings with the major players in the food supply chain, both grocers and suppliers, to encourage them to take appropriate measures to stabilize grocery prices in Canada. I was told that this was one of the first times that the CEOs of the five major grocery store chains met in Ottawa. On behalf of 40 million Canadians, I expressed our frustration and asked that they take meaningful action to stabilize grocery prices in Canada.

Indeed, in September of last year, I met with the leaders of Canada's five largest grocery chains to stress the government's expectation that they take action to stabilize food prices in Canada.

Then, in October, you will recall that I announced the tripling of our investment to support consumer advocacy organizations, from $1.6 million to $5 million for the next five years. That was really to create a consumer advocacy culture, I would say. You find it in some parts of the country but not everywhere. I would say that in Quebec that culture is very well ingrained. Monsieur Perron, I'm sure, will be able to talk about that. We need to do that nationally far more to make sure that consumers' interests are well represented.

By providing this additional funding, we are ensuring that consumer interest organizations have the support they need to advocate for consumers and address pressing issues like shrinkflation, which, as you know, Professor Charlebois addressed in this committee. Shrinkflation and dequaliflation are big issues facing consumers.

A few weeks later, in November of last year, we launched the food price data hub to improve the availability and accessibility of data on food prices. That's something we've heard from a number of constituents in the supply chain. You want to establish better leverage between different market participants, and access to information is key to that. The food price data hub provides Canadians with more detailed information on food prices and helps consumers make informed decisions about their food purchases.

As part of our efforts to stabilize grocery prices, we are taking into account the pivotal role that the provinces and territories play, and we understand the need for greater co-operation between Ottawa and our provincial and territorial counterparts. I know that you've had the opportunity to hear from many stakeholders in this sector.

That's why, in December 2023, my colleague, Minister MacAulay, and I met with our provincial and territorial counterparts to discuss the next steps in stabilizing food prices across the country. I want to recognize the work of those counterparts. There is a lot to do. For example, unit price is a measure that exists only in Quebec. What can we do to make that a national thing?

We spoke about several large initiatives during that important meeting. I was told that the last meeting took place around 2017. You see how important it is to hold these kinds of meetings. It is not very often that we have big meetings like this that bring together our provincial and territorial partners. I think that this is the right thing to do to work together.

As you're well aware, federal, provincial and territorial governments have been hard at work with industry partners on the grocery code of conduct. This is a substantial measure that will bring fairness, transparency and stability to our grocery sector and supply chain.

That being said, following three years of negotiations and missed deadlines, we are extremely disappointed that some supply chain partners, including two of the five major retailers, have still not signed on to the grocery code of conduct. That is why the government is currently having a hard look at all the options, including legislative options, to ensure fair and transparent practices in the grocery industry.

Let me be clear. There will be a grocery code of conduct in Canada, one way or the other. I think those who are listening—I'm sure that there are a few folks listening today—should take these words very seriously. We demand action. We judge the action taken, and then there are consequences.

You saw that when we amended the Competition Act. We are looking at all of the tools in the tool box to make sure that we have a code of conduct.

We also recognize that maintaining and enhancing healthy competition in the grocery sector is paramount to stabilizing food prices.

This is why our government introduced and passed Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. Among other things, this new law provides the Competition Bureau with subpoena powers to conduct effective and complete market studies. I would say, Mr. Chair, that this was demanded by most market actors. It was unthinkable that in 2024 our main enforcement agency would not have subpoena power, so we fixed that.

We also removed the so-called efficiencies defence to ensure that anti-competitive mergers can now be challenged. It gives the bureau more powers to challenge business practices by large, dominant companies that harm competition and drive up prices.

Mr. Chair, these new powers will not lie dormant. Just last month, I think it was in front of this committee that a representative of the Competition Bureau testified. I also sent a letter to the competition commissioner commending the work done by the bureau in its 2023 retail grocery study report. That report clearly identified important barriers to competition and made helpful recommendations to address this issue.

In that letter, I took the opportunity to express how disappointed I was to learn that the Competition Bureau's study did not benefit from the full co-operation of large grocers. I am hopeful that the new powers provided by Bill C-56 will be a useful tool for the Competition Bureau in countering potential abuses in the marketplace.

Additionally, we are committed to further enhancing competition in Canada through targeted reforms in Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. This comprehensive proposal is designed to encourage more competition in all markets, including in Canada's grocery sector.

I want to take this opportunity in front of colleagues in this committee to once again call on all parliamentarians to support this much-needed reform to support Canadian consumers. One concrete action that every member can take is to vote to make sure that we continue our reform of the Competition Act.

Among other things, the proposed measure will modernize the merger review regime. I would think that all colleagues would agree to that. It would strengthen the enforcement framework with respect to collaborations that harm competition. I could not imagine any member being against that. Also, it would broaden recourse to the Competition Tribunal by private parties, which we have heard about from witnesses.

Mr. Chair, beyond modernizing Canada's competition regime, we of course continue to encourage more choice for Canadian consumers. That's why we are engaging with international grocers that have played a key role in improving affordability in markets around the world. If you have questions, I'll be happy to report on that.

Mr. Chair, in conclusion, let me say this. When it comes to grocery prices in Canada, our government is taking decisive action. We are committed to stabilizing food prices across the country and we will continue to work with all levels of government to make sure Canadian consumers get the much-needed relief they deserve at the checkout counter.

I want to thank all the members of this committee. I know, Mr. Chair, that you sent a letter recently to ask for action. I think everyone on this committee has a role to play to make sure we work for Canadians.

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

Can I follow up in terms of guardrails?

If we look at the Shaw-Rogers deal and the Vidéotron takeaway of assets that happened and the guardrails in place if certain promises weren't met, what guardrails are in place right now or after the fact from Bill C-56 and Bill C-59?

[Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada]

I think Bill C-56 and what's proposed in Bill C-59 are very important changes and very much welcome. Many of the changes are in fact entirely in line with recommendations the Competition Bureau had made to government in the context of consultation.

I would flag this: If we look at the merger regime in particular, merger is the first line of defence in protecting competition in the economy.

There are a couple of other areas where we believe this can be strengthened. One relates to the adoption of structural presumptions in the merger review process, while the other relates to the remedial standard when there is harm to competition. What needs to be fixed? These are issues we will continue to advocate for.

However, by and large, Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 have been very significant in moving Canada forward in having a robust competition regime.

[Jeanne Pratt]

Maybe I'll start and talk from the mergers perspective. I'm going to defer to my colleague to talk about the larger changes in the acts.

We are incredibly welcoming of the changes in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. I do think that these are the first significant changes to our act since 1986. The merger provisions are affirmed. That is transformative. The repeal of the efficiencies exception, as well as the addition of being able to consider concentration under the merger provisions, is very different from a world where the tribunal explicitly could not do that, and adding that is a factor.

It is also very helpful when we're talking about sectors like telecommunications, which tend to have fairly stable oligopolistic market structures, that we have an explicit provision to deal with tacit and explicit coordination in section 93, the merger provisions, as well. We're very welcoming of all of those changes to the merger provisions.

Mr. Durocher can speak to the larger view of the other changes in the act.

[Jeanne Pratt]

It's really difficult to say what impact it would have had, because we did our entire investigation, all the litigation, under the existing framework, which included section 96.

What I can tell you, though, is that with Bill C‑56 and the end of the efficiencies exception in addition to the proposals in Bill C‑59, I do think there would have been a difference, particularly through Bill C‑59, since concentration levels will now be a factor that the tribunal can consider.

For example in the Rogers-Shaw case, we would have seen that the four largest firms would have held a market share of 95% collectively. The repeal of the provision that says the tribunal can't look at concentration as well as the addition of a factor that says that they can actually consider it, in addition to coordinated effects—a specific factor being added for that—definitely would have changed some of the analysis in the Rogers-Shaw trade talks.

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

You've answered well. Maybe that explains why we'll have to discuss a subpoena later today. Thank you for the clarification.

I will now address the representatives of the Competition Bureau.

We are currently studying Bill C-56 in Parliament. The Canadian competition regime is quite special—it's not your fault, you have a mandate—in that it places a lot of emphasis on efficiency gains. Elsewhere in the world, people try to ascertain whether efficiencies affect the consumer in any way, shape or form. I'm thinking of consumer surplus, for example, but I won't go into the technical details.

If Bill C-56 had been in force, would the transaction between Rogers and Shaw have taken place in the same form, in your opinion?

Alleged Inadmissibility of Amendment to Motion, Government Business No. 34

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate.

I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses.

Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion.

The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill.

If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12.

Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that:

it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order...

The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few.

The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

[Anthony Durocher]

The efficiencies defences now no longer exist. When Bill C-56 became law, the efficiency defence was no longer there. It was repealed.

One problem—there are quite a few—with the efficiencies defence was that it allowed harmful mergers. Those were mergers for which we could prove that the merger was going to lessen competition, prices were going to go up and it would be harmful to consumers and the economy, but that defence, the way the jurisprudence evolved, would go through. Canada was very much an anomaly in terms of how we looked at it.

Going forward, there is certainly scope for mergers that can be pro-competitive, such as when two companies are bringing their resources together. That actually can be good for consumers because it can stimulate competition.

Every case is different as to the net effect and how they're going to use resources and how they can argue that it is actually good for competition and pro-competitive, but since the passage of Bill C-56, it is a new day for how efficiencies are viewed.

[Anthony Durocher]

Every company is different in how they interact with the Competition Bureau. Some are more forthcoming than others, and they all have different incentives at play.

What we've come to see is that it's important to have a tool that you can use as a recourse. In our enforcement work, we have always had the ability to issue subpoenas or go to court to get subpoenas. Sometimes you don't need to do that, because companies know that this is a possibility and so they are going to fully co-operate.

Obviously, it's going to change the nature of the catalyst for companies, because before Bill C-56, the fact of the matter was that for market studies, co-operation was voluntary and we did not have recourse. If they didn't want to co-operate fully, there was no recourse. That will change going forward, and it is certainly going to be a helpful tool for us.

[Tim Louis, Liberal, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. It's important to have conversations with the Competition Bureau.

We're hearing the word “imbalance” a lot. Your position is to potentially look into the abuse of that dominant position—that's what you said—to shape this legislation that we've put forward and one piece of legislation that's passed.

There were many consultations. I think there were about 400 submissions and a dozen round tables. It took about 18 months. It was focused and targeted, and we got consensus from many perspectives, including industry, academics and advocate groups.

In my understanding, one of the barriers that the commission faced in your investigation of concentration in the grocery sector was your limited ability to compel documents from grocery chains as part of your probes.

Bill C-56 will give the Competition Bureau the ability to do that, as well as give more market study powers and subpoena powers to compel those large grocery chains to provide more information, which is going to address the lack of transparency that we're seeing from these grocery giants. They submitted reports and information to us with various degrees of transparency and thoroughness.

How can the new powers that you have help your office to issue stronger and more informed recommendations and decisions?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

These last couple of years have been incredibly frustrating for so many Canadians because of the constant rise in food prices. They can see from the publicly available data from Statistics Canada, which one of our witnesses, Jim Stanford, provided to us, that food retail profits have doubled since 2019, and even the margins.

Every time people go shopping, they see increased prices. I personally have noticed that the net weight of many of the food items I purchase has gone down while the price has either remained constant or has sometimes gone up. It's a double insult. There's an incredible amount of frustration out there.

With regard to the study that was released in June 2023, how would that study have been different or how do you think your conclusions would have been different if you had had the powers you now have under Bill C-56? Do you feel at the Competition Bureau that you would like to revisit that study and maybe make use of the new legislative powers? Can you explain the differences that now exist?

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

Thank you very much for being here, and indeed it's good news to hear the pendulum's swinging and that food prices are coming down more in line with general inflation and that Bill C-56 did help.

We also have Bill C-59 right now under consideration, and you mentioned that there were aspects of that bill that you thought would be very helpful in continuing to combat the concentration and issues around competition. What, in particular, would those aspects be?

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I think you're right. As a case in point, Loblaws had to climb down from its tone-deaf decision to reduce discounts from 50% to 30%. Of course, we then had the Manulife and Loblaws climbdown because of the intense scrutiny, I think, that exists at the moment.

You made mention of a couple of pieces of government legislation: Bill C-56, which has received royal assent, and Bill C-59, which is still in the works. There is another bill that received a second reading vote yesterday, which is Bill C-352 from NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. There are some similarities, but one of the interesting aspects of his bill—I know this is primarily with the Competition Tribunal—is that it would require the Competition Tribunal “to make an order dissolving a completed merger or prohibiting the merger from proceeding if the merger would result in excessive combined market share.”

I would just like to understand the Competition Bureau's understanding of that term “excessive combined market share.” How would you interpret that particular phrase in the law?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you.

You said that you're happy with Bill C-56 and that Bill C-59 will be helpful. You made recommendations to the government. Can you give us your top two or three recommendations, the ones that are crucial to strengthen the act? We could include them in our report to the government.

[Anthony Durocher]

Bill C-56 has been very significant for us. It has brought about major changes that will help bring Canada in line with other countries as far as enforcing the law is concerned.

In our view, the Competition Act can always be strengthened in order to ensure a modern and effective regime. Bill C-59 also includes significant changes to the act. Through the government's consultation process, the bureau made over 50 recommendations to improve the act. Considerable progress has been made.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being with us today, gentlemen. We are pleased to have you back.

Things have changed a lot since we last saw you, thanks to the passage of Bill C-56, which you and Mr. Drouin were discussing.

Does the legislation do enough to really make a difference, or is it still missing something?

[Anthony Durocher]

You're right that the passage of Bill C-56 has changed things significantly on that front. Previously, in order to prove abuse of a dominant position, three conditions had to be met. It was necessary to show, one, that a company or group of companies controlled the market, two, that the company or group of companies had engaged in anti-competitive acts, and, three, that the anti-competitive acts had an effect on the market.

Under section 79 of the new Competition Act, it's still necessary to show that the person or persons control the market. However, only one of the other two conditions has to be met, either that the person or persons engaged in anti-competitive acts or that the conduct had an effect on the market. The bureau can then apply to the Competition Tribunal for an order prohibiting the practice or conduct in question. That's a significant change to the law.

Other changes in section 79 of the new act relate to administrative monetary penalties. In addition, with the bureau's newly granted powers in relation to market studies, the removal of the efficiencies defence in the context of a merger review will make a significant difference. Yes, the Competition Bureau will be better equipped going forward to protect competition in the face of mergers.

[Anthony Durocher]

Bill C-56 does give us the power to conduct inquiries and obtain orders for the production of documents going forward.

The co-operation we received from the major grocery retailers for our market study varied greatly depending on the retailer. On the whole, the level of co-operation wasn't sufficient. It was important for us to examine the industry's financial data and gross margins in order to isolate food profits, given that the grocers sell many non-food products as well.

After analyzing food gross margins for the five-year period between 2017 and 2022, we are confident, on the basis of the information we received, that the food gross margins of the grocery giants increased by a modest yet meaningful amount. We noted that profits increased by one to two percentage points, which is modest given that profits are very much volume-driven in the grocery industry. However, this increase can make a big difference to Canadians.

[Francis Drouin, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, gentlemen. This isn't the first time you've appeared before the committee.

After you were here last, the CEOs of the major grocery chains repeatedly told us not to worry because they were going to provide the Competition Bureau with all the information it needed to properly analyze food prices and determine whether food profits were in fact excessive. Mr. Weston told the committee numerous times that his company had made higher profits, not on food, but rather, on drugs. That isn't necessarily any better.

The last time you appeared before the committee, you said the bureau didn't have the power to compel the companies to provide information. Do you have that power, now that Bill C-56 has been passed?

[Anthony Durocher, Deputy Commissioner, Competition Promotion Branch, Competition Bureau Canada]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Anthony Durocher. I’m the deputy commissioner in the competition promotion branch. Joining me today is my colleague Brad Callaghan, associate deputy commissioner in the policy, planning and advocacy directorate.

I would like to begin by recognizing the importance of your study. We believe it has been invaluable to shaping and advancing the public discourse around food affordability, and the testimony at this committee has benefited the Competition Bureau in our efforts to protect and promote competition in the grocery sector.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses.

We do this because competition drives lower prices and innovation, while fuelling economic growth. We administer and enforce the Competition Act by investigating and taking action to address anti-competitive business practices that harm consumers, competition and our economy.

In June 2023, the bureau released its retail grocery market study report. Our report found that grocery prices have been increasing at their fastest rate in more than 40 years and since late 2021 have been significantly outpacing the general rate of inflation in the Canadian economy. Additionally, the retail grocery industry has become much more concentrated over time. Today most Canadians purchase their groceries from only a few grocery giants that operate most grocery store banners, including the top discount chains.

Our report makes a number of principle-based recommendations to federal, provincial and territorial governments to improve competition in the grocery industry. They include stimulating innovation and supporting the growth of independent grocers, as well as the entry of international grocers through government policies and programs; limiting—and potentially banning—property controls; and lastly, introducing accessible and harmonized unit pricing requirements.

We continue to be actively engaged with policy-makers on our report's findings and its recommendations.

We recognize that food price inflation remains a significant issue for Canadians and that we need to approach our work in the grocery industry with heightened vigilance and scrutiny to ensure that Canadians benefit from greater choice and more affordable groceries. This includes by thoroughly and quickly investigating allegations of wrongdoing. To that end, we are actively pursuing an enforcement investigation in the grocery sector relating to the use of property controls.

Recent amendments to the Competition Act, particularly through Bill C-56, have given the bureau more tools to protect and promote competition in Canada and mark a key step in modernizing Canada's competition law. The bureau is committed to using the new tools made available through these amendments wherever necessary to protect competition. Further, as you know, Bill C-59 contains several other amendments that will, if passed, further strengthen Canada's Competition Act.

Before fielding your questions, I would note that the law requires the bureau to conduct investigations in private and to keep confidential the information it has. This obligation may prevent us from discussing past or current investigations.

I would like to thank the committee very much for the invitation to appear today, and we look forward to your questions.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be able to resume where I left off back in December.

Just to refresh the memory of everyone in this place, we were discussing the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I have been a proud member of that committee for six years now and I would say that it is the best standing committee out of any committee of the House, because we often arrive at our decisions on a consensus model. We certainly have our differences, but the collegiality stems from the fact that, no matter what political party we represent, we all represent farmers in our respective ridings and have a great deal of respect for the work they do.

This particular study is unusual, if we look at the long list of studies the agriculture committee usually embarks on, in that we are dealing more with a retail issue, which of course is the subject of food price inflation. I am happy to say that this 10th report was the result of a unanimous vote on my motion for a study. The study was also backed up by a unanimous vote in the House of Commons when the NDP used our opposition day to move a motion backing up the committee's work.

Given the brutal food price inflation rates that many Canadians have been experiencing over the last couple of years, the political and public pressure of the moment, I think, really helped focus parliamentarians' efforts on this important issue in making sure we were paying it the attention it deserved, given what many of our constituents were telling us they were suffering through. Therefore, it was nice to see that unanimous vote and the fact that we were able to get into this study.

If we look at the news these days and the experts who research this particularly brutal problem, we already know that a record number of Canadians are having to access food banks. I certainly hear from my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that they are having to make those difficult decisions every single week. It has affected not only the quality of food they have been able to buy, but also the quantity of food.

I think that is an enduring shame on our country, given that we pride ourselves on being an agricultural powerhouse. If we look at our standing vis-à-vis other nations around the world, we are a very wealthy country, but what we have seen over the last number of decades is that wealth is increasingly being concentrated in fewer hands, and too many of our fellow citizens are struggling to get by on the basic necessities of life.

I think this is a call to action for all parliamentarians. It is obvious that the policies we have put in place over the last 40 or 50 years and this sort of obscene corporate deference we have seen from successive Liberal and Conservative governments and the neo-Liberal orthodoxy that exists are not serving our fellow citizens right. We need to take a critical look at why that is.

This report contains a number of recommendations. I want to focus on a few of them, particularly on recommendations 11 and 13. Recommendation 11 is something that we heard not only in the course of this study, but also in other studies. It deals with the fact that many people who work in the food value chain, particularly the ones on the other side of the ledger from where the retail grocers come into play, have long been calling for a grocery code of conduct.

Initially, the calls were for a voluntary code. I think there was a tremendous amount of goodwill and a bit of leeway given to the industry to figure this out on its own and to come up with something whereby all players could develop the issue and have faith in it. However, what we have seen recently is that some of the big grocery retailers, namely Loblaws and Walmart, are now indicating they are uncomfortable with the direction the code is taking. In my humble opinion, this code simply cannot work if it is going to exclude major players like Loblaws and Walmart, so we may be arriving at a point at which the government needs to step in and enforce a mandatory code. That way, the rules are clear, concise and transparent, and all players in the food supply value chain can understand what they are and abide by them.

What we are seeing is that there is a complete lack of trust in the grocery retail sector, and for good reason. Grocery retailers have been accused and found guilty of fixing the price of bread. They have engaged in practices that, on the surface, look a lot like collusion. They have often followed each other's leads in setting prices and so on. Recently Loblaws was forced to climb down from its decision to reduce the discounts. There used to be a 50% discount on items that had to be sold that day. Often people are looking for those kinds of bargains. Loblaws was going to reduce that to 30%. That company consistently shows that it is unable to read the room and that it is completely tone deaf to the public environment in which it is operating.

Not only have consumers lost trust in grocery retailers, but on the other side, the suppliers, the food manufacturers and the hard-working men and women who work in primary production and farming have also lost trust, because when they are trying to get their goods put into a grocery market, and let us understand that 80% of Canada's grocery retail market is controlled by just five companies, which is a brutal situation and a totally unfair stranglehold on the market by those five companies, they were often subjected to hidden fees and fines for which they had no explanation.

As such, I am glad to see that recommendation 11 calls for a mandatory and enforceable grocery code of conduct.

I am also happy to see in this report recommendation 13, which asks the Government of Canada to strengthen the Competition Bureau's mandate and its ability to ensure competition in the grocery sector. The first two bullet points were about giving the Competition Bureau more legislative muscle through the Competition Act and making sure the competitive thresholds the Competition Bureau uses to evaluate mergers and acquisitions ensure that competition does not suffer.

I think, based on the hard work of this study and the recommendations of this report, we have actually seen legislative change come to this place, and it was great to see, in particular, Bill C-56 receive a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. It has passed the Senate, and it has now become a statute of Canada by virtue of the Governor General.

There are more measures contained in Bill C-59, and our leader, the member from Burnaby South's private member's bill also includes a number of very important changes. Of course members of Parliament are going to have the opportunity tomorrow, after question period, to vote on that bill, and Canadians will be watching to see which members of Parliament are serious about stepping up to fix that particular problem.

I also want to talk about the supplementary report that I included as the New Democratic member of the committee, because committee reports reflect the majority view of the committee. In the case of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that is almost always the unanimous view of the committee. I do not think I have ever really seen a dissenting report, but sometimes some recommendations that some members would like to have seen added to the report do not get in there.

I agree absolutely with the main thrust of the report. I think the recommendations were very strong. There were some additional ones, some supplementary ones, that I would have liked to see added. We heard from a number of witnesses who asked our committee to recommend that the government embark on legislative recognition of the right to food, so one of our recommendations would have been:

that the Government of Canada acknowledge its obligation as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to respect, protect, and fulfill the human right to food by adopting a framework law that would enshrine this right in Canadian law and require the federal government to legislate binding, specific, and measurable targets toward realizing the policy outcomes it set out in 2019 in “The Food Policy for Canada”.

Again, when so many in our population are going hungry, it is incumbent upon us as legislators and policy makers to really step up to the plate and meet that need in the moment with specific action. I think that, given that this recommendation came from people who are directly involved in the national food bank network and are dealing with this issue every single day, we would do well as policy makers to listen to that on-the-ground expertise and follow through.

I also want to take some time in the final four minutes that I have to really recognize two witnesses who appeared before our committee. They are both economics professors who go against the prevailing orthodoxy of corporate deference that so many economics professors practise. They are, particularly, Professor D.T. Cochrane and Professor Jim Stanford, who I think offer a refreshing and alternative view to the dominant orthodoxy, to look critically at why systems are the way they are.

I just want to quote Dr. Jim Stanford:

Greed is not new. Greed long predates the pandemic, but greed has had a good run in Canada since the pandemic. After-tax profits in Canada during the pandemic or since the pandemic have increased to their highest share of GDP in history. Amidst a social, economic and public health emergency, companies have done better than they ever have.

In response to one of my questions, he went on to say:

At the top of the list, there's no doubt about it, is the oil and gas sector. The excess profits earned there since the pandemic account for about one-quarter of the total mass of profits across the 15 sectors I identified in that work. The increased prices that embody those huge profit margins then trickle through the rest of the supply chain. Food processors have to pay that, so they have higher costs, nominally, but then they add their own higher profit margin on top of that. The same goes for the food retail sector. By the time the consumer gets it, there's been excess profits added at several steps of the whole supply chain. That magnifies the final impact on consumer price inflation.

Two things have been true over the last number of years. Canadians have been suffering through brutal inflation. They have seen the cost of almost everything rise to almost unsustainable levels, in fact, to unsustainable levels for too many of our fellow citizens. That is one truth of which we can see empirical evidence.

The other truth we are dealing with is that since 2019, many corporate sectors have been raking in the cash. Those two facts exist side by side, and we know for a fact that when profits are increasing in many different corporate sectors that Canadians rely on, that money has to come from somewhere, and it has been coming directly from the wallets of the constituents that I represent, the constituents that every MP in this place represents from coast to coast to coast.

I will wrap up my speech there by saying that this was an important report and these are important recommendations. I am glad to have been a member of the committee that produced this report. Of course, I will be voting to concur in it. With that I will conclude my remarks.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. McCann, this committee has been involved in this study for quite some time, and I'm very thankful that I got the unanimous support of my colleagues when I proposed the original motion for the study. I think one of the great benefits of this study and the increased focus on food price inflation has been recent amendments to the Competition Act. Bill C-56 got unanimous support in the House of Commons. It's now part of the statutes of Canada. There are other provisions in Bill C-59 as well.

I put that in the context of your opening remarks about how sometimes we suffer from a bit of a data gap in Canada. Can you add any more to the conversation about these increased legislative powers for the Competition Bureau and what you hope they will result in, particularly now that the Competition Bureau has more legislative muscle when it comes to market studies and the ability to compel that information?

Lowering Prices for Canadians Act

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the chamber with respect to Bill C-352, which would amend the Competition Act.

I think we all agree in the chamber that a stronger competition enforcement regime would be good for all Canadians. The bill proposed by the New Democratic Party, while receptive to the need for change in competition law, and generally aligned with the government's overall direction to date, must, however, be examined in light of the vast number of changes that overlap with and have already been introduced by Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

Bill C-56 became law in December 2023, while Bill C-59 remains under consideration by Parliament at the present time. Bill C-56 implements, and Bill C-59 would implement, an overhaul of the Competition Act following the extensive consultations undertaken in 2022 and in 2023. The government received a great deal of input throughout its consultations, bolstering the knowledge gained over the years of stewardship over this law. The amendment packages assembled in its two bills address most of the issues identified in the law that historically made it weaker than regimes of Canada's closest partners. That would no longer be the case.

Modernizing the Competition Act is a necessary step in making Canada's economy more affordable for consumers and more fair and accessible to business. The government's extensive commitment to competition law reform was led by Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, followed by Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. Both of these bills are directed at enhancing affordability and competition, and together they represent the most comprehensive reform package to the Competition Act in decades. They respond to the submissions of hundreds of very different stakeholders, including businesses, legal experts, academics, non-governmental organizations and the commissioner of competition himself.

Bill C-56 implemented a set of targeted but critical amendments, following especially from the Competitions Bureau's market study on Canada's retail grocery sector. As members already know, Bill C-56 brought much-needed changes such as allowing information to be compelled under court order in the course of a market study, helping to remove barriers when diagnosing potential competition issues.

Bill C-56 also repealed the efficiencies exceptions for anti-competitive mergers and collaborations, and in so doing eliminated what many observers consider to have been the single biggest contributor to corporate concentration in Canada. The bill further allowed for better prevention and remedy of the abuse by larger players of their dominant position by requiring only proof of anti-competitive intent or effects to prohibit certain forms of conduct. This more appropriately allocates the burden of proof, as compared to the previous test, which significantly limited the number of instances where the bureau could intervene.

Finally, Bill C-56 addressed harm from collaborations between non-competing parties that are designed to limit competition. Once this provision is in effect, the bureau would be able to review any type of collaboration whose purpose it is to restrain competition and seek a remedy, including an order to prevent the activity where competition is being substantially harmed or is likely to be. This would be especially impactful on restrictive covenants between grocers and landlords, allowing more grocers to set up shop near competitors.

Bill C-56 was, of course, amended in committee through a multi-party effort, incorporating several of the elements in Bill C-352 that now no longer require consideration.

Bill C-59 represents an even more substantial overhaul in our competition enforcement regime, addressing a large variety of aspects of the Competition Act. The amendments would give the Competition Bureau a longer period to detect and address anti-competitive mergers that are not notified in advance, helping to address “killer acquisitions” in the digital market. The bill would broaden the bureau's review of competitor collaborations to include those that harmed competition in the past, and would allow for financial penalties to be sought when necessary.

Importantly, Bill C-59 would facilitate private actions against a broader range of anti-competitive or harmful practices and empower those affected to seek financial compensation in many cases. This improvement would complement the bureau's work in protecting the marketplace. The bill would also ensure that costs awards would not be ordered against the commissioner of competition in the vast majority of circumstances, another element addressed by Bill C-352.

The bill also includes anti-reprisal provisions, which would ensure that co-operation with the bureau or participation in legal proceedings could not be punished by stronger businesses. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bill C-59 would strengthen the law's testament of greenwashing the false advertising of sustainability claims while also facilitating environmentally beneficial collaborations that would not harm competition. Moreover, it would ensure that a means of diagnosis for repair could not be denied in a way that would harm competition.

All in all, little remains in Bill C-352 that has not already been addressed. On the contrary, Bill C-59 includes several elements missing from this private member's bill. The government's consultation saw over 130 stakeholders raise over 100 reform proposals. All submissions made by identified groups are publicly available, and the government published a “what we heard” report synthesizing them. This public process has been a key source of input to help us develop reform proposals. We are confident that the measures included in government bills comprehensively address the needs expressed by Canadians.

In conclusion, I think it is fair to say that the ambition of Bill C-352 correctly reflects the importance Canadians place on having a strengthened competition law framework. However, all of the major issues it raises have been or are being substantially dealt with through Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. As such, I would encourage members of the House interested in advancing competition reform to prioritize the rapid passage of Bill C-59.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, happy new year. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and to speak in the House on behalf of the good people of Waterloo to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

Since 2015, the federal government's economic plan has invested in the middle class, strengthened Canada's social safety net and worked to build an economy in which everyone has a real and fair chance at success. A key pillar of the government's plan has been a focus on making life more affordable for Canadians, because when people have the support they need to thrive, they can contribute to the economy, build a better life for themselves and their families, and play an active role in their communities.

Regardless of what the Conservative Party of Canada members say, our plan is having a positive impact on Canadians. I recognize that when Conservatives speak of Canadians, they speak of the people who are doing well financially and therefore would benefit from their typical non-refundable tax credits.

People ask, what does that mean? Conservatives are classic for their gimmicks. The people who benefit from their non-refundable tax credits are often the wealthiest. The most vulnerable do not benefit, and I have dozens of examples in the riding and region of Waterloo. They know that if they are not in the economic situation to be paying additional taxes, they do not benefit from Conservative gimmicks of non-refundable tax credits.

I have heard lots of stories and had lots of conversations. People speak about the sports credit and the textbook credit, and the list goes on. They did entertain what Conservatives had to say, and then tax time came and their financial situation did not allow them to benefit. They asked me, what is the difference? I said that the difference is really understanding the way the rules in our tax system work. When the Conservatives speak of non-refundable tax credits, they are speaking about their wealthy friends. They are speaking about the people who would benefit from their financial situation and often not the most vulnerable in our community.

Then people refer to the most recent issue that Conservatives are having. We all know Conservatives are riled up about the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as they call it. The majority of Canadians agree that pollution should not be free, and the reality is that eight out of 10 families benefit from the climate action incentive that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to remove from Canadian purses.

The Conservatives continue on about this price on pollution, but they do not talk about the fact that 80% of Canadians, eight out of 10 families, are actually receiving more than they pay. They are concerned about the very people they will continue fighting for day in and day out. When they speak, they relate to the average person. The average person hears them, and they say, “Oh, they are talking to me.” However, we all know that at the end of the day, they are not fighting for that average person. Therefore, let me repeat that 80% of Canadians receive more than they pay, and the wealthiest, who do not benefit, are the ones who would benefit from the Conservative plan on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Canadians want to undo the efforts that we have brought forward to make sure that we prioritize the environment, and I believe that the price on pollution is the reason we should continue recognizing the importance of fighting for the environment. The price on pollution is another excuse the Conservatives use as to why they have turned their backs on Ukrainians. Ukraine has had a price on pollution. Ukrainians recognize the importance of fighting for the environment. They know that the environment does not see borders, yet the Conservatives will take any opportunity for partisan gain.

When we have a world and a country where there are many people with a diversity of opinions, we need to recognize the importance of why we are here.

I think about why I ran in 2015. I ran in 2015 because of the government of the day under the leadership of Stephen Harper. Because I did not vote for his government, I was told that my voice did not matter, and I did not have a say. I remind Conservatives and I remind all Canadians that when people sacrificed their lives and fought for our rights and freedoms, they fought for our rights and freedoms regardless of whether they agreed with us or not.

Tough conversations are tough. Governing is tough. Every member of Parliament in this House has a really important role to play, and I recognize the value of it. Listening to people who are like-minded and who agree with us is really simple. Reaching out and listening to opinions and perspectives that do not match our own is tough, and that is something that I will continue to do in the riding of Waterloo.

When I ran in 2015, I committed to my constituents that I would represent their voices in Ottawa. I promised them and I reassured them that, regardless of my personal opinion, as their member of Parliament, their voices would be heard in this chamber, and I will continue to ensure that this is the case.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

This legislation, which would deliver on key measures from our fall economic statement, would advance our plan to make life more affordable, build more homes faster and develop a cleaner economy that works for everyone.

This is the next step in our economic plan that, since 2015, has supported people in Halifax West and across the country through the Canada child benefit, enhanced benefits and pensions for seniors, stronger public health care and a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. These investments have helped bring us to today, when we have seen a strong recovery with a million more jobs in Canada than before the pandemic, a record number of working-age women in our labour force and, just last month, wages growing at the fastest pace in three years. In fact, wage growth has outpaced inflation for 11 consecutive months now, but we are not out of the economic woods yet.

Inflation is still high, higher than where we would like it to be. Elevated prices continue to put pressure on Canadian families. I hear about that every day from my constituents.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken more steps to make life more affordable for people in this country who need it.

It is no secret that we need to do much more.

This bill is part of that work.

There are a number of things I can talk about that Bill C-59 would do for Canadians. It would remove the GST and HST on counselling and psychotherapy services to make mental health care more affordable. It would extend employment insurance benefits to parents who adopt, better supporting those families.

Right now, adoptive parents are entitled to EI parental benefits, but not to the 15 weeks of maternity benefits.

It would create new, paid leave for federally regulated workers to support families who experience pregnancy loss.

A truly strong economy and labour force are built upon compassion and an understanding of the difficult situations some families encounter.

Bill C-59 would also introduce new measures to further our economic plan and continue supporting a strong middle class. It would achieve that by enshrining our suite of clean investment tax credits in law, all while providing businesses with an incentive to pay a prevailing union wage. That is huge.

This is the first time in Canada's history that investment tax credits are contingent upon such labour requirements.

Let us bring this back to my own community in Halifax West. The two things I hear about most these days, especially since we signed our transformative health care deal with Nova Scotia, are affordability at the grocery store and the need for more housing. This bill would introduce both.

On housing, Bill C-59 would remove the GST on new rental home construction for co-op housing, complementing the action we took in the fall and spurring new construction. Let us recall just how much we have done to increase housing supply over the last several months, because it is major. We are investing $1 billion more in affordable units like non-profit, co-op and public housing. We are helping build 30,000 more rental units by extending $15 billion in additional low-cost financing to builders. We are reforming the apartment construction loan program to offer low-cost loans to build more student housing on and off campus, a move that I know Dalhousie, Mount Saint Vincent and St. Mary's universities are all looking at closely.

We are launching a home design catalogue so pre-approved designs, including modulars, that can benefit Atlantic Canada specifically can be used to build more homes faster. We are funding 222 new units of public housing in Nova Scotia, the first expansion to our public housing stock in decades. We are unlocking 9,000 more units in HRM over the next decade by funding Halifax's housing action plan through our housing accelerator.

While Conservatives pick fights with elected mayors and councils, we work with them, providing the right incentives and getting major changes made so we can build homes faster in Canada. That is the way forward: collaboration.

We are going to get more homes built for Canadians, and we are also tackling the problem of high grocery prices head-on through a generational change to competition law in Canada. Bill C-59 is part of that. How is it? By amending the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, building on changes we have proposed in Bill C-56, we would help stabilize prices and improve consumer choice. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair; further modernizing merger reviews; enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts and competition analysis; empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations; and broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful.

I know I welcomed this week's news that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is calling on the Competition Bureau to use its new powers to take another look at the cost of groceries in Canada. This is how we crack down on tactics that big corporations use to raise costs for Canadians.

Is there more we need to do to act on these two top voter priorities? The answer is yes, absolutely.

On this side of the aisle, we are going to stay focused on them both, fully in solution mode.

All members will have the opportunity to take part in this work, and that starts by supporting Bill C‑59.

Let us support the swift passage of Bill C-59, and let us keep working together on solutions to the challenges Canadians are facing at this time.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlottetown.

I am thankful for the opportunity and privilege of rising in the House to participate in today's debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The legislation would deliver key measures from the 2023 fall economic statement, as well as budget 2023, to help the middle class by stabilizing consumer prices and making housing more affordable by supporting the construction of homes that Canadians very much need.

Our approach to tackling the housing crisis is multi-faceted. On that note, the federal government is collaborating with the provincial and territorial governments across Canada to do a number of things, such as cutting red tape, speeding up permitting approvals, lifting zoning restrictions and, consequently, building more homes much faster. This collaborative effort has already yielded substantial results, as evidenced by the following. There is the construction of more than 71,000 new rental homes through the allocation of over $25 billion in low-cost financing via the rental construction financing initiative. This is an initiative on which I received a lot of calls in my constituency from the developer, who is very interested in participating in it.

We are targeting the construction of over 12,000 affordable homes for those with severe housing needs or those experiencing homelessness through the rapid housing initiative. There will be 12,000 more homes for those who are homeless and 71,000 new rental homes for those looking to rent. We are also providing housing providers with low- or no-cost options to build 4,500 new homes by utilizing over $200 million through the federal lands initiative by repurposing surplus federal lands and buildings. We are now getting involved by providing those surplus federal lands and allocating and working with partners to build homes. In addition, we are investing $6.7 billion in housing for first nations on reserve, as well as Inuit, Métis and first nations self-governing and modern treaty communities.

To maintain pace with our expanding communities, we recognize that rental housing supply must also increase. Builders need access to low-cost financing, which would enable the construction of more new rental units much faster. The federal government has already made significant strides in this direction, but, naturally, there is more to come.

The 2023 fall economic statement announced an additional $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program starting in 2025-26. This supports the construction of an additional 30,000 new units across Canada by bringing the total loan funding to over $40 billion. By 2031-32, this program will have contributed to the support of over 101,000 new apartments for people to live in.

Affordable and community housing also plays a critical role. We were talking about providing housing and rentals and now we are talking about providing affordable and community housing for the most vulnerable Canadians that they can call home. To build more affordable housing for the most vulnerable Canadians, an additional investment to support non-profit co-op and public housing providers has been announcement in the 2023 fall economic statement to build more than 7,000 new co-op homes.

To help build more homes faster, the 2023 fall economic statement also removes the goods and services tax from new rental home construction for co-operative housing corporations providing long-term accommodations, as well as apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences. This move, alongside the formal establishment of the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, underscores our commitment to support the construction of homes across Canada.

I am particularly proud of the recent initiative in my riding of Richmond Hill. On Monday, November 27, I joined my hon. colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; my neighbour, the member of Parliament for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill; and the mayor of Richmond Hill, His Worship Mayor David West, in announcing an agreement to fast-track over 780 housing units over the next three years in my riding.

This initiative is part of a broader vision to create over 41,500 new homes in the next decade, supported by a $31-million investment from the housing accelerator fund for Richmond Hill.

I am also proud to witness the government's substantive investments in our community that demonstrate what can be achieved with innovation, collaboration and a steadfast resolve to address the housing needs of Canadians in Richmond Hill and across Canada. I congratulate the Municipality of Richmond Hill for its innovative housing action plan and the broader community in Richmond Hill, as well as other municipalities within the York Region that are the recipients of this fund.

In addition to addressing housing needs, the government is acutely aware of the challenges posed by global inflation, particularly the high cost of food, and is actively working to alleviate the burden on Canadians. Recognizing the importance of affordability in daily life, we implemented new measures last fall to make groceries more accessible and more affordable. Key among these initiatives is the amendment of the Competition Act, through Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. This amendment aims to enhance competition in the grocery sector, thereby helping to lower costs and offering Canadians more choices in their grocery shopping.

Furthermore, we are actively working on securing commitments from Canada's five largest grocery chains, which constitute 76% of the market, to assist in stabilizing prices for Canadians. The establishment of a grocery task force further bolsters these efforts. This task force is not only supervising the efforts of major grocers to stabilize prices but also actively monitoring and investigating other practices in the sector, such as shrinkflation. As we move forward, the government remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that Canada's largest grocers uphold their promise to stabilize prices.

The bill would also advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It would introduce measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. The government has been in the position to be the third-largest recipient of foreign investments, which is the envy of the world. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization, which includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit.

It is evident that Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, represents a comprehensive approach to some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation, namely affordability, the environment, housing and security. In essence, supporting Bill C-59 means endorsing a strategy that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship and social responsibility. It is a step toward not only addressing the immediate needs of our citizens but also securing a healthier, more prosperous future for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, good afternoon to you and to all my hon. colleagues in this wonderful and esteemed House. It is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Before I begin my formal remarks, I will say that it is really great to share our thoughts and be the voice of the residents of our ridings, whom we get to represent with much privilege and honour.

When we look at Canada today, the country we are blessed to call home whether we were born here in this generation or prior, like our parents and grandparents, however we ended up here, we are very fortunate as Canada is a land of opportunity for its residents, our constituents and our children. We are going to keep it that way. All 338 members of the House aspire for this country to be the best it can be, and to provide opportunity and fortune for our children and our prosperity.

Today the International Monetary Fund came out with its economic growth outlook projections, and the growth outlook for Canada looks quite impressive. In fact, in 2025, out of all of the G7 countries, Canada will have the fastest economic growth rate forecast for real GDP. We will grow at almost 2.5%. It is 2.3% to be exact. In 2024, we will be a snick behind the United States and will be the second fastest-growing country in the G7.

That does not happen by accident; it happens through the hard work of all our residents and entrepreneurs. It also happens through collaboration with government, labour and industry. That is how we grow an economy. That is how we create prosperity, by collaborating and working together.

As I was reading through the fall economic outlook today, it was great to see that the choices we have made and continue to make as a government are creating economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Canadians, not only the wonderful residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge but also those across this country.

In the fall economic statement there is talk of the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister of Canada and my mayor, the Hon. Steven Del Duca, to announce a $59-million investment into the city of Vaughan to streamline the processes to build housing to ensure that we prioritize housing near transportation infrastructure, much like is being done at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and all along the Highway 7 corridor along York Region in the city of Vaughan.

We will continue to make those strategic investments in our communities. Why will we? It is because we believe in Canadians, and a confident government invests in its people, its entrepreneurs and its country. That is what we continue to do.

There is one measure I think we must all look at and applaud, which is the first-time homebuyer savings account. This account has been taken up by over 500,000 Canadians. It combines the best of the tax-free savings account and an RRSP account. It puts them together: tax-free in, tax-free out. People get a tax deduction for investing in the account, and when they use it to purchase a home, it is tax-free: tax deduction in, tax-free out. It is a powerful measure that 500,000 Canadians have taken advantage of.

On the building side, we put in place a 100% GST rebate with respect to new purpose-built rental housing. I know this is something that, for many years, rental builders across this country have asked for, and we have delivered that.

We brought in the Canada child benefit and an early learning and child care plan, which I know the Province of Ontario, under a Progressive Conservative government, is celebrating day in and day out, but the opposition apparently criticizes.

I would say “shame”, because we know, and the member opposite knows, that my riding, York—Simcoe, and all the ridings across this country are benefiting from the agreement we have signed with the provinces.

We know that Canadians are facing high consumer prices, which is putting pressure on their families.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken other measures to make life more affordable for those who need it most in our country. Those measures include doubling the GST credit for six months in the fall of 2022 and providing a new one-time grocery rebate in June 2023, which enabled us to deliver hundreds of dollars in targeted inflation relief to 11 million Canadian households.

On July 28, 2023, the government began distributing the first quarterly payments of the enhanced Canada workers benefit, a measure designed to help Canada's lowest paid but often most essential workers. A family could receive up to $2,461 this year.

The Canada workers benefit is like the unsung hero, the grinder on the ice, doing its job. This benefit has lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty. Almost two and a half million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since 2015. The poverty rate has been reduced by more than half, 650,000 children. We will continue doing what is right. When the government does what is right, when a parent does what is right, when an entrepreneur does what is right, they know they are going in the right direction. We are certainly doing that.

These are just a few examples of how our government continues to support Canadians at a time when some prices are still too high.

Bill C-59 builds on these efforts by introducing new measures to further the government's economic plan and continue to support a strong middle class. We are seeing it. We have a AAA credit rating, and that is not by fluke; it was by hard choices made many years ago to keep that under all governments. We celebrate it. We maintain it. We have a strong fiscal foundation.

Our deficit-to-GDP ratio, across the board, is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in all the G7 countries, and it continues on the right path. We know that Canadians are feeling elevated prices, but we have made the right choices to support them, and we will continue to do so.

We will support Canadians' right to repair, preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repairing devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. We have further modernized merger reviews and enhanced protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including putting the focus on worker impacts and competition.

We empowered the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations.

Finally, we are broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and to receive payment if they are successful.

Bill C-59 and Bill C-56 would provide generational changes to the competition laws for Canadians.

Again, on competition, I love capitalism and I love the creation of wealth. That is what creates jobs. That is what drives prosperity, not only here in this beautiful country but across the board. However, we can do that only when we have a regulatory regime in place that ensures that anti-competitive practices, abuse practices on pricing, collusion and drip pricing, and all those of types of measures are looked at and examined, and folks are held to account.

We need to do that, whether there are circumstances like a few years ago with bread or in any circumstance today. We need to ensure that the commissioner of competition and the Competition Tribunal have teeth. We need to ensure that the law with regard to competition is on the side of Canadians, not on the side of corporations. Believe me, I want all companies and corporations to succeed, whether it is a limited partnership, whether it is a CCPC, whether it is publicly listed or a family business, or whether it is one of the 18,000 or 19,000 small businesses that exist in the city of Vaughan, literally the economic engine of York Region, the largest economic centre, with almost 1,300,000 residents.

Our government also recognizes the importance of enabling Canadians to access the mental health services and support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

For example, therapy and counselling services play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, the federal government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible.

We removed the GST-HST when an individual needs to go see a therapist of any sort. We know how important the mental health of our friends, families and loved ones is, especially in this world today, where we are so interconnected yet millions of people still feel alone. They need the help.

I see I have about a minute or 30 seconds left. I would like to say that I look forward to answering questions or comments from my hon. colleagues. I hope they and their families are doing well. Let us make sure that all the climate action incentive payments are received by all Canadians out there, including all the wonderful seniors in my riding, who I know are better off for receiving the climate action incentive payments.

I look forward to receiving and answering questions from the hon. opposition, as well as my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today to speak to this latest budget implementation act by the government.

I have been listening closely to the debate, so I would like to start by offering some comments on it so far. Then I am going to talk a bit more about the bill.

I had occasion to ask the Conservative leader not long ago here in the House about the problem of inflation that Canadians are experiencing. We know they are experiencing it, as we all are. When we go into a grocery store, we see the rising prices. We know people are struggling to stay in their homes. We see it on the street in our communities. We see more people pitching tents in order to have a roof over their head at night, such as it is. We hear stories, unfortunately, of cities focusing their energy on clearing out encampments of people with nowhere to go instead of trying to figure out how to create better homes that provide more warmth and support in a challenging winter. We are hearing about it from constituents, for instance, who are having to choose to cut pills or pay the rent. There are all sorts of ways in which this really difficult economic time is affecting Canadians, so the question for us here in Parliament is what to do about it.

Certainly, the Conservative leader has a lot of opinions on that. My question earlier was why, when he talks about inflation and the hardship that Canadians are experiencing, he does not mention whether it is just in Canada. There have been some incredible studies here in Canada saying that price increases over and above the increase in costs for large corporations are responsible for 25% or more of the inflation that Canadians have experienced, so I want to be really clear that those are not price increases. We know that, particularly, a lot of small and medium-sized businesses in our communities are experiencing higher costs and have to pass them on to their consumers. Even some big corporations are experiencing higher input costs, and some of that gets passed on to consumers. However, we are talking about price increases that go above and beyond that increase in costs.

It is no excuse to say that they are simply passing on those costs, because they are not. If 25% or so of inflation is attributable to price increases above the additional costs, it means corporations are taking that 25% home in profits. When we look at the profits of oil and gas companies, which increased by 1000% from 2019 to 2021, as an example, those were not increases of passing on costs. Some increases contributed to inflation by being additional price increases just for the purpose of paying higher dividends to corporate shareholders and bigger wages to corporate executives. Therefore, how can the Conservative leader pretend to be serious about addressing the problem of inflation when he is completely silent about the corporate greed that is driving a quarter or more of that very inflation? I would submit that it is not possible. It is not credible.

I am proud to be part of an NDP caucus in which the leader is willing to name that problem here in the House of Commons and acknowledge that we will not have a solution to the inflation problem in Canada if big corporations continue to feel they can increase prices with impunity. That is a major driver of inflation and hardship for Canadians. I think it speaks to the electoral choices that Canadians have. We have a Conservative opposition here that would frame itself as an alternative to the Liberals. However, if we actually look at this blind spot, the corporate-controlled Conservatives are not willing to acknowledge it, or do not see it, whichever it is. I will not speak to the question of intention here, but I will just say that it is a blind spot, whether wilful or not. What this means is that, if they were in government themselves, they would continue to do what the current government does. They would be prone to saying that the problems will go away if we just trust the market to deal with them. They would refuse to acknowledge the role that unbridled corporate greed is playing in creating the economic problem that Canadians are facing today.

One example of the ways this has manifested with the current government is with respect to housing. The real meat of its housing proposal in the fall was all about “creating more room for the market to solve the housing crisis”.

I do not really think we are going to get market solutions to the housing crisis. I do not think that is a revelation. I do not think that is particularly controversial. I know that the market, since the federal government, in the mid-90s, stepped away from producing non-market housing, has had 30 years to solve our housing problems. Instead of solving them, it has created a crisis that is accelerating and getting worse.

Simply freeing up Crown land and handing it off to developers to do what they will is not going to solve the problem. The same motive of corporate greed has been driving this housing crisis for decades now and has become particularly acute in the last few years, and nothing about that basic structure will have changed if we are still just expecting market players to solve this crisis.

We heard at the finance committee, from home developers, financiers and real estate people, that the market is not going to solve this problem. That is not to say that we do not need more market housing. It is not to say that there would not be more housing built by the market; of course there will be. That is not where we need the attention of government, though. The attention of government has to be on the part that the market will not do and has not been doing, and that is non-market housing.

To say that we want to see the government focus specifically on non-market housing is not to discount the role of the market and market housing; it is just to say that the public policy attention of the government does not have to be there. In fact, the virtue of the market is supposed to be that the government does not have to get involved, so let them do their thing, but let us have the attention and the investment focus of our federal government be on addressing the very real problem of non-market housing, which has been neglected for 30 years and absolutely must return, in a significant way, in order for us to solve the housing crisis. It is a problem with the current government, and it will be a problem with any future Conservative government, because they share the same blind spot.

What are some of the other things we could do if we acknowledge the role that corporate greed is playing? That is where I think the NDP has played an important role in twisting the arm of the Liberal government to do some things, like a 2% share buyback fee, so that companies cannot just go ahead and, for various kinds of maximization of profit strategies for their shareholders or for the corporation itself, buy back shares as a way of transferring wealth to their shareholders without paying any tax at all.

It is of note, and something that New Democrats have been arguing for for a long time, well before this Parliament, that this legislation creates the possibility of implementing a digital services tax, which means a tax on the revenue of large, Internet-based companies, like Netflix and others, who, right now, are paying no tax in Canada at all. This does not make sense. They are not paying any corporate tax on the revenue that they raise in Canada. They get to walk it all out of the country for free.

That does not make sense, and it puts traditional broadcasters at a disadvantage. We are seeing the effects that is having on our media market and the ability to hire journalists and pay them to do the work that they do, which plays an important part. However much we may disagree sometimes with the way that news media outlets frame certain issues, their work is, nevertheless, important to a well-functioning democracy. The fact that their competitors have not had to pay any tax at all does a disservice not just to them but to Canadians, who rely on news content for the functioning of our democracy.

We have been pushing the government already in Bill C-56, and now again in the budget implementation bill, to make meaningful changes to the Competition Act that would allow for the Competition Bureau to play a greater and more effective role in ensuring that big corporations are not using their market power and their market position to pull one over on Canadians, to make the economy less competitive, and to have those outsized, excess price increases that I was talking about earlier, which are a significant factor in driving inflation.

Another thing we can do is to be willing to let corporations know, to the extent that they want to invest in Canada and create jobs in Canada, particularly in the natural resources sector, that there is an expectation that they are going to create good union jobs here in Canada in order to do it. That is why I am very proud of the labour conditions that are attached to the investment tax credits. This legislation would implement those labour conditions for the companies that are investing, with the use of this tax credit in clean technology, in carbon capture and storage. I am not actually that happy to hear about that technology, because I do not think that is the basket we should be putting our eggs in when it comes to emissions reduction; it's technology that has not been proven at scale. However, this government is determined to move ahead, and we hear a lot of positive comments about carbon capture and storage from Conservatives as well. Again, it is another shared blind spot of these two parties, the Liberals and Conservatives.

Nevertheless, if that investment is going to be taking place in Canada, I want it to create good union jobs, and I want companies to know that they have to be paying the prevailing wage of the collective agreements in the trade union sector. That means those companies are not going to come in competing on who can pay Canadians the least to do that work. They are going to come in and have to compete on the things we want them to be competing on: How efficient is the technology? How efficient are they at building it? What are their production techniques? That is the way they should be competing. When they are earning a contract, it should be on that basis and not on the basis of how little they are prepared to pay their workers.

Too often, in Canada, we have accepted a situation where we are happy to have companies come in and compete on the cost of labour and have a competition about who can pay Canadians the least to do a job that deserves a fair wage, good benefits and a proper pension. I am very proud that with this legislation we are going to be implementing, for the first time ever, conditions on an investment tax break that centres workers in the middle of it and has an apprenticeship requirement. Sometimes it can be a challenge to employers to hire apprentices. I have been an apprentice myself, and when I walked on the job site the first day, I did not know what I was doing. That is what an apprenticeship is like; it is meant to teach people. It is not always a profit maximization strategy for the employer in the short term.

In the long term, employers with foresight see the value of passing on that training and knowledge and creating a workforce they can avail themselves of, but we know there are employers for whom that is not their strategy. They have a short-term focus and want to bring on the journeypeople. They want someone else to train apprentices, and then they want to poach them later.

However, these tax credits will say that we, as a country, value training the trades workforce of tomorrow, and that if companies want a tax break on the investment, they have to be part of a culture of building that workforce and creating good jobs for Canadians, not just for today but also into the future, giving them the tools they need in order to be able to do that.

We saw a Conservative government in Ontario use bankruptcy laws to shut down a post-secondary education institution. My colleague for Timmins—James Bay did a lot of work on raising awareness about what was wrong with that; it should never be done again. New Democrats have spearheaded the effort to get that done, and in this budget bill what we see is a provision that says that the bankruptcy and insolvency laws of Canada and the CCAA will not be able to be used again in the future to perpetrate that kind of nasty closure on a public institution. I am very proud of the work my colleagues have done on that, and it is something that I think ought to go forward.

I want to come back to the housing question, because it is an important one. I said earlier that I thought in the fall that the Liberals' focus was on market solutions and that that is not where the focus of the government really needs to be, certainly not to the exclusion of working on non-market solutions. In this bill, what do we see? Well, the only thing that is really happening on the housing front is the creation of a new department of housing infrastructure and communities, which is just merging two departments that already exist. This is not what we do in the face of a crisis. This is not an administrative crisis; it is not that people are not pushing enough paper. It is that there is not enough housing getting built, and changing the name of the department without prioritizing things like recapitalizing the coinvestment fund, one of the few federal funds that is actually building non-market housing, does not make sense. It does not make sense to prioritize shuffling the words in the department name around over advancing that funding.

In the fall economic statement, the recapitalization that was much touted by the government as its action on the urgent housing crisis was back-loaded in the budget tables, meaning it will not be coming for another two years. This is particularly shameful when we consider that the territory of Nunavut alone has been asking, on an urgent basis, for $250 million to address the housing crisis that it is seeing and to meet the needs that the territorial government is being asked to respond to.

We did not see a mention in the fall economic statement, and there is nothing in the bill, around the Kivalliq hydro link, which is a project that will help deliver power into parts of Nunavut. I hope it will also be accompanied with more broadband access in order to set the stage for more economic development in parts of Nunavut, as well as to try to reduce the reliance in Nunavut on diesel in order to power communities instead of bringing hydro up or, in the long term, perhaps, being able to produce enough electricity in a sustainable way that it could become a seller and bring own-source revenues to Inuit communities in Nunavut. That is the kind of long-term infrastructure investment that would make a lot of sense and that we do not see.

Another important investment would be to upgrade the Cambridge Bay airport, which is an important hub for Nunavut. When we talk about Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic, we know that the best way to enhance it is to invest in the people who live there and provide them the tools and resources they need in order to have a strong economy, live in appropriate housing and have access to the services that people rightly expect in the 21st century.

Instead, the rumour we have been faced with now for at least a month on Parliament Hill, a little longer if we go back to early December, is that the government is contemplating deep cuts at Indigenous Services Canada. New Democrats certainly want to know more about what the government is contemplating and the effects it will have on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across the country. It is an area of significant concern for us and something that is not addressed here but that we expect to see addressed in the budget in terms of what the government's plan is and how we are going to ensure that indigenous communities are not once again left holding the bag when a government decides it wants to save money and continue a culture of corporate tax cuts.

I want to come back to the question of the role that large corporations are playing in driving inflation. A report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as recently as December 2021 said that just 1% of Canada's population owns and controls 25% of all of the wealth of the country, and the bottom 40% of income earners in Canada share just 1% of all of the wealth that is produced in Canada. If we think about it, that 25% number is 5% higher than it was at the turn of the century.

What has happened since the year 2000 is that the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1% increased by those five percentage points. I do not mean it increased by 5%; I mean that it went from 20% of overall wealth to 25% of overall wealth. In the same time, the corporate tax rate came down from 28% to just 15% today.

We talk about Canadians feeling the squeeze and about the middle class being expected to pay more in taxes to make up for government spending, but the big hole in government revenue comes from the people in that 1%, who are walking away with that much more of Canada's overall wealth than they used to because they pay significantly less tax than they used to.

That is why people wonder why it is that government cannot have a robust housing strategy. We used to be able to do it, and we did it coming out of the war. Well, yes, the marginal tax rate that the richest Canadians paid coming out of the war was way higher than it is today, and the corporate tax rate was way higher than it is today. Those things provided the revenue to invest in the middle class that then became the foundation for economic prosperity that lasted for decades. The reason that economic prosperity is drying up and the middle class is feeling the heat so much is that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let the people at the top off from having to pay their fair share.

That is what is making the difference in Canada. The fact that the Conservative leader will not name it means he will not fix it, and that is what Canadians need to know heading into the next election.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really do appreciate hearing all the comments from my colleagues around the table. I very much welcome this discussion and debate. I think it's an important one.

I've been reading a book by Cass Sunstein, who was inside the first Obama administration. The name of the book is Simpler. I would recommend that all members pick it up because of what it's about. How do we make government and the economy simpler? How do we streamline things? How do we make them more effective? How do we make them more efficient? It's really interesting, because I think that is absolutely the goal of Liberal members of this government, as it was a priority in the Obama administration, a democratic government in the United States as well.

It's important to recognize that this is a priority, really, for all governments, so I welcome this discussion. I welcome this debate. I think it's an important debate to have. However, this motion, as it is currently crafted, is lazy and dim, and the only purpose it serves is as a slogan to gather clips. That's all it is. Let's just put all our cards on the table. Let's call a spade a spade and let's say what this motion is about. This is an important issue, but this motion is just poor. It doesn't meet the standard of what should be a very important conversation.

Our government is committed to cutting red tape. Let me give you one example of that. The most important issue right now facing our country is the housing shortage, the shortage of affordable housing, and the very purpose of our housing accelerator fund is to partner with municipalities directly to cut red tape and to make different types of housing legal again. A perfect example of that is working with our municipalities to provide funding to encourage municipalities that want to get more housing built to eliminate some of the red tape at the local level—specifically, rules that made it illegal to build four units “as of right” across cities. Twenty-eight municipalities have signed up to our housing accelerator fund plan. Twenty-eight communities have adopted four units “as of right” across their cities. They're cutting red tape, with our support, to help build more housing. Those twenty-eight communities have committed to building 400,000 new housing units in the next few years.

This is what a federal government that is collaborative and that understands partnerships looks like. It's working directly with municipalities to cut red tape to get more affordable housing built faster in our communities. It's odd that the Conservatives, who are so interested in cutting red tape and so interested in building more houses, voted against the housing accelerator fund and voted against Bill C-56. When we introduced a bill to cut GST from the construction of rental housing, they voted against it. You have a government that's committed to doing the right thing, to making sure we get houses built and to making sure we work with our provincial and municipal counterparts to get more houses built, in part by cutting red tape. That's what we're doing. Conservatives are against.

Let me give you another recent example: renewable energy and the Atlantic accords. Bill C-49 would extend the Atlantic accords to build offshore wind farms in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. There's already a project being built. It's a billion-dollar project. There are billions of dollars waiting to be invested in offshore wind farms and clean energy in the Atlantic provinces right now.

We introduced Bill C‑49 to streamline that process to make it easier for investment in clean technology and wind farms across the Atlantic provinces. We're talking about billions of dollars to create tens of thousands of jobs in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the foundations of that bill is to cut red tape and streamline the process.

By the way, the provinces all supported it. The premiers of those provinces signed on. Who voted against those accords? Who voted against streamlining the process to build offshore wind farms in the Atlantic? It was the Conservatives. They are the ones who are bringing forward a dim, lazy motion to cut red tape at this committee.

It's appalling. Enough with the politics. Let's talk a bit more about this preamble and some of the things contained in the colourful preamble that was introduced here today.

Let's talk about the economy. In the last year, Canada was the number one destination for foreign direct investment in the entire world, per capita. What does that mean? It means that more international companies invested more money in our country than in any other country in the world, per capita.

Businesses see Canada as the place to put their money because they know that it's a good investment. They know that this is where you have the best workforce in the world. This is where you have the best investment climate in the world.

Let's talk facts. That's Canada. It's the number one destination for foreign direct investment. That is businesses voting with their feet and with their money to come here. There's Stellantis in Windsor, which we know the Conservatives don't support. There's Volkswagen in St. Thomas. We know the Conservatives don't support it, even though their own member represents that entire community. There's Northvolt in Montreal. They don't support that. They don't support investments in clean technology.

There are 1.1 million more workers working in this country now than before the pandemic. That is a federal government working hand in hand with business to grow and strengthen our economy. That's a partnership. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any major developed country. We have a AAA rating from the credit agency. We were able to attract this investment. We were able to create jobs. We're on a sound fiscal footing as well.

Wages have been higher than inflation in the last year. In my community, we've seen unions negotiate historic deals with the Big Three, which are putting more money in the pockets of Canadians and workers. We're seeing workers earning more money today than in the past.

Let's talk about unions and red tape for a second. The Conservatives wanted to drown unions in red tape. They forget that. They introduced Bill C-377. My colleague across the way from the NDP remembers that. When they were in government, they wanted to drown unions in red tape with all sorts of different accounting paperwork that unions would have been forced to submit. It would have crippled them. It would have undermined unions' work by drowning them in red tape. These are the very same unions that have fought for higher wages and better work conditions for Canadians over the last number of months.

You talk about the economy. We are a trading nation. We export. Most of our GDP is created because we have companies that export goods to the United States and around the world. In my hometown, 80% to 90% of what we manufacture is for export. In Windsor—Essex, 90% of what we grow is for export.

This government has signed more trade deals than pretty much anyone. We have trade deals with just about every country on this planet. We wanted to sign a free trade agreement with Ukraine, which Ukraine herself asked for, that would not only support Ukraine in her time of need but support farmers in Canada and support Canadian businesses looking to do business in Ukraine to help in the future reconstruction of Ukraine. The Conservatives voted against that free trade agreement for the very same game of politics they're playing here today: slogans, politics, videos—yay.

Try governing. Try working with us to govern this country. That's what we're asking for: real policies, real ideas, real programs, real partnerships—none of these lazy, dim slogans.

The other thing I would say, on the issue of foreign doctors and nurses, is that the training of doctors and nurses takes place at the provincial level. The training of foreign international health care workers takes place at the provincial level. We know that. We understand that. We also understand that we have a role to play in that as well. That's why, literally four weeks ago, we announced, for example, that we are spending an additional $86 million to help 15 provincial organizations and associations speed up the credentialing of internationally trained health care workers. The credentialing of 6,600 health care workers will be sped up.

I want to quote what the minister texted just a few weeks ago. This is the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities—she herself a nurse—on the issue of foreign credential recognition. Here is what she tweeted out literally two days ago: “@PierrePoilievre, take it from me, a nurse: actions speak louder than words. You voted against the work we’re doing that’s speeding up foreign credential recognition. Your slogans won’t fool nurses, we know the only thing happening to healthcare under Conservatives is cuts.” Ouch.

It's the same thing, guys. We know your shtick. It's just slogans—empty slogans. There is nothing behind them, and there's nothing behind this motion. It's just slogans.

I'm begging you. Do the work that Canadians sent us to Parliament Hill to do. Work with us. Get serious. Cut the videos. Cut the slogans. Cut the politics. Do the damn work. Get things done.

With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to talk about what I think is an important issue. There are many different aspects to this issue, but let's be serious about it. Let's toss this motion in the garbage bin where it belongs. Let's talk about this issue seriously and approach it from the many different avenues it deserves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Matthew Hatfield]

Certainly. My apologies.

To me, this hearing's topic seems to be pinning down what's wrong with tech platforms and what our government can do about it. I'll try to answer that question very precisely for you.

What's wrong with tech platforms and their influence on society? It's three things: their size, their vast asymmetrical data compared to regulators and citizens, and the engagement algorithms that drive their business model.

Let's talk size. Platforms like Amazon and Google have a stranglehold on a huge share of Internet commerce, app purchases, advertising and more. They often use that power to set unfair terms vis-à-vis smaller businesses and consumers. I'll note, though, that Bill C-18 misunderstood the specific dynamic around news. It assumes that news has inherent value to platforms that, for Meta at least, it does not.

The good news about the size problem is that Canada is opening new possibilities to do something about it through competition reform in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. In the U.S., several bills were proposed last year aimed at regulating how tech giants treat small businesses and consumers. They include the American innovation and choice online act and the open app markets act, both of which OpenMedia campaigned for. In Canada, the Competition Bureau has never had the legal basis to study platform power effectively, let alone change it. Soon they will.

My second point is about data asymmetry and privacy. Platforms like Meta and YouTube have an endless volume of sensitive data about each and every one of us. They use it for advertising and to feed recommendations, but not for much else. Partly that's to respect our privacy, which is a very good thing. Their data in the hands of a spy agency or law enforcement would be a dystopic surveillance nightmare and one that we must guard against. However, that lack of curiosity on the platforms' part is also self-serving. It makes it easy to bury accurate study of what may be going wrong for some of their users and, in the worst case, lead that minority to harm themselves or others. The limited research that exists on how platform models may sometimes amplify harms is done with very incomplete data or with crumbs of researcher data access, which platforms are quick to withdraw if their interests are threatened.

Here we need both an individual and structural remedy. The strongest possible privacy bill, Bill C-27, giving Canadians meaningful and unalienable control of our personal data, is one solution, but another must be a very strong provision for both regulator and approved academic researcher access to perform studies on platform data in our upcoming online harms bill. We can't intelligently regulate platforms if we don't understand how any harms they help produce actually occur.

Last but not least, let's talk about the algorithm. Without even noticing it, we've become a society in which most information we get is delivered because it keeps us scrolling and clicking, not because it is nuanced, well researched or true. For music or hobbies, that can be a wonderful tool of self-exploration. People are not passive consumers of our feed. We curate it heavily, pruning the algorithm to serve us what we like most. However, for facts and reporting, that same process is making us a less-informed, angrier and more polarized society. We all feel the impact and very few of us like it. That doesn't make solutions easy, although I would say that Bill C-292, Peter Julian's bill, is something worth considering here.

I'll give a couple of signposts for what might help. We welcome this committee's interest in a dedicated study of how to create a viable news sector in Canada that continues producing vetted information. There's a case that Canadian news needs permanent government support, but the more involved government becomes, the more urgent it is that funds move through a system that is fully transparent to the public, has clear and fair criteria for who gets what support and prioritizes funds where they're most needed, in local news deserts and public accountability journalism, not shovelling funds indifferently toward Bell or the CBC. The alternative of stacking complex funding band-aids one on top of the other until they represent the majority of news funding is not going to build public trust in truthful journalism.

We would also welcome a Canadian study of how social media algorithms are impacting society. However, regulating the algorithm, if it comes, must be aimed at expanding transparency and personal control over how it works for Canadian Internet users, not manipulating it for what the government thinks is best for us.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member takes the time to actually read the report that was brought forward in the form of a concurrence motion, he will find out that it is about affordability. That is, in fact, how I started my comments. I was talking about the issue of affordability in Bill C-56, the affordability act, and how that legislation was being filibustered by the Conservatives through a concurrence motion. The reason for this is that the Conservatives do not care about the issues of the day that Canadians are concerned about. Then I started to explain it.

Maybe members on the other side do not all fully understand it because they are following the lead that is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party's office and that House leadership team over there. Canadians have a right to know that the pattern we are witnessing in terms of the behaviour, the issues that are being brought up and the manner in which they are being brought up definitely deal with the issue of MAGA politics. The member across the way might disagree. Maybe he should talk to his leader, and his leader can explain exactly what the Conservative agenda really is.

When we think of affordability, let us think in terms of what the member for Foothills said. He tries to give an impression about the cost of food and inflation. He cites a report and says there would be a 34% increase in the next couple of years. Then he tries to say that this is a report that he was kind of quoting from.

I will tell members what the Conservatives are very, very good at, which is the same thing that Donald Trump is very good at: sending out information that is misleading. I am very kind when I say that. I could think of a lot of other words to use, so I am being generous. Let me suggest the reason. Let us think about it: The member is trying to plant the seeds of fear that the price on pollution is costing huge amounts of money toward the issue of food inflation.

Some of the members across the way actually believe the leader of the Conservative Party. I understand there is an obligation to listen to the leader because, after all, he is their leader. However, that does not mean they have to believe everything he says. I do not want to get into personalities, but it is like a snake oil salesperson. Let us think about this. Let us think in terms of—

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House.

Obviously, what is taking place today is no surprise whatsoever. It is interesting that, on Monday, I was standing up and actually being critical of the Conservative Party. It is hard to believe, but I was critical because Conservatives had brought in a concurrence report to talk about Afghanistan and foreign affairs.

By doing that particular concurrence report, they prevented government legislation from being debated. Interestingly enough, the legislation that they prevented from being debated, which members could have stood up and talked about, was Bill C-56, the affordability legislation. Every word that the Conservative Party has actually said already this afternoon could have been said during that debate.

That is why I argued back then, as I will today, that the Conservative Party is very much out of touch with the realities of what Canadians are actually facing. They are more concerned about how to cater to the extreme right.

We hear the term “MAGA Conservatives”. I would suggest that, more and more, it is becoming something that all Canadians should be very much aware of. It is creeping out, coming from the south. It is that Donald Trump, “make America great again” theme, and the catering to the far-right there that is coming up—

Official Report

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent from the House to change my vote from last night on Bill C-56, Division No. 606, from nay to yea. I ran out of time and was unable to make that change then. I hope the House will allow me to change my vote.

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 third time and passed.

Justice and Human Rights

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see no reason for this to have been brought up for discussion. I came to the House prepared to debate Bill C-56. I have my own views on the competition clause in that particular bill. I had certain suggestions to make for the bill, such as how to improve competition while not allowing 100% foreign ownership in the Canadian banking sector, as well as how we can use the regulatory tools that are available to give credit guidance to the bank to increase competition within the banking sector. This would lead to economic advancement and economic prosperity, for the growth of the manufacturing sector in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member shared some of her personal stories on the issue, especially those from when she was a teacher.

I think a number of people would be offended by how this concurrence motion is being used as a tool to filibuster and prevent members from being able to speak to Bill C-56, which is all about affordability. When we take into consideration that the member made reference to international aid and how Conservatives intentionally and collectively voted against that money flowing, there seems to be a lot of irony there. Could she expand on that point?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member asked the question on the process and the process is such that there are many motions of concurrence on the Order Paper that could be introduced, not just this motion. The member would know that. The member would also know that the legislative agenda today was to deal with Bill C-56. The member would also know how many times the Conservatives will cry because they do not have enough debate time—

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

Madam Speaker, I think the most appropriate place to start off is the line of questioning that I just asked the member opposite. Prior to question period getting under way, we were having a healthy discussion at the third reading stage of Bill C-56. I know I was not the only one prepared to come to the House to debate Bill C-56.

What I would like to talk about for the next number of minutes is the purpose of moving concurrence reports such as this particular report. It is not necessarily to have the focus of the House of the Commons on debating the issue the member has attempted to bring forward. As we saw in a number of questions, issues aside from Afghanistan were raised. Rather, it is about a rationale and reasoning that I believe, as many others believe, we see from this particular member: He stands in his place time and time again in order to prevent debates of the government agenda. One only needs to look at the timing of when the member brings forward concurrence debates. They are all on the government's legislative dates when we are going to be debating substantive legislation.

This morning, as members would know, we brought forward Bill C-56. Prior to question period getting under way, I was the one speaking to it. Bill C-56 is very important to Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is about an issue that Canadians are very much concerned about from coast to coast to coast. To amplify that, all one needs to do is take a look at the last remarks, because as we were getting to question period, I had to stop speaking on the legislation because we were entering into members' statements, followed then by question period.

It is interesting that a big focus of question period was in fact the issues I was talking about in the lead-up to members' statements. Also, if we go through members' statements, we will find that these were the issues being amplified. Members of the House, outside of the Conservative caucus, came to the House believing that we would be debating Bill C-56. That is not to say that what is happening in Afghanistan today and what has taken place since 2001 are not important issues. We recognize many of the horrors that have taken place in Afghanistan. We understand the important role that Canada has to play in it.

However, we also need to recognize at this point in time the types of tactics and efforts from the official opposition, the Conservative Party, a minority inside this chamber, today to prevent debates and legislation from passing. A very good example of this is in a question raised by the New Democrats. We talk about Canada and its role in Afghanistan, and the member talked about the alliance that seems to be out there, indirectly referring to Russia, Afghanistan and like-minded countries. Then he posed a question about the Conservative Party with respect to Ukraine. I think it was a legitimate question to be asking the Conservative Party. Again, we saw the tactics it used last Thursday and Friday. The response was laughable. The question was why the Conservative Party not once, not twice, but I believe three times in total voted specifically to deny Ukraine funds. One of those funds was with respect to the—

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

Madam Speaker, as many would know, very few if any members have brought forward concurrence reports as the member opposite has. That, as the member knows, prevents debate on government legislation. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-56, and the member has chosen to bring forward another concurrence report.

Does the member not recognize or have any sort of desire to see government legislation? Why does he consistently want to bring forward concurrence reports to try to frustrate the legislative process here in Ottawa?

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-56. It is yet another initiative the government is taking to support Canadians. From virtually day one, through the introduction of legislation and taking budgetary measures, as a government we have been very supportive of having the backs of Canadians, whether with the very first piece of legislation we introduced back in 2015-16 regarding a tax break for Canada's middle class or the many support programs put together during the pandemic that ensured small businesses and Canadians had the disposable income and supports necessary for Canada to do as well as it has. This was done through a team Canada approach, not only getting us out of the pandemic but putting our economy in a great position to do exceptionally well going forward.

This is reflected in one of the most important stats I believe we have, which is regarding employment. Employment numbers are very encouraging, especially when we compare Canada to other jurisdictions particularly in the G20 or the G7. Relatively speaking, Canada is doing quite well. It does not mean we let up. It means we need to continue to recognize the issues Canadians are facing on a daily basis, which is what Bill C-56 is all about.

Bill C-56 would be there to support Canadians. Before I speak about Bill C-56, I want to recognize this week is a very important week, because we are doing the formal expansion of the dental program. This will allow for seniors and people with disabilities to participate in the dental program, which is going to help literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Again, this is a very progressive move. It is a move that clearly demonstrates there are elements with the House of Commons today, contrary to the Conservatives', that are there to provide more hope and opportunities for Canadians.

Bill C-56 would, in essence, do a couple of things. I want to focus on two points. First and foremost is the issue of competition. Changes would be made to the Competition Act that would ensure we have more competition here in Canada going forward. For example, it would get rid of the efficiencies argument. The efficiencies argument is something corporations have used in the past in order to justify taking over large businesses. The one I have often made reference to is a very good example because it is relative to the debates and discussions we have had for a number of months now. It is about the price of groceries, the concerns over that and the steps being taken, whether by the Minister of Finance or the standing committee calling the big five grocery companies to come to Ottawa to be held more accountable for their actions. I see this as a positive thing.

Bill C-56 would provide more of an opportunity to ensure healthier competition into the future. The best example I can come up with offhand is when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table of Stephen Harper and that government actually approved the Loblaws purchase of Shoppers Drug Mart. For individuals watching or listening in to the debate, I invite them to visit a Shoppers Drug Mart, where they will see a great deal of food products. We are talking about a multi-billion-dollar deal that took away competition. I do not know all of the arguments that were used at the time, but what I do know is that was the last time we saw such a major acquisition of a grocery line. I would suggest that was not healthy for Canadians, and we are starting to see that today.

We are now down to five major grocery stores and we are looking at having a grocery code of conduct. We need to establish that certain behaviours are not acceptable. I was pleased when Canada Bread actually got a fine through the courts. It was tens of millions of dollars because of price fixing. We need to ensure the Competition Bureau has teeth for this type of thing. Not only does it get rid of the efficiency argument, but it also increases the opportunity for fines and gives it more power to conduct investigations. That would make a positive difference. I think all members of the House should support this legislation.

The other part to the legislation is something that I believe would make a huge difference. We know housing is an issue in Canada. Never before have we seen a national government invest as much in housing as we have with this Prime Minister and this government. We are talking about historic levels of funding. This is in terms of our involvement, support and encouragement in housing, like non-profits, and that is what Bill C-56 would do. It would encourage the growth of purpose-built rentals. These things would have a huge impact. We are talking tens of thousands of new units. The policy is so sound that provinces are also looking at engaging with the provincial sales tax component. They realize this is a good way to ensure we build purpose-built rentals.

Ironically, as has been pointed out, the Conservative Party has taken a position that is very anti-housing. When the current leader of the Conservative Party was responsible for housing in Canada, it was an absolute disaster. The federal government did not do its work back then and that is very clear by the actions, or lack of actions, from the Conservative Party. He might say he was just following Stephen Harper's orders. Maybe that is his excuse. However, on Thursday going into Friday, there was a voting marathon. There was a vote dealing with housing and ensuring that the money would go to supporting over 80,000 new apartments, including an affordable home component. The Conservative Party members who showed up to vote actually voted no to that measure. That reinforces that the Conservative Party of Canada, under its current leadership, does not support housing.

When Conservative members raise issues about housing, they have zero credibility on that file. Never before have we had a government that has demonstrated as much leadership in working with municipalities and provinces, and invested more financial resources than this government in the history of Canada. On the other side, we have an incompetent Conservative leader who was a disaster when he was the minister responsible for housing. When there is such a huge demand, what does the Conservative Party do? The members who decide to vote, show up and vote against supporting housing. They are oozing with hypocrisy. Unfortunately, that example is not alone. I was listening to the back and forth, and the questions that were being asked.

Consistently, this government has recognized the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We want an economy that is going to work for all Canadians in all regions. That is the reason we have invested so much energy into trade. Trade supports all of us.

It is surprising, when we think of affordability, that the Conservatives voted against the trade agreement. I have talked a great deal about that, the principles of trade and how important it is that we get behind the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Hopefully I will get more time to focus on that in a while, but I was shocked to see the Conservatives not once, not twice, but on three occasions vote against financial supports for Ukraine. There were votes on individual lines, and they voted against Ukraine once again.

It is a consistent policy with the Conservative Party. Whether on housing or trade, the Conservative Party is reckless in its policy development. A number of Conservatives have stood today on this legislation and talked about affordability. We recognize affordability. That is why we brought in the grocery rebate. That is why we have legislation such as this, which will have a positive impact. What is the Conservative Party's policy? It is very simple. It is a bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax”.

The Conservatives' whole concept of axing the tax is stealing money from Canadians. That is what they are doing, because most Canadians get more money back than they pay for the price on—

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 once again and maybe take a stab at addressing some of the issues that have come up in debate. I will start just by saying, first of all, that New Democrats, of course, support this legislation.

What we said at the beginning in respect to housing was that it is good to increase supply but that it is not just any increase in supply that is going to help with the housing crisis. We have to be concerned about the various kinds of housing along the way and ensure that we are increasing supply in all parts of the housing spectrum where there is need. Of course, there is a need for more market-based, purpose-built rental and eliminating the GST off purpose-built rental is a way to incent the development of more market rent apartments. This will be great for Canadians who can afford market rent, which is certainly a smaller percentage of Canadians than it was just a short time ago. Nevertheless, for those who can afford it, are looking for it and cannot find it, more market supply will certainly be helpful.

However, we cannot wash our hands of the issue and think that the work is done simply because we have brought in a measure to incent the development of more market-based housing. A lot of other Canadians out there will not be able to access that market housing; nevertheless, they need to be housed, deserve to be housed and, as far as I am concerned, should have an enforceable right to be housed in Canada. That is why, from the word go, when this bill was introduced, New Democrats said that this on its own would not be enough. We want to see the government accompany this legislation with some measures for development of non-market housing, which does not always mean affordable or social housing. Non-market housing can be provided at market rents. We see that in some co-ops that choose to offer market rent suites to those who can afford them and, at the same time, offer some affordable rents or social rents, where rent is actually geared to folks' income. Therefore, it is only ever a percentage of their income. It does not eat up the entirety of a household's budget.

All this is to say that incenting more market supply is not enough. This bill would do that. It is one component of addressing the housing crisis. There is a lot more to do. New Democrats were certainly disappointed in the fall economic statement for not having been more ambitious on that front. There was a billion dollars announced for a replenishment of the coinvestment fund, but the fact that this replenishment does not come until 2025 is a serious issue. I think it is a sign that the government still does not understand the extent to which we need to confront the housing crisis in Canada with a serious sense of urgency.

Other housing that we need to look at, whether market or non-market, is housing to be able to address the concerns of many indigenous communities across Canada. I just want to take a moment to recognize the good work that my colleagues from Nunavut have done, both the current member for Nunavut and Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, who was the MP for Nunavut in the last Parliament. She spent a considerable amount of time travelling through her riding, the territory of Nunavut, documenting the serious housing need there: the overcrowding, the mould and the dilapidated condition of a lot of housing that has been built. I think it is important to note that taking the GST off purpose-built rental is not going to do a thing for folks in Nunavut and small remote communities, where there is not an abundance of contractors waiting to build housing. They are not looking to go there as a market.

We have talked a lot about the competition space, whether it is telecoms, grocery companies, banks, fossil fuel companies, where we have these oligopolies that have developed in Canada. Members can just name the market. We can talk about better competition policy until we are blue in the face. If we are talking about grocery prices at the one grocery store in a rural community where people have to drive hundreds of kilometres just to get to the next grocery store, the fact is that improving the competition framework is not going to do a lot in respect to pricing in a community like that. Taking the GST off purpose-built rental is not going to do a lot to incent the development of new housing in small and remote communities in Nunavut. That is why we have to go outside just thinking about the market and how to incent market players. What do we hope they will do? It is not profitable in the way that they are used to making profit in a place such as Toronto, Vancouver or even Winnipeg or Halifax.

It is not profitable to build up there, and folks certainly do not have the money to pay to make it profitable for somebody to build up there. However, we need people to do so. That is why we need good public policy that is not dependent on just trying to provide little carrots for profit-seeking companies in the market.

It is not that they are doing anything wrong. They are not bad people for not wanting to move their business from downtown Toronto, where they develop condos, to Nunavut and start building appropriate housing for people in small, remote northern communities.

We should not expect people to do that all on their own; however, one needs public policy in the context of a strategy that includes addressing workforce needs and training up local people to have skills. Such a strategy includes having the funding required, when they are done building homes in one community, to move that infrastructure and the people to the next community to do some of that building and to share those skills. It also includes having what amounts to an economic development plan that is about putting indigenous people back in charge of their own communities while ensuring that they have the resources to do something with their skills as they develop them.

The market is not going to do that. It is not meant to do that, nor is it interested in doing that.

We get up and talk a lot about these things. People say that we do not care about entrepreneurs, business or risk-taking. That is not true, but we understand the limits of it.

There is an intellectual and administrative laziness that permeates the Liberal and Conservative parties, where they would rather just pretend as though somehow, if one gives the market enough of a free hand, it will fix all these problems. It is not true.

The market is not designed to fix certain kinds of problems. Sometimes, the very problems that it is not designed to fix are some of the most important problems. The people who, not wrongly, but we all make choices, decide to live their life seeking profit in the market are not interested in solving these problems, because there is no money to be made in solving them in that way. However, they are life and death problems.

The problem of housing in Nunavut is killing people right now. It is making it impossible for them to get an education. We have heard stories about schools built in indigenous communities that were not even open for six months before they got shut down. A shoddy job was done of building the school, and they ended up having structural problems with the school right away. We were just talking about this last week.

If a child is fortunate enough to have a school, and they go to school, come back and try to do homework, but their home was built for five people and houses 15, we can be damn sure that this child is going to struggle to get their homework done. If they have to sleep in shifts because there are not enough bedrooms for people to go and lie down, the child will struggle to focus on learning.

We know that, even in major centres, kids in school right now are having a hard time concentrating. This happens more and more as Canadians struggle to afford food, because the kids do not have a full belly.

This is why New Democrats have been supporting the idea of a national school food program.

I am proud to say that this is a priority of the new government in Manitoba, and I look forward to it getting done. I do not think it should have to do it on its own. I think the federal government should be at the table doing that. We have heard a lot of words, but we have not seen a lot of action. We certainly have not seen any funding for that.

We need to get on with that. If we want people to succeed, if we want the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” language to make any sense at all, it has to be in a world where people have the resources to be able to do that.

As a starting point, they have to be housed. They have to be fed. Their parents cannot be working three jobs just to make ends meet and never be around to have any time to provide support or direction.

These are some things that the market is not going to do for us. That is not what it is there for. It is all well and good for people who are well resourced, whose children have opportunities and who are well-supported, to say, “We did it. Why can't everybody else?”

The fact of the matter is that there are so many more children who can do it and would do it if they had the right start and just a little bit of those resources that so many of us have the privilege of being able to take for granted.

I say yes to eliminating GST from purpose-built rental, but we cannot then pretend that the work is done. I think the fall economic statement betrayed that the government does think that the work is done and that it can take its sweet time getting around to the rest of it. The government thinks it can say to the territorial government in Nunavut that if it wants money for housing, it will have to apply to the indigenous government that it already gave money to, failing to recognize that they serve different populations. There is a lot of overlap, but their mandates are not the same. Indigenous governments should get money to provide housing to people in their communities, but not in lieu of territorial governments getting resources to build housing in those communities. The deficit of affordable housing is large enough that we need both of these organizations, if they are willing, to be working together to try to meet the housing need.

We need to start addressing some of these things, just as we need to address some of the larger infrastructure required in order to build the housing. I think of the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link, for instance, which, if built, would deliver power to a community in Nunavut, as well as a mine. It is an important thing we could do, both to incent economic development in the region and also to make it possible to build housing. There is no point in building a house in the 21st century for somebody who does not have electricity. We need to find a way to get power to communities even as we think about building more housing in those communities.

I talked before a little about what I think is a kind of intellectual laziness and an administrative laziness, by which I mean governments that do not want to do the hard public policy work of developing an effective strategy, funding it and resourcing it. Let us be frank; I think we tend to dismiss the work of public administration. However, it is important to be able to have a plan and line up all the players, which includes market players. For instance, we are not going to have a housing strategy that does not involve talking to the people who build the homes. I am an electrician by trade. There is a lot of good information that can be gleaned from the people who actually do the work, as opposed to talking just to the engineers or the estimators.

To put together a public strategy like that, to bring all of those pieces together, takes a lot of time and a lot of work. It is also a unique set of skills that we do not necessarily see everywhere else. That is why courses in public administration are offered. For too long, there has been a prevailing attitude, in both of the parties that have governed since the mid-1990s, when they cancelled the national housing strategy, that we are here just to make it easy for the guys in the market to take care of it all, and that if cannot be taken care of by the market, it is not for us to worry about.

It is quite the contrary; that is exactly the thing that people in government should be worried about. It is exactly the job of government to take care of some of the very important things that the market will not take care of. However, first of all, we have to accept and admit that the market will not take care of every need if it is left to its own devices. Thankfully there is a lot of overlap between what one can make a lot of money at and providing services to people in good ways. We see that in many facets of our economy; small and medium-sized businesses, particularly, are very good at identifying gaps in the services in their local communities, and developing a product and selling it at a fair price. When we look at some of the larger companies, like telecom companies, oil and gas companies and banks, that is not what is going on. Even though they make a lot of money and benefit greatly from a public policy environment designed to help them make their money and defend their interests and power in the economy, they do not accept any reciprocal responsibility.

There are only three big Canadian grocery chains. Do they accept any responsibility for providing groceries at an affordable price to Canadians? No, it is very clear they do not see that as their job. Just take a look at the work that my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has done, asking difficult questions of grocery CEOs at the agriculture committee. They made it pretty clear that they accept no responsibility. They have a completely privileged position in that market. Food is something Canadians cannot decide to do without. The CEOs accept no reciprocal sense of responsibility to Canadians for that.

We can look at oil and gas companies that have been making money hand over first lately, even while laying off more employees. Do the Canadian oil and gas companies think that they need to do anything to try to reduce the cost at the pump? Absolutely they do not. They see an opportunity. They see that they have a captive market. To the extent that they can push prices up, they certainly have been doing so.

Between 2019 and 2022, oil and gas profits in Canada rose by 1000%. This is not an industry that accepts any responsibility for the privileged position it occupies and the power that comes with it in the Canadian economy. The idea that we are going to leave it all to the market is, I think, a false idea, but unfortunately it has been the predominant idea for at least 30 years in Canada. We can trace it back at least to the original free trade agreement debate in 1988 and the years leading up to that. This is relevant to the point of competition, I would say. My Conservative and Liberal colleagues usually argue about who is the greatest supporter of corporate free trade.

It is interesting to watch, after the Conservatives voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement most recently, how the argument goes. We see that the Conservatives voted against the trade agreement for no good reason I can identify except to make everything about the carbon tax. That includes things that are not about it, like a conflict half a world away that has everything to do with the preservation of democracy. Instead of taking that seriously on its own terms, they would rather make it about the carbon tax for their own domestic political needs. That is a sign of a government that does not have our back. It has been interesting to watch Conservatives try to defend their position as the greatest defenders of corporate free trade while voting against that trade agreement.

It has been interesting to watch the Liberals not just zero in on the Ukraine issue but also see this as their opportunity to establish themselves as the biggest champion of corporate free trade in the Canadian political space. That has been fascinating, because the thing about free trade is that it was supposed to bring us lower prices. I just heard a Conservative member talk about how there are only five big grocery companies in Canada, three Canadian ones and two American ones. He talked about how he wants more Canadian companies. That was the argument New Democrats were making in the free trade debate: that if we opened up the economy, what we would end up with is Americans coming over and taking over essential industries. Just watch.

There are Conservatives who believe we should deregulate the air industry and invite American airlines into Canadian spaces as a way to lower prices and improve service. Just wait until it happens; they are going to be singing the same crocodile tears song 20 years after it happens that they are singing now about grocery companies, as if anyone should believe them. Either we are of the point of view that we can take a strategic approach to certain pillars of our economy and believe that we need the tools at our disposal to protect those things and conduct business in a certain way, or we believe that we should open it up completely to competition and free trade agreements and even give foreign companies the right to sue the Canadian government, which is what Conservative and Liberal governments have done when they have tried to have a strategic economic approach.

Conservatives get up and cry foul, not just on groceries but also on the battery plant jobs and on workers coming in. Do they know how they are coming in? They are not coming in through the temporary foreign worker program, for the most part, although we would not know that when listening to the Conservatives. What is interesting on that point too is that the TFW program blew up under the Conservatives' watch and then had to be fixed because it had become such an exploitation of foreign workers. The workers are coming in under international labour mobility provisions negotiated in free trade agreements by the Conservatives. At the time, when we asked them if they knew that would mean that multinational companies were going to import foreign workforces when there is a big investment in Canada, they said that it would not happen, that they would just bring in supervisors who were going to help share some specific expertise and then move along. The jury is out on whether that is what is happening in the battery plants. The government owes Canadians a better answer and more guarantees for what it is doing for their tax dollars. The fact of the matter is that it is just egregious for Conservatives to get up and pretend they do not know how those international labour mobility provisions work or that they did not negotiate them.

I look forward to talking more about these things in the Q and A.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, on many occasions I had the fortune or the misfortune to observe that when a member of the Bloc Québécois uses the old expression “it is about time” in the House, most of the time, unfortunately, it is a euphemism. Unsurprisingly, that old saying “it is about time” applies well to the bill before us today.

Currently, when the Competition Bureau studies the competitive environment in a given sector, it cannot compel anyone to testify or order the production of documents. That is not very convenient. However, with the passage of the Bill C‑56, it will be able to do so. When I say it is about time, that is because the Bloc has been calling for this measure for a good 20 years.

On the other hand, I would be lying if I said that Bill C‑56 did not lack teeth. I will spoil the surprise right away: I will vote in favour of Bill C‑56 like my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Here are the reasons why. This bill contains some good measures. Most of all, it does not contain any that are outright harmful. Let us just say that I expected more. For me, this is just a drop in an ocean of needs. Now I will explain my thoughts in greater detail.

Part 1 of Bill C‑56 modifies the Excise Tax Act. It extends a GST rebate, 5% of the sales tax, to builders of rental housing. The rebate will occur at the moment of sale or alleged sale if the builder becomes the owner. The rebate does not apply when the purchaser is already entirely or partially exempt. For example, this is the case for government organizations, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations or housing co-ops. That means that Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects because it concerns only private housing.

Part 2 makes three amendments to the Competition Act. The first, as I said earlier, gives real investigative powers to the commissioner of competition. The second broadens the range of anti-competitive practices prohibited by law. At present, competitors cannot agree to push another player out of the market. Bill C‑56 will prohibit agreements even with non-market players aimed at reducing competition. For example, when a grocer rents space in a shopping centre, it is common for the lease to contain clauses prohibiting the landlord from renting to another grocer. Such practices that effectively limit competition will be prohibited under Bill C‑56.

The third amendment to the Competition Act will make mergers and acquisitions more difficult. Today, when a business wants to buy a competitor, for example the Royal Bank's proposed acquisition of HSBC, the act states that the Competition Bureau should allow the merger if it can be proven that the purchase will result in a gain in efficiency, even if the merger will reduce competition. This provision, which appears to favour concentration, will be repealed by Bill C‑56. The Bloc Québécois and my colleague, the member from Terrebonne, have been asking for this measure for some time now.

As I said at the start of my speech, Bill C‑56 contains a number of good measures and, more importantly, none that are outright harmful. However, I also said I believe it is but a drop in an ocean of needs.

In housing, there is real urgency. However, nothing indicates Bill C‑56 will do anything to reduce rents. It would be astonishing if a landlord dropped rents just because they no longer had to pay the GST on a new property, especially since interest rates alone are driving up mortgage costs. This increase will greatly exceed the GST exemption on new rental units. When landlords renew their mortgage, who will they pass the increase on to? The question is rhetorical. We can expect prices will keep rising, with or without Bill C‑56. At best, by removing the tax on rental buildings, Bill C‑56 might entice some developers to build rentals instead of condos. It might simply become more profitable for them. Again, this is just speculation.

Although Bill C‑56 will not directly affect rents, it could help alleviate the housing shortage in some small measure. If Bill C‑56 increases the percentage of new rental housing construction even a little, it will be a good thing. However, we would still be light years away from meeting needs.

I repeat: There are some good things in this bill, such as the amendments to the Competition Act. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses those. On the other hand, we consider it misleading to claim that the bill will help lower the cost of groceries, as the government suggests.

Giving the commissioner of competition real investigative powers when carrying out a study should enable him to get to the bottom of things when it comes to the competitive environment in a given sector. That is very true. Now, learning more about an issue is a good thing, but it does not increase competition and it certainly does not bring down grocery costs.

Since 1986, the vast majority of grocery chains have disappeared, after being bought out by competitors. Steinberg disappeared. A&P disappeared. Provigo was bought by Loblaws. IGA was bought by Sobeys. Marché Adonis was bought by Metro. Of the 13 grocery chains that existed in 1986, only three remain. If we include the two American big box stores that also sell groceries, Costco and Walmart, that means that five players control 80% of the market.

While it is true that a number of factors are contributing to the increase in food prices, it is important not to lose sight of the grocers' profit margins. When prices go up, profits go up. However, according to the Competition Bureau study published last June, grocers did not just maintain their profit margin, they increased it.

When a merchant can raise prices at will, it is a blatant sign of a lack of competition. The amendments to the Competition Act found in Bill C‑56 will certainly prevent the situation from worsening, and they will make mergers and acquisitions harder to do in the future. However, they do not resolve the situation. The damage is done and, unfortunately, Bill C‑56 will do nothing to fix it.

In short, even though Bill C‑56 does put forward some good measures, this cannot possibly be the government's one and only response to the skyrocketing cost of housing and groceries. When it comes to housing, the government needs to review and improve the national housing strategy, which, let us face it, has failed.

In terms of competition, they need to review the notion of abuse to prevent the big players from endlessly profiting from their disproportionate market share. Those two initiatives must be undertaken, and we are just starting both, whether Bill C‑56 passes or not.

To end my speech, I would like to say the following. The Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑56 is certainly not a motion to congratulate the government, quite the contrary. However, we do see it as a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois's support today is like a pat on the back. It is like a nod of the head, but coupled with a “what comes next?”.

I suspect that I may have to wait awhile before the government actually takes any further action, but I hope I will not have to wait too long.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is the first time in two years that I have gotten the unanimous consent of the House, and I am proud of it. Before beginning my speech, I would like to make one thing clear. This is not a case of the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberal Party standing together. It is the Conservatives that stand alone. That is not the same thing.

Today we will be discussing Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. I will be talking mostly about that last part of the bill, in terms of both its technical points and its rationale. Before we begin, though, we always need to establish what we are talking about. What is competition? It means coming together and converging on the same point. That is what competition is. It is not necessarily a bad thing. However, what is the motivation for coming together? What is the purpose? Is it good or bad? As members of Parliament, our objective must be commendable, because we obviously have the public interest at heart.

In one amendment, the bill would increase the maximum monetary penalty for abuse of a dominant position to $25 million for the first offence and $35 million for subsequent offences. The aim is to give the law teeth, to make sure that it will not be taken lightly, that people will not think that they can get away with a slap on the wrist. This provision also makes Canadian law more comparable to U.S. law, of course.

The second important amendment in the part on competition would allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if the minister responsible for the act or the commissioner of competition so recommends, and would require the minister to consult the commissioner before doing so.

The Competition Bureau already has significant powers, but it cannot demand certain things from the people it is investigating. It cannot request a search unless there is a clear offence. It cannot request a search just to look around. It cannot make assumptions. All of us here know that groceries are expensive and that we pay the highest cellphone fees in the OECD. It does not take a genius to realize that the commissioner might want to investigate these things.

When it conducts a study, the bureau will have to determine whether there is adequate competition in a market or industry. Right now, it does not have that power in every industry. What the Competition Bureau can do at present is all right, but it is not necessarily the best thing right now. It may have been sufficient at the time, but now it needs to be enhanced.

In its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. I like that euphemism: “did not really co-operate”. They said no, which is not the same thing, and the Competition Bureau, with its current powers, could not make them say yes. They refused to provide the documents the bureau asked for, and they refused to answer certain questions. My colleagues will no doubt agree that there are many shades of meaning between “did not really co-operate” and “refused to answer”. The aim of Bill C-56 is to solve this problem by granting the Competition Bureau the power to conduct inquiries where applicable.

Lastly, the bill would revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct that is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing competition. That is the technical part of the bill. However, when someone drafts a bill, they need to think about why they are doing it, what they are trying to accomplish.

The purpose of the Competition Act is to ensure that Quebec and Canadian consumers have freedom of choice. We sometimes talk about monopolies. What is a monopoly? It is an exclusive right. What does “exclusive” mean? It means doing everything possible to keep others out. It means restricting, refusing, blocking, rejecting. Exclusivity means limiting access. It is almost like a secret agreement.

The bill also seeks to prevent stakeholders from abusing a dominant market position. To dominate means to master, to control. In the past minute, I have talked about refusing, blocking, mastering, controlling, exclusive rights. All of this goes against the free market that this country promises, that it says it has, but that is sometimes, in reality, only an illusion.

Essentially, the drafters of the bill wanted the Competition Bureau to have more power, the power to provide us with freedom of choice, the power to investigate where appropriate until it is satisfied that it can make this possible.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, competition means getting together and converging on the same point. If that is not possible, if certain players dominating a market prevent that from happening, we are being deprived of our freedom of choice. It is a sort of manipulation. It is a sort of lie.

Without calling anyone a liar, we can still talk about what a lie is, here in the House of Commons. A lie from someone in a dominant position may prevent someone else from doing something they would have done had they known the truth. Lies imply secrecy. Monopolies imply secrecy. It is this secrecy that this bill seeks to eliminate so that everyone can exercise freedom.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about one of the two aspects of the current debate on Bill C-56, which amends the Competition Act, among other things. We agree; it is not going to solve every problem.

The other aspect this bill addresses is housing, in particular the GST on rental housing. It touches on this other problem that we have heard a lot about and that is a real scourge this year: housing.

What my colleague did not mention is that the only solution his party has proposed so far on the housing issue is a bill introduced by his leader, a bill that is essentially designed to show cities some tough love and tell them that funding will be cut if they do not meet their targets.

That is not what cities, particularly those in my riding, need to successfully address the housing issue. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about this.

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

Madam Speaker, I can speak for 20, 30 or 40 minutes about this important topic. I am happy to stand in the House today on the report stage of Bill C-56.

We have been talking about competition quite a bit in the House, including the need for competition and the lack of competition. We know that Canada has a competition problem. We see it in every sector that Canadians are a part of, including cell phones, banking, groceries, wireless and Internet. There is not really any sector in the Canadian economy that is not dominated by oligopolies and monopolies.

When this bill came along, we looked at it favourably because certain aspects were going to be improved. Mostly we looked at it favourably because there were Conservative aspects that were part of it, including my private member's bill, which was read into the act. Of course, I have a new private member's bill. We are all happy for that, and we are moving on.

The crux of the bill, the affordable housing and groceries act, is really anticlimactic in that, when this bill receives royal assent and becomes law, it will not really change the fact that Canadians are still paying the highest grocery fees and are in the worst housing crisis in this country's history. That is because the bill does promise to make some changes to the Competition Act. This bill would do some minor tinkering around the edges for what we need to have changed in the Competition Act. However, it does not do the real hard work. It does not have the courage to change the real things that need to happen to change competition in Canada.

The bill would enact Competition Act changes. It would certainly make some provisions and changes to the abuse of dominance. It looks at illuminating the efficiencies defence, which was in my private member's bill that came forward. It looks at how market studies should be handled by the Competition Bureau itself.

However, when it comes to the real aspects that are hurting consumers at the grocery store right now, where they are paying 20% more for groceries after eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it does not tackle the biggest aspect, which is the carbon tax. The carbon tax is added to the farmer, to the trucker, to the manufacturer, to the cold storage facility, so it is added one, two, three, four times to the consumer bill and passed on to the consumer.

It certainly does not tackle the fact that, when it comes to housing in Canada, we are building fewer homes now than we did in 1972, when we have over 40 million Canadians in this country right now. It certainly does not tackle the fact that, because of high inflation after eight years, the costs of everything have gone up, including building materials and labour for homes. The fact is that over the years, we have built up a big barrier of what we call Nimbyism, protecting our backyards from others so that we cannot build homes.

Consumers are stretched. Mortgage renewals are coming due. Over 70% of Canadians with a fixed mortgage will have to renew their mortgage over the next two years, this during the fastest run-up of interest rates in the whole history of this country.

The carbon tax had unintended consequences, and consumers are screaming. They were promised that they would get more back in rebates than they put in. However, the unintended consequences have been that those carbon taxes have added costs to grocery bills. Those added costs are on the price of almost everything that Canadians are paying. They see the rebate in their hands, compared to the bills they are paying each and every day, and Canadians are smart. They now know that they are paying way more in those carbon taxes than they are getting in rebates. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, Canadians cannot afford any more.

We have looked at competition, and we have looked at the two parts of the act that we need to solidify. One is to put a stranglehold on how big the big, bossy, dominant conglomerates, oligopolies and monopolies can get in Canada. Canadians have had enough, whether it is cell phone bills, where we have three companies that control 90% of all cell phones in Canada, which are the most expensive three carriers out of 128 carries in 64 countries, or whether it is groceries, where we used to have competition in Canada. Eight grocery stores used to run and compete with one another, driving prices lower. It is now down to only three Canadian companies competing with two American conglomerates. They used to all be Canadian competitors. We used to be able to go to different stores. Now Canadians find that they oftentimes going to the same competitors.

Obviously, prices have not gone down, and this is only after the last eight years with a Competition Act that was outdated. It has certainly outlived its prime, since the Competition Act was created based on the 1960s industrial policy, which said, “We want Canadian companies to get as big as possible to compete internationally.” It is actually in the purpose clause of the Competition Act right now to make Canadian companies as big as possible so that they can compete internationally. This is what we deem as competition. When it comes to competition, we want more companies to compete, not internationally but to compete for Canadians' dollars. Canadian companies should not be able to make all of their money on the backs of hard-working Canadians; Canadian companies need to compete with one another for Canadians' hard-earn tax dollar.

The breadth of this Competition Act, which needs to be changed, is the premise and the purpose of the Competition Act. Number one, we need to ensure that big-box conglomerates and corporations cannot get bigger on the backs of hard-working Canadians. However, the second and most important aspect of the Competition Act is to ensure that we have competition or that we have start-ups in Canada.

Canada now, according to the BDC, has 100,000 fewer entrepreneurs compared to 20 years ago, despite our population increasing by over 10 million people. Canada has failed to create competition. We can look at one aspect to say that we would really love to make sure that we stifle the top monopolies and oligopolies and make sure that they cannot merge with one another, but the other big problem we have missed along the way is to have start-ups created to compete with one another. It used to be that Canada was the bastion for that, and we were able to find start-ups and have great Canadian companies start up and grow in scale, but for the first time in our history, we have fewer start-ups per capita than ever before, after eight years of this government.

When we talk about new jobs and creating wealth in this country, which is something I am afraid we are going to have to speak about a lot over the next year, we look to small business and start-ups to fulfill that role. Ninety-seven per cent of all new jobs in Canada are created by small business. When we look at the complexity and the value of these small businesses, the men and women who can take a risk and start something new in Canada, right now what we are missing most of all is to ensure that we create those jobs and businesses in this nation.

At the end of the day, we have to really look at what this bill would do and what it would not do. We are certainly going to vote for this legislation. At the end of the day, the Competition Bureau itself has been ignored for the last eight years. Coincidentally, the first time that this government starts talking about it is when the opposition leader names a competition shadow minister for the first time in government, which looks at the importance of what competition can do for the nation and what it means for Canadians. Of course, the first thing it means is prices, and the second thing is our jobs and paycheques. We can create new start-ups and new businesses.

For instance, when we look at the banking sector, the biggest thing we are trying to put forward is consumer-led or open banking. There is an opportunity, where this government has been dragging its feet, to create hundreds upon hundreds of financial tech institutions that can not only create jobs and paycheques for Canadians, but provide options for Canadians of where to put their hard-earned money when it comes to financial services in Canada. I would hope that through this, and we will be talking about it when we get back in January, the government introduces the legislation that it promised in 2018.

More importantly, as Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, comes forth, Canadians are going to be angry about how anti-climactic it will be. Grocery prices are not going to go down after the bill passes, nor will our housing crisis be solved. It would do something important for the Competition Act, but not nearly enough to undo what has already been done. Most importantly, it would not create the start-ups that have stopped, the start-ups that can drive housing starts and create more options and more food in the value chain.

We need boldness, and we need courage. We need a new government to present policy that would actually create homes and grow food without punishing our farmers in this country. It is time to bring it home for farmers, for our country and for Canadians looking for a home of their own.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, that question highlights two things. First of all, the strategy generally used by the government has been to ensure that the people who need the help get it. That is the reason, for instance, that we took the Canada child benefit away from millionaires and made it income tested so the people who actually needed the help got it.

In the case of the grocery rebate, that could not have come at a better time because things such as the Competition Act and this act are all meant to relieve the pressure on people and fix things that are wrong in the market system, and the grocery rebate was something that helped to bridge people earing very low incomes over the hump while all of these elements came together for Bill C-56. I would not discount, perhaps, the need to do that again at some point in the future. I would advocate for it as an individual MP. Of course, it is up to the government to assess the situation and move forward.

Bill C-56 is meant to solve the problem for which the grocery rebate was a band-aid on a wound that needs healing.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, very much related to Bill C-56 is the degree to which corporations are making record profits these days while everyone else seems to be suffering.

We recently had Galen Weston, chairman of Loblaw, appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. His profits continue to rise while everyone else, all Canadian families, especially in my riding, are having to struggle and make do without. We see the same thing in the oil and gas sector. Over the last three years, its profits have gone up by over 1,000%. Mr. Weston thought that his executive compensation, which is 431 times the average salary of one of his workers, is a reasonable amount, and he could not tell the committee how many of his full-time workers have had to access a food bank to get by.

Conservatives do not want to talk about gross corporate profits these days, but I would like to hear from my hon. colleague what the Liberals are going to do to tackle this corporate culture in which corporations are continuing to make profits while everyone else suffers. We have had 40 years of too much corporate deference in this country. What are they going to do to start turning that around to make sure that the pendulum swings back in favour of Canadian families?

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues in the House are having a good start to their week.

The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-56, which would refund the GST to builders. What bothers me, however, is that Bill C-56 extends over seven years, so that means the rebate will be spread over seven years. In 2023, it is hard to foresee what is going to happen in a month or six months.

How can we be sure that a bill like this will be effective when it is going to extend over seven years and plenty of questions remain about the criteria for housing affordability and the desired potential reduction in rent?

I would like my colleague to comment on that.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present updates to Bill C-56, as they are timely and are required to better tackle the increasing cost of living by strengthening Canada's competition law. Two months ago, the government introduced Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. As members may recall, it was presented as a down payment of sorts on broader reform efforts with respect to Canada's competition law, with more comprehensive amendments to follow pursuant to the fall economic statement.

There has already been considerable debate in the chamber on this important piece of legislation, so let us talk about market studies, which are a key part of the legislation. Bill C-56 would provide the Competition Bureau with much-needed market study powers. It is important to ensure that the bureau would retain its independence while it does this. This is why we have supported an update that expressly confirms that the commissioner would be able to initiate a market study. This would remove any possible ambiguity over the market study process and would ensure that the bureau retains its discretion as an independent law enforcement agency. The update would ensure that the bureau would be able to look into specific market issues that it identifies as warranting scrutiny. The modification reflects the existing inquiry structure under the act, where it is already the case that either the commissioner or the minister may initiate an inquiry into potential anti-competitive activity, at which point the commissioner assumes full control of the investigation.

The government's proposal has taken these concerns into account by creating a framework that would balance the need for independence, the benefit of collecting information and the safeguards required to protect businesses and public funds. This is why both the commissioner and the minister would be required to consult before any study is undertaken. Requiring consultation would ensure that Canadians would benefit from a market study that has been thoroughly considered and appropriately tailored. The proposal made by the government to update Bill C-56's market study provisions would also keep the framework aligned with international precedents, with countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia all offering various forms of oversight to ensure appropriate use of market study power. Central to this is a test of the abuse of dominance.

In order to effectively address increasing prices, we need to enhance more than just the bureau's ability to conduct market studies. It is also important that the law be able to hold today's well-resourced and sophisticated businesses to account. In particular, we need to better address large players who, many believe, abuse their market power to shut out competition, especially given the clear concerns raised throughout our consultation about protecting competition in and contestability of these markets.

There are all different kinds of competition. We could talk about the fact that the big grocery chains have been recording record profits. One would think that if companies are posting record profits, they would be in a position to lower prices in order to attract more market share, but we did not see that, which suggests that something in the free market system is not working as we would normally expect it to work. There are other forms of potential anti-competitive behaviour. The ability to get shelf space in a major grocery store is a real competition, and the grocery stores have the hammer, to use a curling term, to find out who gets the market space. More and more, in my own personal observations when I go into grocery stores, I see the in-store brands taking more and more shelf space, with the other brands effectively being crowded out.

We believe there has been an unnecessarily high burden to prove behaviours clearly damaging to the public interest. This is out of line with our international partners, by the way, including the United States, the European Union and Australia. These jurisdictions better allocate the burden of proof and allow the agencies to act more easily where harm is apparent. This can include by requiring proof of intent or effects, but not necessarily both. The government's update to Bill C-56 would allow abuse of dominance to be established on the basis of either intent or effects, following the actions of a dominant firm. This would allow for more effective enforcement of the act where there is harmful conduct by large players. It would accomplish what the act is meant to do: stop big businesses from abusing their position to the detriment of competition. The detriment of competition is a detriment to the citizens of Canada.

As I noted before, the purpose of remedial orders is to protect competition in the market, not to punish its actors. Recognizing the lower burden involved in securing a remedial order that this change would bring about, the law would limit the remedy in these cases to a prohibition order. More serious remedies, such as monetary penalties and divestiture orders, would continue to require that both anti-competitive intent and effect be proven. This two-tiered approach would help guard against chilling, aggressive competition on the merits.

The government already took an important first step to address this concern by positioning penalties to serve as more effective compliance measures against abuse of dominance. We did this through the 2022 amendments to the Competition Act that removed an ineffective and outdated cap on monetary penalties. We introduced a more principled approach that could better accommodate larger volumes of commerce. Firms engaged in anti-competitive conduct can now face a penalty set at up to three times the benefit obtained for their anti-competitive conduct, to ensure that it is not profitable to them. While this was an important update to move away from the outdated and ineffective fixed penalty system, the old fixed amounts of $10 million, or $15 million for a second order, still remain in the law. This is in the event that they are still higher than the new proportionate maximum. However, it is possible that these fallback numbers could still be too low to act as a deterrent in certain cases where abuse by a big business is significant but caught early, and thus benefit derived from it is still modest.

As everyone here knows, competition is a driving force behind innovation and efficiency in our economy. It ensures a healthy, fair and vibrant marketplace. This is what the free market system is supposed to nurture and protect. Of course, competition is instrumental in bringing down prices. The fact that we have not seen prices fall in spite of the dominant profits being recorded by big grocery and some of the producers but that we see things like shrinkflation and skimpflation creeping in, where we are paying more for a smaller or inferior product, means that something is not working. When something is not working between what the market price is and what Canadians value, then we think it is the job of government to come in and close that gap.

For Canadians, the updates to Bill C-56 would mean more choice and better affordability. When someone needs to pay their bills, the exact motivations or mechanisms behind anti-competitive conduct do not matter. The effect of paying higher prices remains the same. What does matter is that businesses can be held to account. It matters that the law can impose meaningful penalties to ensure compliance. It matters that the Competition Bureau has the information it needs to study problems in the market.

The updates to Bill C-56 have been prioritized because they are the most directly related to addressing the issues identified in the grocery retail sectors. In fact, if we look at the whole landscape, particularly the concerns about inflation, the two big players to this point, at least in the retail market, have been gas, oil and diesel, and grocery. We have seen the market handle gas and oil, because the prices have been dropping at the pumps, which is a welcome sign for most Canadians, and probably one of the main reasons inflation in Canada has dropped to well less than half of what it was about a year ago. However, the thing to remember is that the provisions in Bill C-56 now, and what is coming, would apply to all sectors of the economy. As such, they would have a broad and, we hope, positive impact.

These changes would also be just the first steps in responding to the issues that have been identified by the stakeholders and the public in our comprehensive consultation on Canada's competition law. As the government announced in its fall economic statement, it intends to introduce significant additional amendments for the consideration of Parliamentarians in the coming weeks. Perhaps in the question period to come, some of the hon. members here in the chamber can suggest some additional amendments that we should consider in the coming weeks.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the third time and passed.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Grocery Industry

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring the measures the grocers are taking to provide relief, including commitments to harmonize prices, freeze them, and give discounts on basic necessities.

We are also working on long-term solutions to improve competition in the grocery sector. Bill C‑56 will allow the Competition Bureau to hold grocers responsible and give priority to consumers' interests.

We are closely monitoring what the CEOs are doing.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑56 will enable us to further strengthen the Competition Bureau and put consumers' interests first. I hope our colleagues will support this bill, because it is important. It will help harmonize and freeze prices and bring down the prices of basic goods.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to officially welcome Mr. Forbes, Mr. Johnson and Ms. McDermott. I thank them for being here.

My congratulations on your new position, Mr. Forbes. I want to sincerely thank you for being here today. To my knowledge, your predecessor, Mr. Sabia, never came to a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance. In fact, the only times I ever saw him was on highway 50, when we were travelling in the same direction, so for you to take the time to meet with members means a great deal to me.

I have several questions to ask about some small technical points. I am not expecting complete answers from you today. My goal is to raise these questions. Please feel free to send your answers to the committee in writing if need be.

Before beginning my technical questions, I want to make you aware of two things. I know they are not within your jurisdiction, but I no longer know how to come at the problem. I am talking about the in camera sessions when economic statements and budgets are tabled, and the question of closure and the time that is then allocated in committee.

We have had Bill C‑56, for which a super gag order limited the time in committee. We had to draft our amendments at the same time as we were hearing witnesses. That does not work and we cannot do our work in committee properly like that.

I am not expecting answers from you. I just want to invite you to advocate, insofar as it is within your powers, that we be allowed more time so we can function in committee when a super gag order is imposed. We would be very grateful.

The same thing applies to in camera meetings. During the pandemic, an ingenious system was put in place to enable all officials to answer our questions by telephone, remotely. It worked during the pandemic, but since the end of the pandemic, it has no longer worked. Since then, the minister, her team, and the parliamentary secretary answer every time that they are going to fix it. When the officials are online, it does not work. We get no answers to our questions. We would prefer to have a lot fewer officials present in a big room with all the opposition parties, like before. That way, we are able to get answers to our questions and it is more constructive. I do not expect to get answers to this, but I would like to make you aware of it, because we get told yes every time and we are always disappointed during in camera meetings.

With that said, I will get to my questions.

First, we have been approached by the Recreational Vehicle Dealers Association of Quebec. Its members sell motor homes and trailers that are hitched behind a vehicle. According to an interpretation given by the Canada Revenue Agency, since the vehicles imported from the United States go through Ontario, the Agency is asking association members to pay Ontario sales tax retroactive to 2012, telling its members that they can get reimbursed afterward. This is something very technical, but it creates a cash flow problem for the dealers. I am going to email you and the minister the relevant information. The directors of the association have told us that they met with Department of Finance representatives, whose answer was that the association was right and this problem should be resolved, but it is not a priority at the moment. Do you have any comments on that?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay. Well, that's odd, because Bill C-56 doesn't provide a rebate on the building of single-family homes, duplexes or triplexes, so is the statement that she eliminated GST on all purpose-built rentals true?

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

Thank you.

Since you are concerned about this situation, if you and the government could somehow make sure that the 600 job losses at CBC/Radio-Canada did not happen, I would be more than grateful.

On the subject of housing, I want to come back to Bill C‑56. Earlier, you alluded to Mr. Moffatt. When you appeared before the committee concerning Bill C‑56, I asked you whether your department could send us the figures and statistics concerning the predictions as to what the freeze on the goods and services tax would allow in the case of rental housing construction. To my knowledge, the committee has never received that information and we would be very grateful if you would kindly follow up on that subject.

On the question of the construction of social housing or affordable housing co‑ops, you have made commitments concerning subsidies or support. I believe, as do a number of other actors, that in the present situation, when interest rates are high, one possibility worth exploring would be to allow people to get a lower interest rate, whether through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, given its borrowing capacity, or through the federal government. If I am not mistaken, the federal government rate is 3.6% at the moment. The mere fact of these people being able to get that rate would be a step forward.

For example, if there were a reduced interest rate of 2%, the government could cover the difference. To finance $1 billion, the annual cost would be $16 million. That would free things up and get around the current problem of high interest rates, by using a method that would not cost the government too much. I humbly suggest that and I would like to know whether you have any comments on that subject.

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

Thank you, Mr. Gebara, for being here and for participating in this effort with our government. We know that it's taking everyone's efforts to try to tackle food price inflation.

I wanted to talk about one thing you referenced and that the minister had also referenced, which was amending the Competition Act to strengthen the Competition Bureau's power. You said that was one of your recommendations to the government as well.

We currently have a bill, Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. It was introduced in September. We've been trying to get that passed in the House of Commons. The Conservatives have been delaying and opposing and doing things to try to slow that down.

I'm wondering if you can comment on how you think this bill or increasing competition and strengthening the Competition Bureau will help bring food prices down for Canadians.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

moved that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, as amended be concurred in at report stage with a further amendment.

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.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Wednesday, November 1, be concurred in.

I am very pleased to have occasion to bring this important matter to the floor of the House of Commons, because there is an important decision pending for the Minister of Finance, which is whether to approve the RBC-HSBC merger. What we are debating today is a very concrete and simple recommendation of the finance committee of the House of Commons in its 12th report to the House. It was very clear that a majority of finance committee members do not support that merger going ahead.

There are at least a couple of main reasons why New Democrats are concerned about this merger going ahead. The first is that, as we know, right now Canadians are living through very difficult circumstances. Their household budgets are under severe stress because of rising interest rates and because of the rising costs of all sorts of necessities of life, whether that is housing, home heating or groceries. Every little thing right now means a lot to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.

We know that even before the pandemic, something like half of Canadian households were only $200 away from insolvency at the end of the month, and that has only gotten harder. We see the effects in our communities, whether that is the longer and longer lines at food banks for people struggling to feed their families or the fact that more and more folks are homeless and living on the street. I just had the opportunity to travel with the finance committee to many different cities across the country, and that was a common theme, no matter whether we were on the east coast or the west coast. There are tons of folks right now who are no longer housed, and the problem of homelessness is increasingly visible as more and more Canadians cannot make their rent payment at the end of the month or cannot make their mortgage payment and have nowhere to go.

Indeed, some Canadians who are gainfully employed cannot find a place to live that they can afford. It is no longer the case that it is just folks who are not able to get a job or who have a disability and are not able to work who are finding themselves homeless. We are also hearing from folks who do have a reasonable monthly income, what would have been considered reasonable just a few years ago, that they cannot afford a place to live. They have to figure out how to work a full day and go back somewhere to a tent or a spot they found under a building with a bit of shelter, feed themselves, go to sleep, wake up and look presentable in the morning to go back to work, which is certainly a real challenge and not one that I would wish on anyone. That is why we need a government that is going to act with a much stronger sense of urgency in respect of the housing crisis.

One of the other things Canadians have struggled with for a long time is the fees that banks impose to do business at their institutions: to hold deposits and write cheques, or, more and more, to withdraw from ATMs and do e-transfers. We know that in Canada, Canadians pay high fees for that. One of the reasons they pay high fees is that we do not have a competitive banking sector in Canada. We pretty much have five big banks with over 90% market share when it comes to banking in Canada. Think about that. That is not a lot of players in the market. In economics they call that an oligopoly, and while it may not be an oligopoly on paper, it is certainly an oligopoly in practice.

Now what we have is one of Canada's largest banks, RBC, proposing to eat up the seventh-largest bank in Canada. The difference between those two banks is considerable. HSBC is not a huge player, but it is a scrappy player. If we were to look up mortgage rates right now, I think it is offering mortgages at over 70 basis points lower than what RBC is offering them at. Historically, HSBC has offered mortgage rates that are considerably lower than those at RBC.

The government, in the fall economic statement, rightly announced something the New Democrats have been calling for: Folks with insured mortgages will be able to shop around and transfer their mortgage without having to undergo the stress test again. This is exactly the kind of move that Canadians would be looking to make. If they have a mortgage with RBC, they may well want to go to an institution like HSBC that is offering over half a percentage less in the rate for a mortgage. Clearing the way so they would not have to do a stress test is important, but it is not going to matter if HSBC gets gobbled up by RBC and then offers the same rate as RBC. That means Canadians will have won the right to transfer without having to undergo the stress test, but would no longer have somewhere to transfer to that is offering a better rate.

That is why New Democrats think it is important that the government say no to this merger to preserve one of the few players not in the big five in Canada, particularly when they have a track record of exactly the kind of effect we would hope to get from competition, which is competitive pricing on mortgage rates and other services. We know the big five have been relatively unchallenged, and Transcona went through this since I was elected. The TD branch on the corner of Regent and Bond shut down. There are not a lot of bank branches in my community anymore.

Thankfully, Manitoba has a strong credit union movement that I am very proud of. I am a proud member of a couple of credit unions. There are many in Manitoba. I know a former board member of one of those credit unions is in the House today. It is a wonderful thing. It is really only because of the credit unions in Manitoba that we continue to have local branch banking available in my community. The big banks have all but fled in an attempt to reduce costs. That leaves consumers wanting the kind of traditional relationship they had at a local branch, but they are unable to get it. Why is it that the big banks can get away with that? It is because they do not have sufficient competition.

As I said, I am glad I live in a province where the credit union movement is filling an important void with respect to banking services. I am also glad to say that I get my banking services at a credit union. That was in jeopardy not that long ago when the government was looking at changing the Bank Act to outlaw talking about banking at credit unions. I am glad that common sense prevailed and people can say they bank at a credit union. The banks did not get their way on that, just as I hope that the big banks are not going to get their way with this merger, because competition will provide lower rates for Canadians.

I do not want to mislead anyone. It is not that HSBC is some kind of second environmental coming or something, but it was the first bank to offer green bonds. It has made some pretty serious commitments and backed them up with investment plans to lower the emissions profile of its investments. That is exactly the kind of thing we need to start seeing in the financial sector if Canada is going to meet the legal climate commitments we have signed on to in the Paris Agreement and elsewhere.

RBC, on the other hand, is the bank that does the most fossil fuel-heavy investment in Canada today. It is an important player, for instance, in the government's TMX project and put up a lot of capital for that. It is very invested in growing fossil fuel infrastructure in Canada, despite the fact that the oil and gas sector in Canada is extracting more barrels of oil today than at any other point in our history, which is easy to forget in the kinds of debates we have about the oil and gas sector on the floor of this place.

For those who say that the industry is in distress or on the verge of extinction, let us take a deep breath and look at the facts. The fact is that the oil and gas industry in Canada is more prolific today than at any other point in our history. That does not necessarily mean that it is employing more people than it has ever employed, because as technology advances, jobs for workers and the profitability and productivity of the oil and gas industry are on separate paths.

The truth is that oil and gas companies are able to extract more and make more money than ever with fewer workers. The continued advancement and increase in extraction are no longer tied in the same way they used to be to the creation of jobs for people in Canada, which is not to say that there are not a lot of jobs in the oil and gas sector or that this is not important. It is to say that we need to find the right level of extraction that is sustainable for the planet and that provides a strong economic basis for Alberta and other parts of the country where that industry is really important.

All of that is to say that RBC is being driven to grow and grow, with no sense of sustainability or what would be a sustainable rate of extraction. Therefore, both on the environmental front and on the consumer protection front, there are strong reasons to oppose this merger. It is why opposition parties on the finance committee sent a very clear message by working together that this was not a good idea.

I do not know that the Conservatives would endorse some of the environmental concerns I have raised on the floor today. I wish they would. I think Canada would be a better place if we could talk more about these issues in a serious way and about how to get Canada's emissions under control. I know that is not a conversation we want to have, but I am glad we can at least agree on the need for more competition and financial services and what that would mean for Canadians. It is an important signal the government should not ignore that so many parties in this place, for their own reasons, do not think this merger is a good idea.

We are going to hear at some point from Conservatives on this matter, and Canadians should take what they have to say with a grain of salt. They talk a lot about the Competition Bureau these days and the importance of competitiveness. Of course, this merger was looked at by the Competition Bureau, but not under the new framework that is on its way both through Bill C-56, which just passed in committee last night and is going to make some important changes to the Competition Act, and through, if we look at the ways and means motion, the budget implementation act the government will be tabling presumably after a vote on the ways and means motion. More changes to the Competition Act are coming there.

This merger was not reviewed with any of the new powers that would be afforded to the Competition Bureau. It was reviewed under a regime at the Competition Bureau that even the federal government itself recognizes as being deficient.

We know in the past that, for instance, Conservatives have talked about wanting to have independent officers doing work without political interference. I have certainly heard that at committee. I am glad to hear that, but I remember them setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office under Stephen Harper in the early days. It was a good thing they did that when they did.

Then the Parliamentary Budget Officer started saying things they did not like, and shockingly, the campaign of character assassination began. Kevin Page, who was the Parliamentary Budget Officer, came under direct attack by the Harper government. It was not that great an outing for the Harper government after all. Conservatives did the right thing initially, but they could not stay the course because they cannot stand any criticism and react badly as soon as someone starts calling them out for things they would prefer to get away with.

Canadians should be taking some of the remarks the Conservatives are making today as an opposition party with a grain of salt when it comes to their desire for an independent Competition Bureau. I certainly hope that in the future, if we have a Conservative government, we will not see that government decide to attack the competition commissioner if he starts telling them things they do not want to hear. The whole point of having those independent offices is to be able to do that.

We saw it again with David Johnston, who is someone they held up at one point. They held him up to the point that they were willing to appoint him as Governor General of the country. Then, when he started saying and doing things they did not like, a campaign of character assassination began. That was unfortunate because it detracted from the important point, which was that, when it came to being a special rapporteur on foreign interference, that was not the right way to proceed. Making it about David Johnston detracted from the important point, which was that it was a bad process and what we really needed was a public inquiry.

I am proud to say that New Democrats stayed the course and finally put that process on track. I do not think the personal attacks against David Johnston were helpful in that regard because they detracted from the main issue. Conservatives were so concerned with attacking David Johnston that it took them a long time to work with us in the right way to get that process back on track.

This is just another example of Conservatives claiming they want certain people in positions of authority to be able to make pronouncements on what the government of the day is doing, but then as soon as those pronouncements are not in line with their partisan lines, all of a sudden it is a problem and an affront to democracy, and the character assassination begins.

It is important we take this moment when Conservatives are prepared to do the right thing. Those moments are few and far between. We should not waste the opportunity. The government itself should be listening and taking the opportunity to do the right thing and say no to a merger that would both set the private financial sector back in green financing, potentially, and maintain and reinforce the lack of competition that Canadians have already been suffering under for too long. They have had to pay some of the highest banking fees, even as those same banks reduce services in their communities and close local branches.

Those are some of the reasons we think it is really important that the government take this opportunity and not do what it did on the Rogers-Shaw deal, which was to ultimately cave to those big corporate interests. We talk a lot in here, rightly, about corporate-controlled Conservatives, but we should not forget that the Liberals do their fair share of corporate service here in this place. After all, that is the true coalition in Parliament: Liberals and Conservatives serving Canada's corporate sector.

We have a real opportunity here, one of those few and far between moments, when the Conservatives are prepared to do the right thing in opposition. Let us seize the day. With the Rogers-Shaw merger, and the minister likes to say he put conditions on it and everything else, some of the things we would expect to happen did happen.

Somebody from B.C. called me up and said that he had been a Shaw customer. When the merger happened, Rogers sent him a new SIM card, and he had to figure out how to put it in his phone and everything else. He had not done it yet. It took him a couple of months, as household administration sometimes does, and I am sure there are many Canadians listening who are sympathetic to the fact that sometimes it is hard to stay on top of all those things, particularly if there is a technological component one is not familiar with.

What happened is that, with this merger that was not going to have any negative consequences for Canadian consumers, he started getting a bill from Shaw because he had not changed the SIM card yet, and he was getting a bill from Rogers. He was getting two bills from the same company for one cellphone, if members can believe that. Unfortunately, I can because I know what it is like to deal with some of these big telecom companies and other corporate oligopolies, whatever the sector. The fact is that it is very hard to get justice as a consumer.

That has been true for Canadians in respect of the big five banks, and this merger is not going to help. It is going to take a smaller player out of the market that is doing its work to be scrappy and to offer competitive rates. That is not what Canadians need, especially not in a time of economic and financial strain.

What they need is more competition to be able to deliver lower prices and take a bit of that strain off their household budget, just as the government is bringing in new rules to make it easier to transfer one's mortgage. When one's term is up is not the time to take competitors out of the market that are offering lower rates. HSBC is one of those very banks, with its lower offering, that Canadians will be looking to in order to save money in their monthly household budget. Let us make sure those options are there, just as Canadians get the freedom to transfer their mortgage, without having to undergo another stress test.

Carbon Pricing

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that might have been a more credible question if it had not been for the fact that the Conservative Party delayed the implementation of our affordability act, which would bring in more competition on groceries. It is moving forward to stabilize grocery prices and support Canadians through this difficult time.

The Conservatives have also stood against other initiatives we are supporting Canadians with, like dental care for young Canadians and for seniors, which is coming in the coming months. They have stood against supports like our grocery rebate. They have stood against the investments we are busy making to support Canadians right across the country because they stand for austerity and cuts.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition actually cared about Canadians being able to afford their food, the Conservatives would not have dragged their heels on the passage of Bill C-56, which would increase competition in the grocery sector.

Indeed, there are a lot of factors that deliver higher food prices not just for Canadians but for people around the world. One of the key ones is Russia's continued illegal invasion of Ukraine. On this side of the House, we can affirm clearly that we will stand with Ukraine with everything necessary for as long as necessary. As we saw last week, no Conservative politician can say the same in the House.

Finance

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming a bit hard to believe what the opposition leader is saying, because instead of speeding up passage of Bill C‑56 to help Canadians by increasing competition in the grocery sector and others, he has stalled and found ways to slow down the passage of this bill, which is there to help Canadians.

We will continue to be there to help Canadians by investing in the economy and in support for them and by staying on a responsible financial path.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in this most honourable House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East. It is great to see everyone this afternoon. I hope that all my colleagues and their families are doing well on this Tuesday.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate. Rather than indulge in Conservative partisan attacks on the pollution price, let us talk about what matters most to Canadians: making life more affordable and ensuring that Canadian families have good jobs and good futures for themselves and their children. That has been the focus of our government since day one and we will continue to be on that tangent.

As Canadians continue to feel the effects of global inflation, our government understands that it remains difficult for too many families to make ends meet.

We are seeing very strong indications that global inflation is rolling over. We have seen that in Europe where inflation is at 1.8% or so. We have seen that in the United States where some indicators have it down below 3%. We have seen rent inflation in the United States actually roll over to the downside. We have seen that in recent indicators in Canada. I strongly believe, as an economist and someone who worked on Bay Street and Wall Street for many years, although I grew up in small-town Canada, we will see that in the months ahead in Canada. When we look at the price of containers or look at leading indicators of the TRI index and so forth, inflation is rolling over to the downside. That is the way our economy is going. It will be a benefit to all Canadians.

Since 2015, our government has taken many actions to make life more affordable for Canadians who need it most, but we understand that some Canadians still need more support.

That is why, last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced new measures to support Canadians in the 2023 fall economic statement.

Of course, we are undertaking this while continuing to deliver the government's economic plan, and while also making important progress on the government's existing commitments that are helping to make life more affordable across the country.

It is clear that our measures are having a very real impact on Canadians' budgets.

I would like to give a few concrete examples.

A family with two children in British Columbia, with an income of $88,000 in 2023, could benefit from about $17,700 as a result of reduced child care costs, the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit and tax relief from the increased basic personal amount, which we raised to $15,000 in 2023-24. That will provide Canadians $6 billion of tax relief from coast to coast to coast. This is money in the pockets of Canadians.

For my family, my little daughter is at day care. The families that use that day care in the province of Ontario have saved 50%, which literally means up to $8,000 in after-tax dollars, while before-tax dollars it is over $10,000. Going into 2024, they are going to see a further reduction in their day care costs, which means real savings for families across Canada. That, again, will make life more affordable for all Canadians.

In Nova Scotia, low-income students could receive more than $5,800 in additional support in 2023, thanks to increased Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans, the grocery rebate and pollution price rebates, known as the climate action incentive payments.

If students have a disability or dependants, they could receive an additional $12,800 in specialized student grants, plus an extra $640 per dependant and up to $20,000 toward devices that support their learning. After graduating, all their federal student loans will remain interest free. Again, student loans to youth or older folks going to school are interest free, with full repayment assistance available until their income surpasses $40,000 per year.

A 78-year-old senior in Quebec with a maximum GIS entitlement could receive more than $2,000 in additional support in 2023. That is $2,000 in seniors' pockets thanks to the grocery rebate, the GIS top-up increase for single seniors, and the 10% old age security increase for people 75 and up.

However, we know that more needs to be done to support Canadians, especially through these times when global inflation has had an impact on all economies throughout the world. That is why our government has taken further action in the 2023 fall economic statement to support the middle class and build more homes faster.

To help Canadians with mortgages, our government is moving forward with the new Canadian mortgage charter, which details the relief Canadians can expect from their banks if they are in financial difficulty.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, there is an important issue on the supply side. There is simply not enough homes for Canadians. We have known this for years. We know that we need to increase the supply of homes. We have no choice; we need to do it. There are many reasons for this. We are attracting newcomers from all over the world, whether it is in the global high-tech stream, family reunification, express entry or firms putting forward LMIAs.

We are a magnet for talent from all over the world wanting to come to live, work and invest in Canada, which is a foreign concept for the official opposition. Foreign companies wishing to invest in Canada is a great thing. We need to champion it. Literally millions of Canadians work for foreign companies that have invested in Canada, and I cannot believe the official opposition does not like that.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, we need more supply. That is why we are accelerating our work to build more homes faster. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week in the 2023 fall economic statement that we would introduce billions of dollars in new financing to build more homes faster.

To make housing in this country more affordable, we will put forward measures to crack down on short-term rentals. We really want homes to be used for Canadians to live in. We will also take steps to increase the number of construction workers from coast to coast to coast.

I have been talking about housing measures, but cost of living challenges also include basic needs, such as groceries. Obviously, we see that as a major problem, so we are putting forward concrete measures to tackle it.

For example, we are going to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure Canadians have more choice, through competition, in where they take their business. The Competition Tribunal is something I hold dearly. We need to modernize it, and we are. We have done this with Bill C-34 and with other bills, as well as measures in Bill C-56. We need to move forward on that.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but capitalism only exists when there are rules and regulation and competition is encouraged, which fosters innovation, choice and lower prices. The more competition we have, the better our economy functions and better jobs happen. I am a big believer in new processes and new industries being created, and that is what is happening in Canada, whether it is in artificial intelligence, fintech or the many sectors across our beautiful country.

Together with Bill C-56, we will strengthen the tools and powers available to the Competition Bureau to enable it to crack down on abuses of dominance by bigger companies, including those intended to keep out competition, such as predatory pricing. Companies should pay for predatory pricing.

We will further modernize merger reviews, including by empowering the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. This is very important. Canadians deserve better, always—

Canada Labour Code

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on Bill C-56, and I congratulate my colleague for his wonderful intervention. As well, I would like to recognize our labour critics, the members for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie and Hamilton Centre, who have worked actively on this for a number of generations as private citizens and now as members of Parliament. In fact, one member comes from a union background, and the other comes from a union town that has seen its share of scabs get in the way of good collective bargaining agreements and actually undermine workers.

When we talk about workers, these are the families in Canada that have traditionally bonded together in many ways. We can look at the reasons for co-operative movements that have taken place across this country. They were a way for individual collective families to get together to push back on greed, corporate malfeasance and some of the scandals and corruption in the private sector, the business sector and even in the political sector of the day, to ensure that they have the best opportunities to raise their families with dignity. They were also a way to show that there will be an opportunity for everyone to get ahead in this country.

As New Democrats, our predecessor is the CCF, and we have seen this many times in this chamber and looked towards trying to get anti-scab legislation passed.

The definition of a scab worker is a person who is hired after notice to bargain, including managers, employees or another employer, a contractor who is not already employed by the company; those already working can continue with any change to their responsibilities and are bargaining unit employees. They would be the people who would be a real problem with regard to the economic empowerment of citizens, and this is the working class.

We have to look back in history to see why the working class got together through the industrialization of not only Canada but also the globe. The fact is that they were taken advantage of in many ways. Workers are taken advantage of to this day. Over 1,000 Canadian workers per year die going to work.

The issues over labour have always been put on the back burner. I come from Windsor, Ontario, where we have had the Ford strike and a number of important issues that have taken place, such as the creation of the Rand formula. As well, other labour ingenuities that involve the environment came about because of the exploitation of workers. My own family has paid a high price by getting a number of industrial diseases, because it was okay for the workers to be exposed to asbestos, other chemicals or oil. There was no proper WHIMIS training or ventilation, and dangerous materials were not disposed of in the proper way. To this day, we still have some places that do not follow best practices.

We are asking for the disrespect for workers, which I have seen, sadly, in this chamber, to stop. I am not surprised that the Conservatives are not going to support this initiative, because it really comes from a grassroots base to understand that families collectively want to get together to push back against those who are in power and speak truth to power.

I have been in this chamber many times when the Liberals have actually even voted workers back to work, whether it be the postal workers or at the port of Montreal. These are all debates we have had where, basically, negotiations were actually active and going on, but members of the Liberal government brought in recommendations and closure to those strikes while the free market was trying to figure out what was going to happen next. However, it is good to see that they are going to come around on this.

We see in Quebec and British Columbia that there are models of this initiative, as well as in other countries across the globe. It is going to empower and strengthen collective bargaining for a real resolution.

This is important, because it also affects the public purse. The interesting aspect of this that the Conservatives still do not understand is that collective bargaining actually brings wealth to the working class, the business class and the small business class across this country. When they collectively work together to bring in those corporate responsibilities for a cleaner, safer workplace, as well as better pensions and wages, small businesses boom with that type of response. These are the workers with the least amount of disposable income, but they spend it in their neighbourhoods and communities. They spend to send their kids to school or to invest in their pension later on, which takes pressure off the public purse, because the proper financing is done at that time. This is what the Conservatives do not understand, which is hard to believe. However, it is a simple element that is so consistent with the values of being Canadian, and it would make sure that our lives would get better day by day if we could get this done.

Getting that done means supporting workers who have decided to take a stand against poor conditions in the workplace or a stand when their wages have been out of sync with the profits of the companies.

Most recently, we have seen this collective bargaining bring enhancements to the country as a whole. I congratulate them. We have Unifor most recently and Dave Cassidy and Emile Nabbout. Also, a series of negotiations have taken place that actually bring stability to the workplace because they have been able to get better pensions, benefits and wages at a time when the companies that they represent are making record profits. It has not been easy for them at all, and that is one of the things that is important: that the workers collectively go and negotiate and elect their representatives who have to prove themselves time and time again.

I think of one of my mentors, Brian Hogan, a former Windsor and District Labour Council president and good friend; and Gary Parent, Ken Lewenza and others. There are so many of these people in Windsor whom we could stand on the shoulders of in terms of labour. Most recently we had the Charles Brooks Award representing labour and progressions. Tony Sisti was recommended this year. In the past, it has been people like Rolly Marentette, who fought for workers' health and safety. It goes on and on because their strength in being able to collectively bargain for these benefits is critical; not only for themselves in the private sector unions but also in the public sector unions.

On top of that, it also empowers and lifts up other workers who do not have a collective agreement. That is one of the things that gets missed, and why having scabs undermine those negotiations not only creates conflict, but it pits neighbours against neighbours. People can even be shipped in, which I have seen in the past. I have seen horrible things take place on the picket line, where people have been hit or run over and others have been forced, beaten up or abused. All those things have taken place and that is a bad way to run a community and a bad way to create social strife. When the benefit of the actual agreement takes place, it is often passed on to other workplaces.

More important, for that direct workplace, I can say it had an impact on the families of management because management often got the reflective package of the workers, especially when it came to pensions and benefits. That is one thing that is not really discussed a lot: the white-collar part of a workforce that is not unionized can often benefit when it comes to the collective agreement and the improvements on it.

I look at the Ford-Nemak situation when, thank goodness, John D'Agnolo and the crew at local 200 fought like heck and were on the streets. All of us were, because Nemak at that time received money by Navdeep Bains, the former industry minister, in the province of Ontario, and they got money for a transmission innovation to research. Then, as soon as Nemak, a Mexican company, did that research and built the product, it shipped out to Mexico. Therefore, the workers with their collective agreement were able to sue. Despite the government turning its back on them for so many months and leaving it to the courts and leaving the workers out to dry, we had a number of pickets on line and rallies. On top of that, they went to court and John and the rest of the local 200 people were heroes. Those workers, because of our weak, lax labour standards, had already taken pay cuts just to hang onto their jobs. How insulting it was that taxpayers funded the innovation that went to Mexico and the workers could not follow with their jobs. They did not want to go, they were not invited and it should not have been necessary. That plant is idle today because of that.

As I wrap up, there are so many people we could actually acknowledge with regard to this fight. We have to get it through committee rather quickly because time is of the essence.

I will conclude with this again: This legislation is supportive not only for those men and women who are actually on the line; it benefits every other person in the workforce for public safety, security for themselves, health for their families and wages that need to be reflected in the free market economy that obviously needs correction from time to time by the workers who actually make the money.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I even have an idea for her. Christmas is coming. If she is so concerned about affordability, she can give Canadians a gift by voting in favour of Bill C‑56.

Why? With this bill, we are going to reform competition. This is a reform that has been needed for the past 30 years. We are going to have fewer mergers, more competition and better prices.

My colleague should convince all of her colleagues to pass this bill as soon as possible to help Canadians before Christmas.

Grocery Industry

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we have the NDP's support on Bill C-56. As we know, there are competition measures in it that would hold grocery chains to account.

On the question of housing, the more we build, the more we ensure that costs come down. I have good news for the member. Right across the country, we see residential construction up. In Manitoba, it is up 34%; in Saskatchewan, 25%; in New Brunswick, 23%; in Alberta, 11%; in Newfoundland, 10%; in Quebec, 9%; and in my province of Ontario, 7%.

It is working. We have a plan. We are going to get it done, as I said.

Points of Order

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, I gave a speech when we were talking about Bill C-56.

After doing so, I received the Hansard emails and there was one word that I caught off the top, so I tried to correct it using the draft blues. The draft blues had an error message. I tried another device and got the same error message. I called the blues; nobody answered, so I left a voice mail. I called the emergency number; nobody answered, so I left a voice mail.

All that being said, I am told it is too late. It does change the meaning when the interpreter mishears a word, for example, “hole” instead of “hold”. I was talking about a black hole. That really does make a difference. It is rocket science, as I understand, and that is why I want to get it right.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments that my colleague from North Island—Powell River just made on how the grocery chains have made it harder for people to eat healthy food. This morning, there was a meeting of parliamentarians, senators and stakeholders on anti-poverty, and when I say “parliamentarians”, I mean all but the Conservatives. They came together to talk about the intersection of health, housing, food security and disability. The urgency that I heard in that room is not being expressed by the Liberal government in the House. This follows up on the idea that the fall economic statement was a real disappointment for many of those groups. It was certainly a disappointment for the disability community.

It was the expectation of the community, the NDP and other members in the House, that the Canada disability benefit would at least get a mention in the fall economic statement, and it did not. I am here to say that that is not acceptable. As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby said earlier tonight, New Democrats expect to see some movement on the Canada disability benefit right away. People are suffering, and not just at the grocery store, but also when it comes to housing, which is the next thing I want to talk about.

When we talk about the housing and grocery affordability act, we have to acknowledge that people are losing their housing every single day in this country. We are losing affordable housing at a rate of 15 to one. It was mentioned earlier that seniors are being renovicted today. As we have the debates today, seniors are getting notice of above-guideline rent increases. Their rents are going up 30%, 40% and 50%. They cannot afford it and are out on the street.

I am getting phone calls at my office from residents who have lived in the same units in my community for 20, 30 and sometimes 35 years, and they are being renovicted. They are in their seventies, and they have nowhere to go. Their safety net is their community, and they have nowhere to live because of, as one of my colleagues said earlier today, the financialization of housing. I blame the Liberals and the Conservatives before them for not protecting people's right to housing and allowing large corporations to buy up affordable housing and not replace it.

As has been said earlier today, the NDP is supporting Bill C-56. This is a move toward affordability in the areas of food and housing, but, at the same time, there is so much more to do. I think about the fact that purpose-built rentals in this country have not been invested in for decades.

I can talk specifically about what happened in Coquitlam. I was a city councillor at the time, and an application came forward for a purpose-built rental building. The Liberals at the time, in 2015, had promised a GST exemption on purpose-built rentals. A company came forward in good faith to build purpose-built rentals. It was expecting relief on the GST and was going to pass it down to renters. The company was excited to do that work in my community to make housing affordable for frontline workers, whether they were nurses, firefighters or people who worked in grocery stores. It was excited to do that work, only to be disappointed with the Liberal government not following through on its promise of a GST rebate.

The Liberals, at that point, decided to go with their corporate buddies who were asking them to please give them low-interest loans instead. The commercial loan interest rates were so low, but still the Liberal government decided to follow up with their corporate buddies and give them low-interest loans. That would contribute to the loss of 15 affordable units to every one that was built.

I cannot express my disappointment enough that the Liberal government waited eight years to bring this GST rebate forward. I am happy we have it. The Liberals have at least moved the needle a tiny bit, but they really need to start taking this seriously because, as I said, people have lost their homes today.

I want to note the infrastructure gap, which is so wide. We are talking about the small movement on groceries and the Competition Act, which we are happy about, and we are happy about housing, although there is so much more to do. I want to speak about infrastructure because mayors and councillors were in town all of this week talking about the massive infrastructure gap, and my colleague from Nunavut was talking about the exorbitant infrastructure gap in northern Canada, in Nunavut, and the housing crisis going on there. The federal government has walked away from almost $8 billion in funding for indigenous communities and infrastructure. That is totally unacceptable, and we expect to see that rectified in the spring budget, that is for sure. We cannot continue to not invest in infrastructure and we cannot continue down this path of abusing human rights in this country.

I am going to zip my speech up, but I want to make sure that I talk about transit. When we talk about affordability, we need to talk about public transit. The mayors out in my area of British Columbia have been talking about the fact that they expect the federal government to be involved in funding public transit. If we are going to make these investments in housing, which are desperately needed, if we are going to make these investments in accessibility, which are desperately needed, and if we are going to really get serious about reducing emissions in this country, we need to invest in public transit. The mayors out in British Columbia are asking for that, and I am expecting the infrastructure minister will come forward with the public transit funding that has been promised. We cannot wait until 2026 to get transit funding. We need to change behaviour now. We cannot wait.

I want to close out by talking about the member for Burnaby South, who has a bill on the floor, Bill C-352, that also addresses the Competition Act. NDP members are so proud of this bill and of the fact that we are finally in this country going to force the government to get serious about the Competition Act. We know that Canadians right now have the highest cellphone bills and the highest Internet bills. We are now looking at conglomerations of the largest banks, which already charge too much in consumer charges. We need to stop this conglomeration of the largest corporations in this country and give some power back to consumers.

I am looking forward to the passing of Bill C-56. I am also looking forward to the passing of Bill C-352.

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑56 touches on housing. It is a priority, actually.

I said it earlier, when my colleague made his speech. It will be difficult to build millions of homes. That has never been done in Canada. We have to find ways to rise to the challenge. We talked about an acquisition fund, which could be an interesting tool.

The elephant in the room when it comes to the housing crisis is the financialization of housing. Big real estate empires are buying up the housing stock. In Montreal alone, it is estimated that less than 1% of owners own a third of the rental stock. That is outrageous. We need to do something about these people who buy up buildings with 60, 80 or 100 units, either to demolish them or renovate them. They double the price and it becomes very problematic.

I am certain it is the same in Toronto and Vancouver. Ottawa needs to tackle this. Could my colleague speak to that? I imagine that the NDP has been thinking about these issues. Do they have any ideas about how to deal with this?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

I am here today to talk about the affordability act. We know that right now Canadians across the country are facing a huge financial challenge. It has been a hard period of time. We lived through the pandemic and then we moved on to a high inflation reality. Things are just starting to cost more and more.

One of the things this bill does is remove GST for builds of rental housing. In my riding, these are the average rents in just a few of my communities: in Campbell River, it is over $1,500; in Powell River it is close to $1,500; and then in Comox, it is a whopping $1,849. Those are just the average rents. If someone lives on a fixed income or has a low income, it is just a huge challenge to pay for the things they desperately need.

I am the spokesperson for seniors in my party. Just last week, a 77-year-old gentleman walk into my office, almost an octogenarian. He shared with me that he has been living in the same location for 40 years. It recently was purchased and he is going to be renovicted. That is appalling. He needs to have a stable home to age in. I think we all know that we cannot just build houses by yelling out abracadabra and there will be a house. They do not just build themselves. Although I support this movement, we know from what we are seeing done by the government that the Liberals are just continuing to delay the process. That means that housing will be delayed up to seven years or more.

This is a crisis point. The urgency in the communities that I serve is profound. They need to see money on the ground, supports for municipalities and regional districts, to get that money out the door in the most efficient way possible.

I read an article yesterday from Oxfam. It talked about how the richest people in the world are emitting as much as the bottom 66% of income earners on the planet. Now, I love a French rosé, but when I look at what I see happening with the ultrarich, I swear they are bathing in it. They are bathing in it at the expense of everyday Canadians, who desperately need this support. What we have not seen from the government, or from Conservative governments in the past, is a willingness to actually say to the ultrawealthy that they have to pay their fair share. In my riding, people are paying their fair share. They pay their taxes. They work hard every day and they are being punished for doing that when the ultrawealthy are getting away with bigger and bigger profits.

We know the reality is that Canada has the lowest tax rate for corporations, at 15%. Ultrawealthy corporations in this country like oil and gas have seen an increase to their profits in the last year or so that is higher than the 30 years previous. We cannot say that it is just inflation, when we can see how much they are taking home of profit after inflation is accounted for.

We know that grocery stores are making more profit now than they were prior to the pandemic. That again is adjusting for inflation. Even with those extra costs, they are still making a huge amount of money and their profits are popping like popcorn everywhere. They cannot justify that when the very basics are not affordable for most Canadians. I think that it is time that we start to address these issues and take them seriously because, really, we need to build a more fair society.

I talk a lot in this place about having a bar of dignity that no one falls below. What we are seeing in this country is more and more people falling below that. I think of people with fixed incomes, people who are single parents; people who are working; and two people with decent jobs who are living out of an RV because they cannot afford even a simple apartment to live in because of how high the cost of living has become.

The other thing I am hearing from my constituents again and again is that they can hardly afford the cost of food. In my riding, there are a lot of small farms that are doing everything they can to grow food in our area and provide as reasonable a cost as they can, because they really believe in food security. I want to thank them. They do that because of what they believe in. It makes a huge difference. We also know that grocery stores are making a huge amount of profit, and they are getting away with it.

I am really relieved that the Liberals have finally listened to our leader, the member for Burnaby South, about making sure that the Competition Bureau has more teeth to crack down on price gouging. It is as though they were looking through the windshield and, suddenly, the windshield wiper moved all the dirt out of the way, and they can now see clearly that they need to do the right thing. I am grateful that they are finally listening to us, and I cannot wait to see this done.

Many Canadians are trying to buy the basic necessities of food to feed their families. We are seeing so many children whose parents care about them desperately, but they do not have enough to send them to school with a good lunch or make sure they have a good breakfast. That is shameful in this country. If we have a Competition Bureau that can do its job, it is going to make the biggest difference; it is about time.

Without having a strong Competition Bureau, having processes where grocery stores can be held to account, we are censuring consumers. We are telling consumers that we will not put anything in place. We had the Liberal government call grocery CEOs and ask them to stabilize prices because they are upsetting people. That is not putting teeth in and telling them this is serious, because our people in this country matter. They matter more than grocery stores bringing home a huge amount of profit.

I am glad the changes that the NDP has made for Bill C-56 will actually help everyday Canadians. It is not as far as we would go. There are a lot of things we would definitely have in the bill, but we got something in there that is going to make a difference.

I have been watching this place for many years, before I even got here in 2015. Sometimes I feel like I am experiencing déjà vu, because what I see happen again and again is the continued betrayal of small businesses by both Conservative and Liberal governments. I know that, in my riding, small businesses make the difference. They are the ones that stand up every day and look after our community. They care about the people they employ, and they work hard to better our communities.

During the pandemic, it was terrifying. I have to say that my community did an amazing job of supporting local businesses the best it could. Community members talked to one another. We talked to communities. We made sure that people were taken care of the best they could be. When that struggle was still there, we fought like heck to have a good loan that was helping people get through that time. The CEBA loan was created.

Now we are in a situation where the government is refusing to listen to these small business owners and make something work for them so that they do not lose their businesses. It was really sad for me to see nothing to deal with this in the financial update. I would have loved to see this in the bill, because small businesses work hard.

I was talking to a business owner in my riding, who said that rural communities have particular challenges, both with the pandemic and then later on with inflation, as well as waiting for more people to come to our small communities for tourism. They are struggling the most. To see the government not take that important connection seriously and to see it really betray those small businesses has been very concerning to me.

I will wrap up, but I just want to say that, in this House, we all have to work collectively to make sure that life is more affordable for Canadians. They deserve it, and it is really our job to maintain a bar of dignity that no one falls below. In this country right now, too many are falling; we need to do better by them.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Bill C‑56 amends the Competition Act. This should have been done at least 20 years ago. If we look at what was happening in 1986, we see that there were 13 major players. As my colleague said, now there are only three. That number goes up to five if we include the two big American retailers that sell groceries, Walmart and Costco. These five companies form an oligopoly that controls 80% of the market. The Governor of the Bank of Canada told the Standing Committee on Finance that the problem is that there is no competition in that market because they are able to pass on 100% of the increase in input costs to consumers without reducing their profits. The competition is not working.

Bill C‑56, when implemented, will prevent further issues in the long run, but it will not automatically restore a competitive market ecosystem in the food sector. Major challenges will remain. There is still a lot to do. Reducing food inflation requires many micro-interventions involving farmers, primary processors, and so on. It is a complex challenge, but there is certainly room for intervention in terms of large retailers that constitute an oligopoly. Bill C‑56 is a step in the right direction, but it is not the only solution.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see that the House will have to once again sit until midnight to discuss this bill. Why? Because this government chose to impose a super closure motion. We think that this approach, the muzzling of parliamentarians, makes a mockery of democracy. Everyone here was elected by the people in our ridings, and this government should give more weight to our voices. This just shows how much respect the Liberals have for our democratic institutions.

An even more serious problem with this super closure motion is the short period of time allocated to study the bill in committee. Only two evenings are allocated, and that is it. Even though my party supports the principle of the bill, we think it is essential to study it in depth in committee. However, this super closure motion forces us to skip over the study in committee. It would therefore not be surprising if there are still problems with the bill after it is studied in committee, and that is really disappointing.

Let me give an example. The first part of the bill exempts rental property construction from the GST. It applies as of September 14. If the bill becomes law, construction projects undertaken on or after September 14 will be able to benefit from the measure. However, the bill does not say what constitutes the start of the project. Is it when the first shovel hits the ground? Is it when the first payment is made for the plans? Is it when the land is purchased? If the building has a dual purpose, what constitutes the beginning? We have no idea, because the bill does not define these concepts.

Let us use a concrete example to illustrate the uncertainty this creates for businesses. A company is planning to build a rental property. The ground floor will be occupied by commercial premises, so not part of the project, but all the upper floors will be used for rental housing. On September 14, work had not yet started on any of the rental housing floors, but work had begun on the ground floor. I repeat, the ground floor will be used for commercial purposes, so it is not a part of the rental project. The company does not know whether it will be entitled to benefit from the measure for the upper floors because of the date and the lack of definition in the bill. We also know that with skyrocketing construction costs, high interest rates and a shortage of skilled labour, developing a housing project is complex, and not having clear information from the government about its bill does nothing to help the company in its current choices. The fog caused by this bill, which was drafted too quickly, is creating uncertainty for businesses.

Will we be able to clarify the situation in committee in just two evenings? There are no guarantees. We will work on it, but I would like to remind the House that it would have been really important not to shut down the committee's work in this way.

As members know, Bill C‑56 has two parts. The first part provides a GST rebate to the builder of a rental housing building. The rebate will be given during the sale or pending sale if the builder becomes an owner.

The rebate does not apply when the buyer is already totally exempt, as in the case of a government agency or a municipality, or partially exempt, as in the case of a not‑for‑profit organization or a housing co‑operative. Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects. It only pertains to private housing.

In practice, the rental housing builder will bill the GST to the government instead of to the buyer at the time of sale. To qualify for the rebate, the building will have had to have been under construction between September 14, 2023, and December 31, 2030, and the project will have to be completed before December 31, 2035.

However, the bill does not include any details on the type of building or housing nor does it specify any affordability requirements to qualify for the rebate. Instead, the bill gives the government the power to clarify these issues through regulations. We are seeing the government gloss over its bills by giving too much power to the minister, who will be able to complete the bill with his own regulations once it has been implemented. That is not an approach that we appreciate.

It would be hard to impose affordability criteria on builders because they do not own buildings once they are built. However, it is possible to make the buyer pay the GST after the fact if the units are rented at exorbitant prices. These are the kinds of amendments and clarifications the committee should look at, but will it have time?

I would also point out that, in our view, it would have been possible to do more to promote the construction of housing, particularly social housing, by allocating the same amount, but implementing other measures. Obviously, we are debating what the government is proposing, and that is what we will be voting on, but we will continue to make suggestions, just in case it decides to listen.

The second part of the bill makes three amendments to the Competition Act.

The first amendment gives the commissioner of competition real power. Right now, when the Competition Bureau examines the competitive environment of a given sector, it cannot compel anyone to testify or order the production of documents. It will be able to do so under Bill C-56. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for that change for 20-odd years.

The second amendment broadens the scope of anti-competitive practices prohibited by the act. Right now, the act prohibits agreements between competitors to remove a player from the market. With this bill, it will also be prohibited to reach an agreement with someone who is not a competitor in order to reduce competition. Let me give an example. When a grocery store rents a space in a mall, it is standard practice for the contract to contain clauses prohibiting the landlord from renting a space to another grocery store. This type of practice, which limits competition, will now be prohibited under Bill C-56. We applaud that measure.

The third amendment will make mergers and acquisitions more difficult. Currently, when a company wants to buy a competitor, the Competition Act states that the Competition Bureau will allow it if it can be demonstrated that the takeover will result in efficiency gains, even if the merger shrinks competition. This provision, which favours concentration and is unique in the industrialized world, is repealed in Bill C-56. We have also been calling for this change for a long time, and the member for Terrebonne has been particularly keen to see it.

We strongly support the principle of this second part and even feel it is long overdue. We have been asking for these changes for years, decades even.

We understand that, thanks to the government's super closure motion, Bill C-56 is going to be amended. Government Business No. 30 authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance to broaden the scope of the bill to make three amendments.

The first change is an increase in fines. It is taken directly from Bill C-352, which was introduced by the leader of the NDP and amends the Competition Act. Many of its provisions would become obsolete because of Bill C‑56. The other two changes have to do with abuse of dominance and investigating powers when the Competition Bureau conducts a market study. Subject to the wording of the amendments to be submitted in committee, these changes have no real effect. They were probably added to the motion to please the party that is supporting the closure motion, but the changes will have no real effect.

Let us come back to the first change, which is to “increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum)”. As I was saying, that is taken from Bill C‑352.

Currently, in addition to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years for executives who commit an offence under the Act, the bureau and the tribunal can impose a maximum fine of $5 million on the offending company. The motion proposes increasing the maximum fine to $25 million, and to $35 million for repeat offenders. In the case of a large company, the maximum penalty could be even higher, up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the practice.

We know that the NDP bill went even further and specified the following: “if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 10% of the person's annual worldwide gross revenues”. Clearly, the government was not prepared to go that far. It is a good change. The maximum fine of $5 million could be seen as the cost of doing business. The revised amounts are designed to have a real deterrent effect. That makes the Canadian legislation comparable to the U.S. and European laws.

The second amendment is “allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced”. The Competition Bureau has significant power. It can compel witnesses to appear, demand documents and request searches if necessary. However, these powers are available to the bureau only when it is investigating a clear infringement following a formal disclosure. The investigation then becomes quasi-criminal.

However, when the bureau is conducting a study to determine whether competition is working properly in a given field or market, it has no such powers. For example, in its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June 2023, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. They refused to hand over the documents it had requested and refused to answer some of its questions. Bill C-56 solves that problem and gives the Competition Bureau investigative powers when it is conducting a market study.

The NDP's Bill C-352 did basically the same thing. Government Business No. 30 proposes a technical amendment to the manner in which the bureau can initiate a market study, but it does not really do much to change the current practice. This aspect was likely only added to the motion to please the NDP, but it really does not do anything.

It is the same thing for the third amendment, which proposes to “revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market”.

Currently, a company that monopolizes a significant share of the market cannot take advantage of its dominant position to limit competition, for example, by preventing a supplier from working with a competitor. The existing act prohibits several of these kinds of practices, which effectively limit competition, prevent it from working properly or make it virtually impossible for a new player to enter the market. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping a company from taking advantage of a lack of competition to sell products at excessive prices. If, for example, a grocer enjoys a monopoly in a given region, there is nothing to stop that grocer from taking advantage of the monopoly to gouge consumers by charging exorbitant prices.

Bill C‑352 addressed this loophole. A whole range of anti-competitive practices were already prohibited, and it added a new one: “directly or indirectly imposing excessive and unfair selling prices”. It was a good measure, but clearly the government did not want to move in that direction. To please the NDP and hide the fact that it has given up on defending consumers against the major players, the government's motion adds a procedural amendment to Bill C‑56 to give the tribunal the power to prevent an anti-competitive practice that the current law already prohibits anyway. Again, it is nothing but hot air.

The day before yesterday, the Minister of Finance tabled the fall economic statement. As we all know, an economic statement is not quite as big a deal as a budget. It usually includes measures the government intends to take to deal with emergencies that have arisen since the budget was tabled.

There are emergencies aplenty, including the housing crisis, homelessness, the media, the rising cost of living, the small business emergency account deadline, seniors' buying power and scandalous oil industry subsidies, not to mention EI reform, the plight of seasonal forestry workers following the summer's forest fires, support for culture, support for the market garden and horticulture sectors following the summer's floods, and the funding that was promised for school breakfasts but has not yet been delivered, to name but a few.

However, the only emergency mentioned in the economic statement has to do with housing. Ottawa does need to do a lot more for housing, especially social housing. Unfortunately, the government's response is nothing more than what has already been announced in Bill C‑56. In fact, the rest will not be delivered until after the next election, and only if the Liberals are re-elected. Responding to the urgency of the housing crisis with election promises that are two years or more away is simply unacceptable, especially when we know that once the money is available, it takes two to three years before it is actually flows. It is like the $900 million that was finally announced for Quebec this fall, but that had been budgeted two years earlier.

We in the Bloc Québécois had proposed an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations, as well as an interest-free or very low-interest loan program, to stimulate the construction of affordable social rental housing, while waiting for a comprehensive policy in the next budget.

Still on the subject of housing, I would like to point out that the minister brought forward a good measure concerning Airbnbs, which will have to comply with municipal rules, or else the people and businesses that manage them will no longer have access to federal tax deductions for their operations. It remains to be seen whether the Canada Revenue Agency will be able to properly apply this new constraint.

One not so good measure is the creation of a new department that specializes in interference: the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. The purpose of that department is to impose its conditions on Quebec, the provinces and the municipalities. If they do not abide by the interference, Ottawa will cut their transfers. The Liberals come here to steal the only bill that the Conservatives introduced, their plan to build more housing, by threatening the provinces and municipalities with cutting their infrastructure funding. I should note that it was the Conservative leader himself who introduced Bill C‑356 in the House.

With this bill, Ottawa would impose an obligation to increase housing starts by 15% compared to the previous year on all municipalities where the cost of housing is high, and that list is growing longer and longer. If the housing starts in municipalities do not increase as required by Ottawa, the Conservative leader would cut their gas tax and public transit transfers by by 1% for each percentage point shortfall under the target that he unilaterally set.

For example, housing starts in Quebec dropped by 60% this year rather than increasing by 15%, largely because of rising interest rates. If the Conservatives' bill were already in force, this would mean a roughly 75% reduction in transfer payments to the Quebec government. This is a really dangerous and unfair bill that centralizes power in Ottawa. The fact that the Minister of Finance is making use of the principle of that bill is a major offensive action in terms of centralization of power. We will have detailed numbers shortly.

I would like to say a few more words about the new department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This announcement essentially creates a federal department of municipal affairs. Since municipal affairs fall under provincial jurisdiction, this is nothing less than a department of interference, which is threatening to cut transfers, exactly as the Conservatives are hoping for and proposing in their bill.

Here are a few more details about this new department. It is worth noting that Trudeau senior's government tried to do much the same thing. In 1971, it created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. A Library of Parliament research document states that, “[g]iven the inescapable constitutional limitations, the ministry had no program responsibilities”. Faced with a lack of co-operation from the provinces, this attempt from Trudeau senior's government to interfere in municipal affairs ended in failure. The research document also states that “[i]n view of the Ministry's lack of credibility and the government's desire to cut expenditures, the [Ministry of State for Urban Affairs] was abolished on 31 March 1979”.

In the coming years, we will see whether Quebec and the provinces will once again be capable of defending their jurisdiction against this new department. This is the same story a generation later, so I would like to quote a philosopher: “All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce”. I believe that is what we are witnessing now.

In closing, let me reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑56 because it contains a few good measures and nothing that is downright harmful. However, Bill C‑56 is but a drop in an ocean of need. On housing, there is no indication that the bill will help lower the cost of rent. If nothing is done to correct this problem, we are headed for a major national tragedy. We need three times more rental housing in new construction to stop the housing crisis from getting worse. If Bill C‑56 did even a little to increase the proportion of rental units in new construction developments, that would be something, but we are light years away from meeting those needs.

The changes to the Competition Act are good, and the Bloc Québécois wholeheartedly supports them. Still, the government's claim that these changes will help lower grocery bills seems like misrepresentation. Removing from the act the section that called for mergers and acquisitions to be allowed if the company could demonstrate efficiencies is a good thing. This section of the Competition Act encourages concentration, which often leads to higher prices.

Since 1996, the vast majority of grocery chains have disappeared and been bought up by competitors. I am talking about companies like Steinberg, A&P and Provigo. IGA was bought by Sobey's, and Adonis by Metro. The same is true in Canada. Think of Woodward's, Commisso's, Safeway, Whole Foods, T&T, Longo's, Farm Boy and so on. Of the 13 chains we used to have, now there are only three, or five if we include Costco and Walmart. They control 80% of the market. It is an oligopoly.

While Bill C‑56 proposes some good measures, it is inconceivable that this is the government's only response to skyrocketing housing and food prices. When it comes to housing, we need to review and improve the failed Canada housing strategy.

Regarding competition, we need to review the concept of abuse of dominance to prevent the big players from taking advantage of their disproportionate share of the market to increase prices will, for lack of competition, or to abuse farmers and processors, whom they are holding hostage. These two things need to be done, whether or not Bill C‑56 is passed.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not easy.

I tried to keep up, but it was very difficult, because the member's speech was all over the map. I will try to narrow the focus, because—I just have to say it—I am very professional. We are talking about Bill C-56, so I will talk about Bill C-56. If we were talking about something else, I would talk about that.

Let us get back to Bill C-56 and take a look back at the Conservative opposition day on April 28, when the Conservatives announced that they wanted to penalize municipalities that were not building enough housing. I would like to come back to the importance of municipal politics. Municipalities know their area and the needs of their population. They provide services directly, and they are the ones that manage the living environments in their neighbourhoods.

When I hear the Conservatives say that municipalities and cities are the ones delaying the process, what message does that send? We are led to believe that they might want the municipalities to dodge public consultations so that real estate developers can take over. I would like to know what the member thinks about that, although I admit that I do not expect to get a real answer to my question.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents in the food-producing riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Normally, Canadians would have to first elect a Conservative government before they could receive Conservative legislation. After eight years, it is possible that the gravity of the financial hold the Liberal-NDP government has plunged us into is warping space and time. The other possibility is that a desperate Prime Minister, down in the polls, will steal any idea he can to save his tired, worn-out, socialist coalition. It might be a tired cliché, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Bill C-56 might just be a Liberal love letter to the Conservative Party. The Liberals think that if they can walk like Conservatives and talk like Conservatives, maybe they will poll like Conservatives.

The bill is what the Internet likes to call “copypasta”, which refers to any text-based meme copied and shared on the Internet, what people born in the last century used to call “quotes”. The bill copies and pastes text from the member for Bay of Quinte's private member's bill on competition reform into the legislation before us. The bill also copies and pastes the policy of the leader of His Majesty's official opposition to eliminate GST on purpose-built rental housing.

Nonetheless, even when the NDP-Liberal government takes a break from bankrupting the country to pass Conservative legislation, it does so in the most deceptive way possible. It is calling the legislation the “affordable housing and groceries act”. Back in the days when Canada had a strong, stable economy and a strong, stable Conservative prime minister, the Liberals used to complain constantly about our approach to naming legislation with obvious political messaging. The Liberal member for Winnipeg North rose 22 times to complain about the presence of a single word in a short title. Since we are debating copypasta legislation, I am just going to borrow four sentences from the member for Winnipeg North when he sat on this side of the House. He said:

One of the biggest issues I have with the [Liberal] government is the type of propaganda and political spin it puts on the legislation it brings to the House of Commons. We see this yet again with Bill [C-56]. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister are trying to give the impression that if we pass this legislation there will be [affordable groceries]. If the [Liberals] were honest with Canadians, which is a rarity with the government, they would acknowledge that achieving [affordable groceries] is not as easy as just saying it in the title of a bill and then having [338] members of Parliament voting in favour of the legislation.

The actual bill the member for Winnipeg North was referring to was the Drug-Free Prisons Act. The bill specifically addressed the issue of drugs in our prisons. He said that the Conservative government was trying to give the impression that passing this would mean prisons were drug-free. Any reasonable Canadian could look at the bill and say, “Yes, the Conservative government wants prisons to be drug-free.” It was not called the “100% drug-free prisons act”. It was not called the “totally drug-free prisons act”. It was just the Drug-Free Prisons Act, yet that was enough for the Liberals to accuse us of misleading Canadians.

The hypocrisy of the Liberal Party truly knows no limits. For Liberals to call the legislation before us the “affordable housing and groceries act” is a slap in the face to every single Canadian struggling with the cost of living. Canadians are struggling to afford food, and the Liberal government is trying to gaslight them into thinking the legislation would somehow undo the grocery cartels, but the bill would address only threats to competition from mergers going forward. That would be an important change to make in a country that suffers from a lack of competition in banking, transportation and telecommunications, which are, not coincidentally, all federally regulated industries. The NDP-Liberal government knows the legislation would have zero impact on food prices, yet it calls it the “affordable housing and groceries act”. That is pure propaganda, and it is insulting.

However, Canadians are not stupid. They can clearly see the NDP-Liberal government's real grocery policy is higher prices. Every Canadian knows this is the official policy of the Liberal Party: to increase the cost of energy. It is Liberal policy to increase prices on everything made using energy, everything shipped using energy and everything grown using energy.

That is the purpose of the carbon tax. That is the purpose of the costly fuel regulations. That is the purpose of the blackout electricity regulations. Together, these policies represent a triple threat to affordable food prices—

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke and I look forward to hearing her speech.

It was October 5. What is so special about that date? That is the last time we debated Bill C‑56. It was October 5.

At the time, I was prepared to deliver a speech to share my comments and my position on Bill C‑56. Since October 5, this government, and only this government, is responsible for the fact that Bill C‑56 still has not been adopted.

Now it is urgent. That is what the minister said. She said today that time is of the essence and her government was going to get the bill passed following a motion to muzzle the opposition once again, to limit the speaking time of members when we are at a very critical time in our economy.

People across the country are suffering. The cost of living is high. Inflation is at a peak. The cost of food is so high that people are using food banks by the millions. There were two million people in just one month, numbers we have never seen in the history of our country.

However, as I was saying, Bill C‑56 could have been debated a long time ago, but the Liberals did not see it as urgent. I have been waiting since October 5. For over 50 days, I have been asking the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons almost every week when we would be debating Bill C‑56 so that we can finally talk about homes, housing and solutions to help Quebeckers and Canadians. It has been radio silence.

The government was in no hurry to pass Bill C‑56. We could have passed this bill at second reading six, five, four or three weeks ago. The bill could have already been sent to committee, but no, they did not put the bill on the agenda. All of a sudden, it is urgent this week.

By doing it this way, the government even prevented its own members from giving voice to the suffering and hardships faced by people in Liberal ridings, but that was not important. There was no hurry.

Quebeckers and Canadians are paying the price for this incompetence every day. We have come to realize that the Liberals are simply incapable of managing the business of the House properly. The only way they can get anything passed is to find a partner and impose a gag order. Apparently it took longer to convince the NDP this time, but they succeeded. There was nothing stopping the government from putting Bill C‑56 on the agenda much sooner.

There is one thing I agree with. Today the minister said that this is urgent, and I think she is right. Half of Canadians say they are living paycheque to paycheque. More and more people are having to find a second job just to get by. The government did nothing for two months and now, as time goes on, it is becoming increasingly urgent because people simply cannot pay the price for Liberal incompetence any longer.

The Liberals' inflationary deficits were back again in this week's mini-budget. Not only did they prove that they cannot do anything about the inflation crisis, the cost of living crisis, but also, they continue to make it even worse. We were horrified to learn that, as of next year, Canada will spend more on the interest payments alone on the national debt than on health transfer payments. Next year, Canada will spend twice as much on interest payments on the national debt as on national defence. That is what we get after eight years of Liberal government incompetence. Nobody else is to blame. The Prime Minister has been in power for eight years. The Liberals have been promising the world and spending recklessly for eight years. Now, because of them, Canadians everywhere cannot make ends meet and are having to resort to food banks.

This is happening in my riding. Last week, the headline on the front page of our local paper, the Courrier Frontenac, read, and I am not making this up, “Requests for food aid skyrocket”. The number of people who have had to use food banks has gone up by 40% in recent months.

The Liberals will say that this is because of the global economic situation and wars. There are all sorts of reasons, but Scotiabank is telling it like it is. The bank calculated that this government's inflationary spending drove interest rates up by 2%. Do members know what 2% can mean for a family with an average house? That is $700 a month. People need wage increases to be able to afford $700 more a month for their mortgage payment, but unfortunately, wages are not keeping up.

How many families will lose their homes because of the Liberals' wilful blindness? Who will pay in the end? It is families, mothers and children.

Before, people in Canada had hope. Every young person had the hope of being able to buy a house one day and of being able to pay it off in 25 years. They had the hope of a decent retirement with a house and, one day, being able to sell that house and have even more time to enjoy life. Today, it takes 25 years to save up for a down payment on a house. I have spoken with so many young people who no longer have any hope that they will be able to find a house and live the Canadian dream, which has basically become a nightmare. Once again, all of this is because of eight years of wilful blindness.

I remember when the Prime Minister asked if we knew why the government was going into debt, that it was to prevent Canadians from going into debt and that we needed to take on the debt so that Canadians would be able to live a good life.

This attitude and this Prime Minister who said that he was not really concerned about monetary policy, that it did not interest him, have created the worst crisis in the history of Canada when it comes to access to housing and land. We are in Canada to boot, a country with a lot of land and places to build. Unfortunately, that dream is shattered. It will take years to fix the mistakes of these Liberals.

The Conservative leader presented a plan to find solutions, or to at least help with the housing crisis. It is a very clear and precise plan. Let me share a few points that would have enabled us to move forward. The government could have put it on the agenda. I am talking about Bill C‑356 from the member for Carleton. The bill called for cutting unnecessary bureaucracy and holding Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation executives to account. It is common sense. We will push cities to speed up construction projects and encourage density to increase construction in cities by 15% a year, reward the good performers and make sure the laggards get moving. Since Bill C‑356 was introduced, cities have started moving. As if by magic, cities have realized they have a role to play, and that is because the Conservative leader has made it clear. He told them they had a role to play. The cities got the message. So much the better, but with Bill C‑356, it would have been even easier and quicker.

This will breathe new life into empty federal offices and free up federal lands for development. That is what the Liberals promised years ago. There has been zero construction, and zero federal buildings have been converted into housing. I believe one development happened on federal lands, but I am not even sure it is done.

The bill does have the GST refund to stimulate the construction of units that cost less than the average.

What Canadians want is efficient, competent, common-sense government. That is what they will get with a Conservative government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been interrupted several times by members opposite, because it does hurt Conservatives. Half of them probably believe in climate change and maybe the other half do not. I am making that assumption based on previous statements and voting records. It must really hurt to be part of a party that does not believe in climate change or a free trade agreement with Ukraine to help support the folks who need the help in Ukraine.

My main point at the end of day is that there is an ideological difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to how we invest in people. Conservatives have a track record of always putting in place the same plan no matter where they are. They could be in a provincial legislature, a school board, a council or in the federal chamber, but it is the exact same formula. They say they are going to cut taxes and then they invest in those who have the most. They place the burden on the people who need the most help and cut programs and services.

We can look at their track record. This is a proven fact. The Harper government is a perfect example. It had a $55-billion deficit in 2010-11, and what did Canadian citizens get? They got nothing, except cuts. This is the track record of the Conservative government and that is why it is important for us, as Liberals on this side of the House, to make sure we continue to support Canadians by making sure bills like Bill C-56 go forward, continue to invest in people and build this country up.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of the good people of Don Valley East and speak to this important bill that really looks at housing. It looks at providing a GST rebate, and it really does speak to making life more affordable for Canadians.

I am proud to be a Liberal. I have always been proud of being a Liberal. I am proud to be a Liberal because I believe that the government can help to make life easier for people, to put in place programs and services that are designed to help people.

There is something I remember when I was back at Carleton University learning about the social contract. It is really the relationship between the state and the citizen. I remember learning a bit about Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke, and the development of the social contract. I believe that there is an obligation of government to put in place different types of services, programs, understandings and agreements that look for ways to better position people. I think that Bill C-56 does exactly this.

This bill will look at ways to build more capacity in the system to build more homes. We know that during the Conservatives' time in power under former prime minister Harper from, I believe, 2009 to 2015, a lot of changes took place in this country when it came to housing. For example, there were 800,000 fewer units of affordable housing. The price of homes from 2009 to 2015 doubled in this country. According to TRREB, the Toronto real estate board in my area, homes went from about $300,000 to $600,000. That was under the Conservative government.

The big question is: What did the Conservative government do to actually look at maintaining affordable prices in the city I represent, Toronto? The answer is simple. The Conservatives did absolutely nothing. On top of that, they ran massive deficits. The Harper government, back in 2009-10, ran a $55-billion deficit that year. In 2011, it was $33 billion. In 2013, it was $18 billion. That amounts to over $100 billion in a six-year period by the Conservative government when it was in power. At the same time, it made massive cuts. It did not invest in affordable housing or housing in general. What it did was to actually make cuts in the system and hurt people.

There is an ideological difference between being a Conservative and being a Liberal in this House. On one side, the Conservatives will make massive cuts and reward the richest and big businesses by giving out subsidies and, at the same time, run massive deficits. The largest deficit to date, during those time periods, was under the government of Stephen Harper.

When we run deficits, it is to invest in people. When we invest in public education, infrastructure, health care, dental care and child care, we are investing in the people of this country, unlike the Conservatives when they are in power. They actually wanted to take things like the retirement age and move it from 65 to 67. They made life harder for people. Under the previous Conservative government, 800,000 affordable units were gone and now Conservatives have the audacity to stand up in this House and say they believe in making these types of investments.

The member for Prince Albert was very clear. I wrote this down as I was here listening. He said that “it is not up to government to build houses.”

On one side we have a government that is making the types of investments that are put back into investing in people, and on the other side we have an opposition that has a track record. Conservatives do have a track record in this House. One just has to look a few years back to see their track record. It is about making cuts to the system.

I have been in this House for two years, and in two years I have seen the Conservatives opposite vote against some really good pieces of legislation that invest in people. Removing the GST from homes is about building more capacity in the system. Investing in dental care for young people is about investing in our future. Investing in child care in this country, which Conservatives for months spoke against, is the best investment. I have always said that, from day one.

The best investment a country can make is to invest in the young people of tomorrow, but the Conservatives have an ideological difference compared to the Liberals on this side. They believe in making cuts to these types of programs. They believe in providing more resources to those who have the most. They do not believe in taking those resources Canadians bring together through that social contract, though that belief system that we can all work together to build a better country. They do not believe in making those types of investments in people.

We provided a grocery rebate. They voted against it. On the $10-a-day child care, they voted against it. Maybe a few of them changed their mind near the end, but throughout the entire discourse, they were ideologically against it. With dental care—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the government's record on housing. I was proud to cut the ribbon for the first affordable and subsidized housing units in the city of St. Catharines in my lifetime.

More work needs to be done, which is why I am excited by the announcements in the fall economic statement. Let us see more purpose-built rentals getting built under Bill C-56. The hon. member can keep yelling, but we are focused on Canadians, and we are going to get more housing built.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is going to be a long night.

I thank my colleague for his speech because it went in all directions, especially at first. If we truly come back to Bill C‑56, the Minister of Finance said that there were studies that prove that Bill C‑56 would lower the cost of rent. My question is on the housing crisis, which has become a national emergency.

After the Bloc Québécois asked officials the question during the briefing for members, the officials said that there were no studies and that they may contact us later. That was on September 21. November 21 just passed and we are still waiting for the studies.

Does the member have any studies on hand proving that Bill C‑56 will lower the cost of rent?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been making a clear point throughout the entirety of my speech and the Conservatives have been trying to shout me down, which they also tried to do to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby because they are embarrassed of their record.

What they should be embarrassed of is their record on housing. I was talking about, before I was interrupted, this mythical 45 minutes during the day which is question period when they pretend to care about Canadians who are struggling with housing, but they come up with a plan that would raise taxes on construction of housing. It would actually cut funding to municipalities. This is their plan.

The member who got up and said that there were Conservatives talking about the bill said that the government has no business in housing. It is shameful, but it shows where the Conservatives are at with respect to this. They talk a big game in question period and deliver nothing. They talk about Mike Harris' common-sense revolution, but we saw what happened during that time. We saw cuts. We saw hospital closures. We saw horrific things that communities are still dealing with to this day in Ontario, and the Conservatives seek to mimic it.

As I said, question period for them is about recycling slogans. There is no seriousness about their effort to fight homelessness and to build more housing. It is absolutely shocking that the Leader of the Opposition would go across the country to say that he is going to get housing built and not have a serious plan to deliver on it.

We have shown, in the fall economic statement, that we have a serious plan through the housing accelerator fund. We have seen announcements across the country, and we are seeing growth in housing starts through Stats Canada. We are seeing the results of this government's plan of action, and we are serious about this issue. The Conservatives are not. They have delayed and obstructed and they are continuing to do it. I do not know how many points of order the Conservatives have risen on during my speech.

The Leader of the Opposition even called co-op housing “Soviet-style” housing. It is absolutely shameful. I have constituents in my riding, and I think they would have constituents in their ridings, who rely on co-op housing as an effective means to get housing built. It is an effective means for affordable housing and a good way to build housing, and the Leader of the Opposition dismisses it. Again, he does not have a plan at all. He does not have a plan on climate change, and he does not have a plan on housing. They get up to talk about a big gain, but offer nothing except obstruction, yelling and heckling, and they are continuing the heckling. It is absolutely shocking.

They talk about food prices, and I genuinely believe them. We hear from our constituents, but the Conservatives have no plan. They talk about the price on pollution, but do not talk about the cost of food with respect to the costs of climate change. They do not talk about Bill C-56, which would enact competition law that would bring forward better regulations on competition and would have impacts. Again, it is just delay and deny. If only the rhetoric of question period, that 45 minutes of the day when the Conservatives pretend to care, could match the reality of the crisis. I wish that were the case. Sadly, it is not.

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

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

I will say that members should be judicious in their discussions here tonight and stick to the debate on Bill C-56 as it is before us. If there were fewer attempts to create a diversion in the House, that would be wonderful.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley East.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-56. This bill, unfortunately, has been delayed by the Conservatives, time after time. We have seen their obstructionist policies throughout this Parliament, but specifically on this bill, which would bring relief to Canadians.

It is interesting to watch. I have been sitting here for a while, listening to speeches. The argument from the Conservatives is that they did not have enough time to debate this piece of legislation. At the same time, when they have gotten up, none of the members have actually talked about the legislation. They have not talked about what is going on. They talk about the carbon tax or whatever else it is they are interested in, except what is going in the bill. It is fascinating.

It is a sign of a sure filibuster that the Conservatives do not want to talk about this, because they know it is beneficial and it would help Canadians. They know it would get housing built, especially in eliminating the GST on purpose-built rentals. We are already seeing the benefits. We are already seeing developers across Canada switching their construction to purpose-built rentals, because they know this is coming. We need to build more housing in this country.

There is this mythical 45 minutes a day during question period when the Conservatives pretend to care about getting housing built and the concerns of Canadians. They churn out slogans and repeat them, repeat them, repeat them, repeat them. Did I do that four times?

Clearly, as they are shouting at me about the carbon tax again, the only environmental plan the Conservatives have is recycling slogans. They are so obsessed with it that they would vote against Ukraine in a time of war, even though Ukraine already has a price on pollution. The Conservatives would abandon Ukraine during war, when Ukraine asked us to pass that legislation.

The Conservatives are yelling about a price on pollution. They are clearly eager about that. It is getting under their skin, because they are hearing from their constituents, who expected the Conservative Party to stand up for the Ukrainian people. They are yelling. They cannot handle it. They cannot take the heat on this file.

The hon. member from Newfoundland cannot handle it, that his constituents expect him to stand up for—

The House resumed from October 5 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.

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just three words to conclude: He should know.

In terms of Bill C-56 and Motion No. 30, the important thing for Conservatives to remember is that, rather than blocking this bill, which is what they have been trying to do, they should be looking to support it. They say they are concerned about affordable housing. Their record shows the contrary; they have a deplorable record on affordable housing. However, if they really believe in ensuring there is more construction in this country of affordable housing, they should be supporting this bill, which, of course, has been inspired and pushed by the NDP. Like many of the other good things that have happened in this Parliament, it is because of the member for Burnaby South and a very dedicated NDP caucus that this is happening.

Canadians should have more consumer protection, and more weight should be given to the Competition Bureau to crack down on the food price gouging we have seen from corporate CEOs, the gas price gouging we have seen from the very profitable oil and gas sector, with profits of over $38 billion last year, and all of the other ways that Canadians are being gouged, like through cellphones and Internet, which Canadians are paying the highest fees in the world for. If the Conservatives truly believe in that, they should be supporting this motion, which would enhance the Competition Bureau and would ensure that Canadians finally get some protection.

For 17 years, Conservatives and Liberals have not protected consumers at all in this country, and the NDP and the member for Burnaby South are standing up and saying that enough is enough. They need to make sure we have protection for consumers in this country. That is what the NDP is fighting for. If Conservatives really believe in all the things they have been saying, they can make up for their past track record, which is absolutely deplorable, and vote for the motion and the bill.

We are not going to stop fighting for Canadians. The 25 members of the NDP caucus have had a huge weight in pushing the government to do the right thing. We are very proud of our record. We expect all members of Parliament to adopt the bill and adopt the motion. Then, of course, we will move on to anti-scab legislation that all members of Parliament should be supporting as well.

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

I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

I will remind folks that we are speaking to a specific motion, Government Business No. 30, on Bill C-56. I want to make sure we all do that.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on Bill C-56 and on Motion No. 30. I think that these are important initiatives that the NDP has brought forward.

I want to start off my speech by expressing my disappointment in the fall economic statement. There are two things that I believe need to be highlighted.

First off, and this is something that the NDP will continue to fight for, the fact that in the fall economic statement, there was no money allocated to the Canada disability benefit, to provide supports for people with disabilities, is a profound disappointment. It is disrespectful to people with disabilities.

We know that half of the people who go to food banks to make ends meet and half of the people who are homeless are Canadians with disabilities. The government has a responsibility to put the Canada disability benefit in place immediately. That is something that the member for Burnaby South, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and the entire NDP caucus is not going to stop fighting for.

Second, we have all, across the country, heard from small businesses that are concerned about the fact that there is not an extension of the CEBA loans. Small businesses are struggling. I know that in New Westminster—Burnaby, many small businesses have been approaching us, needing that extension for that repayment.

I am reminded by my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, that businesses in her riding as well are raising those concerns, including Dan Osborne from Gore Bay, who has said that the NDP needs to keep fighting to have that CEBA loan extension. New Democrats are committing to continue to fight for the CEBA loan extension for Dan Osborne, for businesses in New Westminster—Burnaby and right across the country, to ensure that this is in place. There is no doubt that we are going to keep fighting.

When we talk about this bill, I think it is important to talk about the last 17 years and what we saw first under the corporate Conservatives and now under the Liberals, in terms of what has actually happened in housing. Housing costs doubled under the Conservatives. We saw this during the dismal years of the Harper regime. They doubled again under the Liberals. Between the two of them, both the Liberal government and the Conservative government lost over a million homes that were affordable, homes that people could live in, homes that were based on 30% of income or a little bit more, homes that Canadians could afford.

I had a press conference last week with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, where we talked about rents in our area.

In New Westminster, it is $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom, on average. In Coquitlam, it is $2,600. In Burnaby, it is $2,500. These are all costs that are simply too heavy for Canadians to pay. The idea that we would put into place immediate measures to help housing is why we are supportive of some of the measures that we forced to be in Bill C-56.

Motion No. 30 helps to improve that and includes, as well, important issues that help to support the Competition Bureau and the fact that, as a federal government, there is a responsibility to crack down on food price gouging, as my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has been so outspoken on, as well as the member for Burnaby South.

As for the food price gouging and the fact that the Competition Bureau does not have the powers that it needs, this is absolutely essential. That is why we are very supportive of this bill and of the motion as well. It is NDP-inspired, because New Democrats stand up for their constituents.

When we talk about the years of the Harper Conservatives and what they did to housing, losing over 800,000 units across the country, we have to really think about what planet the member for Carleton is on when he talks about the golden age of the Harper regime. I remember something quite different. I remember the erosion of affordable housing units.

The average Conservative MP, of course, is a proud owner of having lost over 2,400, on average, affordable housing units in their constituencies, as housing costs rose under the Harper regime and as affordable housing units disappeared, were either sold or converted to corporate landlords.

We think of the member for Carleton now in Stornoway. He lives a gilded-age life, with the French cravat and everything. It is so clear to me that he is out of touch with Canadians when he pretends that somehow the housing crisis is going to magically be solved just by giving more leeway to corporate landlords. That is the way it was under the Harper Conservatives. It certainly did not, in any way, make a difference.

In fact, it was the contrary. We saw a deterioration right across the country of housing stability and housing affordability. When the Conservatives say we do not have to do anything and we just have to give corporate landlords more leeway, we see what Doug Ford in Ontario has brought. He has brought the destruction of the Greenbelt, the unbelievable selling out of the public good for private profit. It is simply not a solution.

If we want to bring it home for people in this country, we need to make the kinds of investments the NDP is calling for, some of which are reflected in Bill C-56. Some are reflected in the improvements that we have made, that we forced the government to put into place.

The reality is, on this side of the House, the NDP absolutely believes that every Canadian has a right to have a roof over their head each night and that they should have the ability to put food on their table every day. It is more than that. We actually believe that Canadians have the right to a universal health care system and that they have a right to universal pharma care.

We should not have constituents struggling, as some of mine are a few blocks from my home. It is a thousand dollars a month for heart medication and families have to make that tough choice between whether they keep a roof over their head by paying their rent, or whether they pay for that life-saving heart medication. In a country as wealthy as this, there should be no Canadian who has to make the choice between life-sustaining medication, putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head. Not a single Canadian should have to face that choice every day, and that is the reality.

That is why we are here in this House. There are 25 New Democrats who are fighting, along with our leader, the member for Burnaby South, to change that situation and to make a difference for people so that we actually take that enormous wealth that we have in this country and ensure that we are actually providing essential needs for every single Canadian across the length and breadth of this land.

Conservatives and Liberals, as they are wont to do, usually ask at this point who is going to pay for it. If people heard the response of our finance critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, to the fall economic statement, he raised the issue that we have the lowest corporate taxes in the OECD. We should actually be thinking potentially of raising business taxes by 1% or 2%. It used to be 28% and now it is 15%. For every percentage point rise, there is $3 billion available for essential needs for, for example, affordable housing in this country.

Let us talk more about the Harper record because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent, non-partisan officer of Parliament, who does objective work, evaluated the total cost of the Harper tax haven treaties just a few years ago. How much did we give away in Harper tax haven treaties, these sweetheart deals that the Harper government signed in order to allow billionaires and wealthy corporations to take their money offshore?

Members know how it works, or they may not, so let me explain it. If someone takes their money offshore to a tax haven treaty holder, like the Bahamas that has a 0% taxation rate, and declares income there, then they do not have to pay taxes in Canada.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at all of that and made the conservative estimate that the Harper tax haven treaties, and the fact that the Liberal government sadly signed more of those treaties after it came into power, costs Canadians over $30 billion each year in taxpayers' money. This figure is profoundly disturbing.

What is the cumulative impact of that over the eight years the Liberals have been in power? Members can do the math. A quarter of a trillion dollars was handed over to billionaires and wealthy corporations and then to overseas tax havens. Now let us look at what the Conservatives did over the same period. This is a conservative estimate. The PBO was very clear that the estimate could go well beyond the figures in its landmark study on the impact of the Harper tax haven treaties, back in 2019. Over a nearly 10-year period, it was $300 billion.

If we put the two figures together, we are talking about over half a trillion dollars that has been spent not on housing, not on pensions, not on health care, not on pharmacare, not on providing clean water for indigenous communities and not on providing for reconciliation or indigenous-led housing developments. No. It has gone to the wealthy. It has gone to billionaires. It has gone to corporations that are extraordinarily profitable and not paying their fair share of taxes.

When Conservatives and Liberals ask how to pay for it, our response to them is to ask how they have paid for the massive tax breaks they have given to wealthy Canadians and profitable corporations over the course of the last 17 years. How did they pay for that? They paid for it by depriving seniors of their pensions. They paid for it by forcing students to go into debt. They paid for it by not putting in place a Canada disability benefit. They paid for it by not having affordable housing in place. They paid for it by undermining our health care system.

It is time that wealthy corporations pay their fair share, that wealthy Canadians pay their fair share and that Canadians stop paying for the incredible largesse of Conservatives and Liberals. It is profoundly disappointing to me that the resources of our country are mobilized for the very rich when they should be mobilized to pay for the needs of Canadians right across the length and breadth of this land.

I only have a few minutes left, so I want to come back to the vote that took place on the Day of Dignity and Freedom, on Tuesday, to be in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, commemorated in Ukraine, of course, and around the world in the Ukrainian diaspora. Tuesday was the 10-year anniversary of the fight for freedom and democracy in Ukraine.

This is an important symbolic date because of the force of the violence of the Putin regime. The Putin regime is violent, of course, domestically. There are human rights' violations, as we have seen, and hatred. We have seen the defenestration of political opponents. However, the violence that has been reaped on Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian democracy is profoundly sad to freedom-loving people, the people who stand for democracy and human rights.

That day, the Day of Dignity and Freedom, was being commemorated around the world because Ukrainians could not celebrate. They are defending their homes. They are defending their farms. They are defending their communities. They are trying to keep their hospitals open. They are trying to avoid their schools from being attacked by missiles and bombs. They could not commemorate it, but it was that day that every single Conservative MP chose to vote against Ukraine and vote against the principle of having a trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Not a single Conservative member stood up and said to the member for Carleton that this was wrong, that his obsession with the price on carbon is unhealthy, that this unhealthy obsession doesn't make any sense when we're talking about supporting people who are fighting for their liberty. However, every single Conservative MP stood in their place and voted down the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.

That was profoundly sad to me. It was shocking, I think, to Canadians of Ukrainian origin, one and a half million strong, who were calling on Conservatives to do the right thing and support Ukraine. Not a single Conservative was willing to do that.

It was shocking to the Zelenskyy regime, his government. President Zelenskyy was here in this House asking Conservatives to vote for the deal, to vote for that agreement, that symbolic and important support for the Ukrainian people, yet every single Conservative MP said no.

This is tragic. I want to say how profoundly disappointing it was to all the other members of Parliament in this House who heard President Zelenskyy's call and who responded appropriately. All the other parties, all the other members of Parliament, voted in favour of the principle of a trade agreement with a people who are fighting for their democracy, their lands, their cities and their freedom. However, because of the extremism of the member for Carleton, the Conservatives were all forced to vote against it.

I know they are hearing from constituents—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 30, which is designed to unlock the support for Canadians laid out in Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. I feel compelled to share that I met with many constituents from Ottawa—Vanier who asked me to support this bill, and I will explain why in the next few minutes.

It is unfortunate that the urgency of delivering on these priorities for Canadians has been pushed aside by the delay tactics employed by members of the Conservative Party. Despite members of their own party saying they support the measures, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has done, they have spent over 20 hours of debate across five days filibustering this important legislation. While the opposition is focused on delays, our government is focused on pushing for results.

We know that the challenges of securing affordable housing persist. That is why, in addition to Bill C-56, the fall economic statement unveiled by the Minister of Finance earlier this week underscores our commitment to the middle class by introducing measures to mitigate the impact of high prices and impending mortgage renewals, offering targeted relief to make life more affordable for Canadians.

In addition, the fall economic statement focuses on accelerating home construction as a critical solution to the housing crisis. The need for more homes across Canada is acute, especially with young individuals and newcomers finding home ownership increasingly out of reach and the rising cost of rent straining household budgets. This is a priority that Ottawa—Vanier residents have compelled me to work on. One of my focuses is to make sure that this measure, along with all the other measures we have been bringing forward in the national housing strategy, works to accelerate home construction.

Moreover, the fall economic statement proposes significant funding increases to bolster home construction efforts. The infusion of $15 billion in new loan funding is expected to support the creation of over 30,000 additional homes throughout the country. These initiatives, combined with removing the GST on new co-op rental housing and tightening regulations on non-compliant short-term rentals, signify our dedication to fostering a more accessible housing market for Canadians.

It is important to note the stark contrast between our government's proactive stance on housing and the lack of substantive proposals from the opposition. While Conservatives offer slogans and rhetoric, we remain steadfast in our commitment to building a fair and accessible housing market for all Canadians. This year, federal investment in housing is $9 billion higher than it was in 2013-14. Since 2015, the average annual federal housing investment has more than doubled compared with that of the previous government.

Bill C-56 plays a pivotal role in these ongoing efforts. It introduces enhancements to the goods and services tax, the GST and the rental rebate, encouraging the construction of purpose-built rental housing. This measure aims to alleviate the housing shortage by incentivizing the development of rental properties, including apartments, student housing and residences for seniors.

Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition actually described our plan to deliver more homes for Canadians as “disgusting”. What is disgusting is Conservatives delaying this important bill. While Conservatives provide nothing but slogans, the bedrock of our economic blueprint is yielding results. With over a million more Canadians gainfully employed today compared with the prepandemic era, coupled with a downward trend in inflation, as we witness wage increases outpacing inflation rates, the resilience of our economic policies is unmistakable.

This year's fall economic statement zeroes in on two paramount challenges: supporting the middle class and expediting the construction of more homes. These pivotal actions are aimed at stabilizing housing prices, extending support to Canadians, navigating mortgage challenges and rendering life more affordable for all. In parallel, our commitment to accelerating home construction is underscored by the injection of billions in new financing. Furthermore, we are taking resolute steps to curb the disruptions caused by short-term rentals, ensuring greater accessibility and affordability in housing across Canada.

Building on the measures outlined in Bill C-56, the fall economic statement seamlessly aligns with our sustained effort to elevate the lives of Canadians with an intensified focus on housing. Our unwavering commitment to affordable housing is emphasized by the substantial increase in federal investment, paving the way for the creation of more than 30,000 additional homes across Canada through new funding. Notably, the removal of GST from new co-op rental housing and protective measures introduced via the Canadian mortgage charter serve as a crucial step in our ongoing mission to make housing more accessible and affordable.

While the federal government is leading the national effort to build more homes by bringing together provincial, territorial and municipal governments in partnership with home builders, financiers, community housing providers, post-secondary institutions and indigenous organizations and governments, we are also doing more work to stabilize prices.

A point of critical importance about Bill C-56 is that it would make changes to the Competition Act to ensure more effective and modern competition law. This would promote affordability for Canadians and help our economic growth. That is why we are introducing amendments that would stop big business mergers with anti-competitive effects, enabling the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and stop anti-competitive collaborations that stifle small businesses, especially small grocers.

Our government recognizes the fundamental role that housing plays in fostering economic stability and societal well-being. The efforts outlined in Bill C-56, supported by the fall economic statement, reflect our dedication to both ensuring that all individuals and families have a place to call home and stabilizing prices for Canadians. Again, I have been knocking on doors and talking with residents of Ottawa—Vanier, and they have told me time and time again that we need to continue to bring those measures for housing.

In closing, I urge all members to support Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, as a crucial step forward in our mission to create an economy that works for everyone.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

Today I had the honour of participating in the discussion on Motion No. 30 and listening to remarks from our Conservative friends, which sort of made my hair stand on end. Our goal is to put an end to Conservative obstruction of this bill. That is what we are working on.

Bill C-56 is about affordable housing and groceries. It is most unfortunate that the Conservatives have resorted to filibustering and delay tactics to stop such a critical bill. This has led to over 20 hours of debate in five days in this chamber. I confess that I would rather be with my family tonight than here in the House debating this with the Conservatives.

They obviously have no intention of letting this bill to get to a vote even though some of their own members support it. For example, the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon told the House he would vote in favour of the bill over a month ago. On October 5, he said, “I will be joining my Conservatives colleagues in voting to move this bill forward to committee”.

That sounds great, but 49 days have passed since then, which is why I am looking forward to hearing where my Conservative colleagues stand now. Before they share that with us, though, I want to emphasize the importance of this bill and why passing it is crucial for Quebec, for Canada, and for the people of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

We are all well aware of the toll that rising food prices and the lack of affordable housing are taking on Canadian families. I am very pleased to clarify the measures set out in Bill C‑56 to address these urgent problems.

As far as affordable housing goes, home ownership is clearly slipping beyond the reach of many Canadians, especially young people and newcomers. I have two daughters who are about to buy their first home, and even buying a small house under the current conditions is very difficult for them. I have never been so proud of our government, which is trying to introduce these measures to help young people buy their first home.

Bill C‑56 proposes improvements to the rebate on the goods and services tax, or GST, for new purpose-built rental housing. This improvement encourages the construction of more rental housing, including apartments, student housing and seniors' residences. The bill will also facilitate tax relief. For example, a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000 will deliver $25,000 in tax relief.

These measures seek to create conditions that are conducive to building housing tailored to the needs of families, which is sorely lacking. What is more, the bill removes restrictions on the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations, can claim the GST rental rebate, which has increased to 100%. We are also asking the provinces and local governments to buy in to our new rental housing rebate and to make it easier to have housing built near public transit and services.

At the same time, the rising cost of food is cause for concern. We have already provided targeted inflation relief to millions of modest- or low-income Canadians through a one-time grocery rebate in July.

To further stabilize the cost of groceries, Bill C‑56 amends the Competition Act. These amendments allow the Competition Bureau to conduct in-depth market studies, eliminate the efficiencies argument to stop anti-competitive mergers and take measures to block collaboration efforts that undermine competition and consumer choice, especially those that put small competitors at a disadvantage compared to large grocery chains.

What is the next step in our government's economic plan? It is very simple. We will continue the government's work to support Canadians. The 2023 fall economic statement presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance earlier this week is directly connected to the initiatives outlined in this bill.

My colleague opposite just clearly stated in his speech that all responsibilities should fall to the private sector. I would like to remind him that, during the pandemic, we were there for businesses, for citizens, for workers and for organizations. We were there for the arts, for culture and for seniors. He voted in favour of our measures every time. Now he is saying that we should not have taken on all those responsibilities. Once again, we support our communities. My colleague's main argument seems to be that we should not be doing what we are doing for Canadians. He believes that we should make cuts to affordability and housing measures.

The foundations of our economic plan have produced encouraging results. We have seen that over one million additional Canadians have jobs today. We have recovered all the jobs lost during the pandemic, and more. Inflation is down, and wage increases are outpacing inflation, which is a testament to our resilient economic policies. This year, the fall economic statement focused on two key challenges: strengthening support for the middle class and accelerating the construction of new housing. When new housing is built, it directly helps families in need. It stimulates the economy, helps families and helps send young people to school to support them in their everyday lives.

We recognize the need to stabilize prices and ease the burden of imminent mortgage renewals for Canadians. Our government responded with targeted measures in the fall economic statement.

These strategic measures seek to stabilize prices, help Canadians overcome mortgage difficulties and make life more affordable for everyone. Similarly, we are injecting billions of dollars in new funding to support our commitment to accelerate the pace of housing construction. What is more, we are cracking down on disruptive short-term rentals in order to make housing more accessible and affordable across Canada.

The fall economic statement is fully in keeping with our ongoing efforts to improve the lives of Canadians. We have a strong record when it comes to providing benefits, as demonstrated by our historic investments in affordable child care, the quarterly carbon tax rebates, the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit and the increase in Canada child benefit payments.

Our government is also proposing crucial amendments to the Competition Act to make groceries more affordable by eliminating junk fees and to remove the GST on essential services, such as psychotherapy and counselling.

This statement is not just a plan for economic growth. It is something we are genuinely excited about. It is a testament to our commitment to a cleaner, more sustainable future. The key measures it outlines, such as tax credits for investing in Canada's clean economy, the Canada growth fund's carbon contracts for difference, and advancing the indigenous loan guarantee program, demonstrate our commitment to supporting a robust economy that can stand up to global changes.

Crucially, the fall economic statement builds on our ongoing commitment to making housing more affordable.

In conclusion, we believe that passing Bill C‑56 is essential. I hope all members of the House will vote in favour of it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, what a great presentation that was from my colleague from of British Columbia. The common-sense ideas that he presented just reflect the common sense of a young Conservative Party that is ready to take over the reins here in Canada and bring about some new ideas to help Canadians as it progresses, goes forward and brings back the Canadian dream of home ownership.

When I first read Bill C-56, I thought that it was not that bad and that there were some things in it that looked pretty good. Then I remembered: I know why they look good; it is because they are actually Conservative ideas. They are actually things the Conservatives talked about six years ago, and I am glad the Liberals copied them. I am very flattered they copied our ideas. That is great.

Then I looked at it and thought, “Wait a minute, the bill is regarding GST on rental properties.” If we are really looking at this and at affordability across Canada, we are dealing with such a small part of where there are affordability problems. Let us take, for example, the young family who owns a house. Let us say they have a mortgage of $250,000. They bought their house three or four years ago. The mortgage is coming up for renewal now, and they are going from a 1.9% or 2.5% interest rate to roughly an 8.5% or 8.7% interest rate. Their monthly mortgage payment is going from $1,200 a month up to $1,800 or $1,900 a month. They have to find another $700 a month, so that is $8,400 a year of after-tax dollars just to pay the interest increase. That is an affordability problem. Is there anything in the bill that would address that? No, there is not. Is there anything in the Liberals' ideas they talked about yesterday, moving forward, that would address helping those people out? Have there been any ideas to work with the banks to say they could extend things out? Have there been any ideas to work with institutions to say that we could actually help people manoeuvre so they could actually afford to stay in their house?

I can see why the Liberals talked only about rental properties in this piece of legislation, because what will happen is that people are going to give up their house because they cannot afford it, and they are going to have to have a place to rent. Let us look at the legislation again. Okay, we would build lots of apartments. When would they be done? Would it be two years or three years from now? People lose their house next month, and they have to wait three years for an apartment? Where do they go? What do they do?

There has been no imagination in the government. The Liberals are out of ideas. They are old and tired, and they have no concept of what is actually going on in this country. They have done nothing to work with the municipalities and the provinces to ask how they can make things more affordable and whether there are things they can do together and leverage among themselves to make life easier for Canadians. There is nothing. We have a few examples where maybe they worked with one city here and one city there, but generally, across Canada, have they worked with anybody? No, they have not. They have picked a targeted approach based on political will and political expedience.

We saw it with home heating when the Liberals removed the GST on oil. Did they apply that to propane? Did they apply it to natural gas? Did they apply it to wood or coal? I come from Saskatchewan. We still use coal; that is way worse than diesel. We still use wood; that is probably still worse than diesel. Was there any relief for that? No, there was not. We use propane and natural gas, which are better than diesel, but the cost has gone up so much because of the carbon tax that it is really hurting. People are saying to us all the time, “I cannot pay my bills.” They are going into winter now and are asking what they will do. They are saying, “My mortgage is going to go up. My heating is now going up. My property tax is going up. What do I do?” What does the government say to them? It says crickets. It tells them to pay it, and if their wallet is empty, to borrow more money at a higher interest rate and pay it. Is there any relief there? No, there is not. Has there been any compassion shown? No, there has not.

That is the reality of what the government has done, and do members know why? The government is tired. It is out of ideas. It has no imagination. It does not understand economics. The reality is that this is very true, because if the Liberals understood economics, they would have realized five years ago, when they started borrowing money like drunken sailors, that it was not a good idea. When they started putting money into things that did not have any type of return on GDP or efficiencies, that was a bad idea.

When we look at things now, we have to pay those interest rates. It is a tremendous amount of interest we are now paying on our debt. It is more than what we pay in health care. I was around before, when people had to wait two years to get surgery. My mother had cancer. She had to wait before she could get diagnosed, because those were the days when we were paying a higher amount in interest than we were paying for health care. It took a Liberal government, in co-operation with a Conservative government and the Reform Party in opposition, to get that tackled and under control.

Did we learn from history? No, we did not. What did the Prime Minister do? He started borrowing, not just a small amount like he promised in 2015, not just $10 billion, but $40 billion, $60 billion and $100 billion. The numbers are staggering, and now, we cannot get that back. How do we get back to a balanced budget? It is going to take a tremendous amount of effort.

Not only did we spend more, but we also brought in legislation that starves businesses. We brought in legislation that kicks people out of Canada so they invest everywhere else. We kept our natural resources in the ground. We did not defend our forestry sector when it was unfairly hit with tariffs out of the U.S. What has the government done? It has done nothing. It has shown no imagination. When we talk to it about this, it blames everybody else.

Affordability is the basis of what is going on here. Let us look at things in a more macro and holistic sense. Let us break it down to a family that buys groceries. Groceries are more expensive. The inflation rate for groceries is tremendous. There is the war in Ukraine and a variety of things that have brought commodity prices up through the roof, no question about it, but there are things the government could do to alleviate some of the pain.

I have no issues with change to the Competition Bureau. I have a few concerns, but no issues. Again, when would we get the results from the changes? Would they help us next week or next month, or a year, two years or 10 years from now? There are no deadlines. There are no time frames for allowing us to see any type of reduction in prices based on the changes. There is nothing there that would immediately help the family that needs the help today, so has the government done anything on affordability in the legislation? No, it has not. It has laid out some good targets to move forward in the future, four years or five years down the road when it is no longer in government, but what has it done today? What it has done is spend more money on things Canada cannot afford. It has put money into programs that do not help Canadians at this point in time. It has taken money out of their pockets that they need in their pockets.

This is why we asked the government to just freeze the GST. Never mind the quadrupling, even just freezing it would alone at least help Canadians. If the government reduced it, it would show compassion. If it reduced it for all Canadians, it would show that it genuinely cared about this country and did not pick favourites on one side or the other based on political expediency. If you showed some consistency, we would be in better shape and in a better position in this Parliament, but you have not; you have divided Canadians by region, by different sectors—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is one hundred per cent right. We are going through a housing crisis, and it is because municipal gatekeepers, right across the country, have held tight to old ideas such as zoning that basically keeps municipalities as they are. As our immigration grows, and as our population grows, we see there are just not enough places for everyone.

In Bill C-56, the government's solution is a Conservative one, and it is to take the GST off and create more demand for something by lowering the cost of it. However, the problem is the speNDP-Liberal government's continued obsession with spending at any cost, any time, anywhere and any place, and we end up seeing much higher inflation.

As I said in my speech, the Scotiabank report said that up to 40% of the basis points of the Bank of Canada have gone up. We will not see significant market investments or significant government investments go forward unless we have lower interest rates. It is the economics that are a pressure here. Maybe Bill C-56 would allow some Venn diagram where everything falls into place of some projects now being viable, but I am already seeing in my area of the Okanagan projects dropping. We are seeing, in the Statistics Canada numbers, a drop in permits. That is inevitable until the economy turns around, and it will not do that if the government keeps spending like there is no tomorrow.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to join the debate. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member of Parliament for Prince Albert.

Bill C-56 is an interesting bill, and I must give the Liberal government some credit for taking a page directly from the leader of the official opposition's affordability plan and proposing to remove the GST from purpose-built rental housing. This is something that Conservatives support.

I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the Liberal government admit that removing a tax, in this case, the GST, is a good way to increase affordability, much as I was shocked to see the Liberal government admit that removing its carbon tax on home heating oil is also a good way to increase affordability. If only it would remove its carbon tax on propane and natural gas to increase affordability for all Canadians and not just those in certain regions of the country.

Back to the bill, I also support the proposed amendments to the Competition Act, just as I supported my colleague from Bay of Quinte when he introduced his Bill C‑339.

It is refreshing to see a Liberal government adopt Conservative solutions. I even have to give the Prime Minister a little credit. Removing the tax on goods and services relating to the construction of rental housing means that builders and developers will save money. It means that less money will end up here in Ottawa. We all know how much this Prime Minister likes spending other people's money. Despite reduced revenue, our perennially spendy Prime Minister did not label this an austerity bill—not yet, anyway. Maybe he will change his mind when he reads the bill and realizes he is endorsing Conservative ideas.

Regardless, the Prime Minister has demonstrated remarkable restraint by introducing a bill that will reduce Ottawa's revenue and not calling it an austerity measure.

I pause for a moment, though, to ask this place a question. If the Liberal government is capable of understanding that removing the GST from rental housing increases affordability and that removing the carbon tax from home heating oil also increases affordability, why does it still refuse to remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to increase affordability? Do Canadian families who heat their homes with natural gas and propane and who cannot pay their bills not matter?

I have heard the Liberal excuses around this. Home heating oil is expensive and the carbon tax makes it more expensive, so that is why they are giving them a carbon tax break, but the same is also true for those who heat with natural gas and propane. Basically, this government is telling them that they do not matter. This is a Prime Minister who once said, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, but that is no longer true if one heats one's home with natural gas or propane. Sure, one might be on the verge of bankruptcy or hitting the food bank every day, but this Liberal government just does not care.

I know some members would say that I am getting a bit off track, that we should be debating what is in this bill. That is my point. The things in this bill would help, but the things we could do to most help Canadians right now, such as removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels, we are not doing solely because the government is punitive.

This morning, we read about the Liberals' so-called affordability retreat, where taxpayers got stuck with a bill for $160,000, including rooms that cost anywhere from $1,200 to $3,200 apiece. The very Liberals who stayed in those rooms have the audacity to tell those who can no longer afford to heat their home at the end of the month that they will get no help. Worse, their carbon tax bill will actually be quadrupled. I would simply ask the obvious: Why not do more?

Why not offer Canadians who heat their homes with natural gas and propane the same carbon tax relief as those who heat their homes with home heating oil? Why does this Prime Minister always have to divide Canadians? This time, he is dividing them based on their heating fuel. Canadians have had enough of this.

Every poll sends the message loud and clear about where the Liberals stand, yet the Liberal government ignores that message. To what end? I know there are good people on the government side, but the arrogance of the Prime Minister and his powerful group of unelected insiders is hurting many Canadians.

Yes, the proposals in this bill will help. It is a start, but we seriously need to do more. That is why I talked about doing more. That is why the leader of the official opposition listens to Canadians every day. They are asking us to do more. Polls show they want relief from the carbon tax on their home heating bills.

Farmers want and need a break as well. Here in Canada, we introduced something called “marked gas”. The idea was that farmers could buy gasoline and diesel at lower costs, without additional taxes, because all of our predecessors from all political parties recognized that keeping farmers' costs low was in the public interest. Now the Liberal government is literally driving up the costs for farmers for ideological reasons.

I will share a story of a local small business owner. This small business owner is a value-added food processor. It is very important to this small business owner that, when his goods arrive at local grocery stores, they proudly say that they are 100% Canadian. Here is the thing: When he gets his raw goods, they come from Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and when he has them shipped out via transport truck, he now pays a carbon tax surcharge on the bill.

He must raise his prices to offset the extra carbon tax that he pays. If he were to get the same raw goods out of the United States or overseas, he would not have that same large carbon tax surcharge from goods being shipped across Canada. He might be at that point where the only way he can lower his prices and remain competitive would be to switch because many of his competitors in the same grocery stores cannot say that they are also made in Canada. They are made in other jurisdictions where there is no carbon tax. When times are tough, as they are right now, fewer people can afford to pay extra for goods solely because they are made here in Canada.

I hope the government realizes the long-term structural damage its carbon tax is creating. It would be a different story if our largest trading partners had the same carbon tax and it was a level playing field. The Liberals like to say that they are taking a leadership role with the carbon tax. However, when no one else is following, they are not leading the way.

Some may think that I was not objective in this debate, but when I go home and my constituents ask me what we are doing in Ottawa to make life more affordable for them, I would like to have more to offer than simply saying that I supported this bill. At least I can tell that small business owner and others like him that I shared their stories.

Unfortunately, however, we have a Prime Minister and a Prime Minister's Office who do not care about any of them, unless they use home heating oil, of course.

That said, yes, I will support this bill and I will continue to ask this Liberal government to adopt and better support our Conservative ideas. Let us put all home heating fuels on a level playing field and suspend the carbon tax.

Let us ensure that the carbon tax on farming is gone. Let us all read the Scotiabank report that tells of how government spending at all levels has created over 40% of the rise in basis points from the Bank of Canada. It is not austerity to think like a taxpayer and deliver value for money. What a concept. It is not an app that costs over $54 million or funding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. How about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does not deliver any infrastructure?

Literally every day, we read about a new spending scandal from the Liberal government and appointed insiders funnelling money to their own companies. How could someone not know that was wrong and unacceptable? How are people such as Laith Marouf on the government contract list? Why is there never any ministerial accountability?

Instead of fiscal waste, we should be doing more with what is here. I urge all members of the House of Commons to consider doing more and adopting our Conservative ideas to provide Canadians a carbon tax break on home heating, and let us have a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, time is of the essence right now.

These are powers, legislative fixes that the Competition Bureau was asking for months ago. I cannot control when the government decides to schedule Bill C-56 for debate. However, I do know that many members in this place have already had the opportunity to give their thoughts at second reading.

This is a vote on the principle of the bill, and I think everyone agrees on the principle, getting the GST off new rental housing construction and making sure the Competition Bureau has the powers to go after that corporate stranglehold that we have in so many critical sectors. It is something that we should be voting on.

I am proud that through Motion 30, we have taken the work that was put in the bill by the member for Burnaby South, and we are going to add those provisions to Bill C-56. I see this as an opportunity where the NDP has rolled up our sleeves, has put our heads down and are getting to work to make sure the changes are happening in this place, unlike my Conservative colleagues.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 has a fairly narrow focus, but that is why we were hoping, not only through the fall economic statement but in the budget next year, to start to see measures that would address this.

I will remind the member that we got to the rates we are at today precisely because of the corporate profits that have been driving inflation. If Canadians want to understand why rates are so high, it is because we are trying to cool down a market that was caused by corporate greed. It was caused by oil and gas companies having net profits go up by over 1,000% in three years. It was caused by grocery CEOs digging in their greedy hands, off the backs of working families.

If we want to truly calm inflation down, we have to stop the policies that are championed by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. We need to swing the pendulum back in favour of working families, and stop the corporate deference that both of these parties love to champion whenever they are in government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to the member's first part of his intervention on small businesses.

The email I read was received today. I acknowledge that, yes, during the pandemic we were there with supports, collectively, the whole House was there, but small businesses are saying that the measures announced by this government are not enough; they need a further extension, otherwise one out of five are going to go out of business. It does not make sense to be holding the line, and I think the government needs to extend it to the end of 2024.

On the second part of the member's question, when I was at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we were doing an in-depth dive into food price inflation, and based on a study that I moved at committee, some of our witnesses were from the Competition Bureau of Canada. They expressed a sincere wish to have not only more human resources but I think a little bit more of a legislative flex in the Competition Act. Bill C-56 would deliver that. There was a significant improvement made to the bill, thanks to the efforts of the NDP and particularly our leader, the member forBurnaby South. New Democrats are here to work. We are delivering some constructive changes, and we are looking forward to seeing this legislation progress.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say what a privilege it is for me to be able to speak in what is an important debate for all parliamentarians and to again speak on behalf of the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For their benefit, I will explain that we are debating essentially two things today. Nominally, this is about Motion No. 30, the programming motion, but it is also about Bill C-56, the actual bill that the motion is seeking to get through the House to committee, where important work has to be done.

I will start with Motion No. 30, because it has to be put in the context of what the NDP, with our 25 members, has been able to do in this Parliament. I want to give particular thanks to my leader, the NDP leader and member for Burnaby South. We have to make mention in this place of his private member's bill, Bill C-352, because important elements of that bill were adopted in Motion No. 30. I will highlight some of the relevant parts of Motion No. 30 for the benefit of constituents back home.

Essentially, the really important part of Motion No. 30 centres on a number of things that would include some of the elements of the private member's bill from the member for Burnaby South in Bill C-56. I think this would strengthen the bill through a number of measures, such as increasing maximum penalty amounts for the abuse of dominance so that whenever we have market concentration and some corporate entities are abusing their dominance, we would have increased fines to make sure they are brought into compliance. Another measure is allowing the Competition Bureau to conduct market studies and inquiries if it is either directed by the minister responsible for the act or recommended by the Commissioner of the Competition Bureau. Another is to revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged either in a practice of anti-competitive acts or in conduct other than superior competitive performance.

In other words, these are three important measures in the motion that are basically lifted out of the PMB from the member for Burnaby South, showing once again that, as New Democrats, we are here to strengthen government bills, respond to the needs of our constituents and make sure we are passing laws that would address the serious issues of today.

I will now move to Bill C-56, which is not a very big government bill in the scale of things but one that essentially seeks to do two things: remove the GST from construction costs on new rental units and enable the Competition Bureau to better conduct investigations, while removing efficiency exemptions during mergers to improve competition. That is the specific section of the bill we would be improving through Motion No. 30.

Before I go on, I think we need to place the conversation around Bill C-56 in a larger context. I want to go back to when this Parliament started. Canadians are very familiar with the fact that in both the 2019 and the 2021 elections, Canadians, in their wisdom, decided to return minority Parliaments. I think that was the voice of the Canadian people saying that they did not trust all of the power in this place to any one party. It was a resounding message that parties had to come here and find ways to work together.

At the start of this Parliament in 2021, we as New Democrats essentially had two choices. We could have chosen to stay on the sidelines, like my Conservative friends, and just complain while achieving nothing, or we could have realized that Canadians expected us to roll up our sleeves, put our heads down and get to work. We chose the latter option, and that is why, thanks to New Democrats, we are achieving some incredibly concrete things for Canadians.

Dental care is a massive program that is going to really help so many Canadians. We know that millions of Canadians are unable to afford to go to the dentist. Thanks to New Democrats, we are pushing that forward so the most disadvantaged people from coast to coast to coast are going to be able to afford and get proper dental care.

We forced the government to double the GST credit. Of course, something I am personally very proud of having done, both here in the House and at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, which does specifically relate to the conversation we are having today, is that we also started an investigation into food price inflation. I think it was the public and political pressure of that moment that led us to where we are today, talking about Bill C-56. Not only did I get a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, so I believe that all parties unanimously recommended that this was an issue of great concern to their constituents, but we also got a unanimous vote at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to really put the issue of food price inflation under the microscope and to do a deep dive into the real causes. I will be happy to talk about that a little bit later in my speech.

We also forced the government to come up with a grocery rebate and anti-scab legislation that is going to help unions realize the collective bargaining power they have. When we are talking in this place about helping the working class, we need to make sure we are actually standing up for legislation that would do just that. For far too long in our country's history, working men and women who belong to the trade union movement have been at a disadvantage when it comes to the relationship with their employers. Employers have considerable financial resources. They have been able to wait out workers. They have been able to use replacement workers. In some cases, they have just waited for Liberal and Conservative governments to come to their rescue with back-to-work legislation. It is time, thanks to the NDP, that someone in this place truly stood up for the working class, not just with words, like the Conservatives are fond of doing, but with real action, actually changing our laws so an employer, with all of their resources, would no longer be able to undermine working-class men and women with replacement workers. One of the most powerful things the working class has at its disposal is the guaranteed freedom to withhold its labour in order to fight for a better deal.

Thanks to the NDP, we are going to change federal laws so we have the backs of workers in federally regulated industries, whether they work in the train system, in shipping, in the banking industry, etc. We are going to make sure the legislation before us gets over the finish line and serves as an example right across the country for all provincial jurisdictions. I am also very proud that, thanks to the NDP, we are leading the way in developing a sustainable jobs act. It was thanks to the NDP that we got labour at the table with the government and brought in those changes to the law before it was finally introduced. Again, this demonstrates that when it comes to defending working people in Canada, the NDP is the party that is pushing the ball here, not just with words but also with sincere action.

Something I am incredibly proud of, as we work toward the end of the 2023 year, is that we are actively working with the government on bringing in pharmacare legislation. Again, the cost of living crisis is something that Bill C-56 is inherently trying to deal with. We have to make sure we deal with the economic shortfall that so many working-class Canadians are experiencing. In addition to lack of dental care, one of the biggest challenges for families is their inability to pay for expensive medication because they do not have the benefit of a workplace plan. Often, I have spoken to constituents who are skipping their medications altogether or are cutting them in half, and that can lead to extremely poor health outcomes later on. Yes, it might seem like a significant investment, but we have to put it in the context of the billions of dollars of savings that would result, not only for working families' budgets as we are trying to help them get by, but also for our health care system as a whole. When we look after people and establish methods whereby they can seek preventative health measures, this is how we save our health care system money, and it is how we look after families' budgets.

I am proud to be a member of a caucus that is standing up for all of those measures. I think there are days when my Conservative friends must be incredibly frustrated that they are being outworked and outdelivered by a party with a quarter of the number of their seats. I want to highlight a few examples because I listen to Conservatives talk every single day about the cost of living crisis, and I want to highlight a few of the hypocrisies we hear in this place from that particular party.

Number one is the carbon tax. I do not think that the oil and gas industry actually needs to spend all of that money on lobbying the federal government, because it already has a political party that does it for free. The Conservative Party's members stand in this place and, at every single opportunity, rail on the carbon tax while completely ignoring the oil and gas profiteering that has been happening over the last three years. It is a real disservice to the substance of the debate.

We only need to look at the evidence. We have seen this at committee, not only when we were dealing with food price inflation but also in a whole host of other committees. The evidence is there for everyone to see. If someone wants to see the real driver of inflation, they only need to look at some key industries and how much their profits have increased over the last three years. The most notable example is oil and gas. Since 2019, the industry's net profits have increased by over 1,000%. The Conservatives want to concoct a fairy tale that the carbon tax is the root of all evil, when we know that the wild price fluctuations we see on the cost of fuel are the result of market pressures and of corporations' gouging our constituents. However, there is not a word from my Conservative friends.

I have to single out the member for Carleton, the Conservative leader, because he has the temerity to stand in this place and vote against dental care for his constituents, for my constituents and for people from coast to coast to coast while having enjoyed taxpayer-funded dental benefits for the last 19 years as a member of Parliament. I guess the Conservative motto is “It is okay for me but not for thee.” That is essentially the message I am getting from him.

Of course, there was a vote earlier this week on the Ukrainian free trade agreement. The Conservatives were absolutely grasping at straws to find a way to vote against it. At a time when Ukraine needs solidarity from the people of Canada, it would have sent a strong message if we could have had a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to show the Ukrainian people that we stand firmly with them. That is something President Zelenskyy wanted, yet one party decided to vote against the free trade agreement, and that was the Conservative Party. The shocking thing is that a vote at second reading is a vote for the principle of a bill. The principle of the bill is free trade with Ukraine. Someone may have problems with the bill, and that is fine, but do they agree with the principle of the bill? I do not always agree with bills that I vote for at second reading, but I do it under the condition of getting better results at committee. It is a strong message. Does one agree with the principle of the bill? Unfortunately, I think the Conservatives scored on their own net with that vote.

Let us talk about the housing crisis, because a significant part of Bill C-56 would be the removal of the GST for new rental units. There is a fairy tale being concocted in this place by my Conservative friends. They want people to magically believe that the housing crisis started just in the last few years, or eight years ago in 2015. That is absolutely false. The housing crisis we are seeing today is the natural conclusion of over 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy that has been pursued with glee by both Liberals and Conservatives. It did not start just with the current government and the current Prime Minister. It was happening over Stephen Harper's time, Paul Martin's time, Jean Chrétien's time and Brian Mulroney's time. We could not get to the shortfall we have in affordable housing just overnight. It is the result of a systematic abandoning of the federal government's role in building affordable housing, and the chickens are coming home to roost right now.

Again, we do need serious action, and Bill C-56 would be a small measure, removing the GST to spur on more housing development. If we look at the recent fall economic statement and at some of the spending items in the next few years for affordable housing, the Liberals have decided to delay spending on critical areas until the 2025 fiscal year. It is a totally shameful response and extremely inadequate to the crisis moment so many Canadians are facing right now.

With food price inflation, I think Canadians are sick and tired of both parties taking potshots at each other when, for 20 months now, we have seen food prices rise at such a high rate, a rate far higher than the general rate of inflation. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry made that grand announcement in October, when he said he was going to summon the grocery CEOs to Ottawa for what amounted to a stern talking to. What did we learn today? We learned from Metro's CEO that discussion had zero impact on food price inflation.

This is why the agriculture committee is again examining this issue. It wants to hear from the minister and the grocery CEOs. It was my motion that sent for the corporate documents, which are now under lock and key at 131 Queen Street, so we can see what the corporations have agreed to and what their plan is. We also want to hold the government to account to see exactly what promises the minister tried to extract.

We are facing a situation where Canadians have been playing by the rules and doing everything right. However, there is corporate gouging in multiple sectors. In the housing market there are increased rents and renovictions and the buying-up of affordable housing stock. Grocery and fuel prices are constantly going up. It is all a result of corporate profits driving inflation, and there is only one party in this place that is daring to call it out.

I think back to the old tale, Mouseland. Canadians are being asked to pick between the black cats and the white cats, but they are both cats. They are both going to pursue the same economic policies. I think, at their heart, Liberals and Conservatives believe in the same thing. They believe in market-based solutions, which is what have gotten us into the mess we are in. They like to show the differences between the two, but I fundamentally believe those two parties are but two different sides of the same coin. If we want something different, we cannot keep doing the same thing. Trading Liberals for Conservatives is simply going to continue us down the path that we have been on for the last 40 years.

Canadians deserve a break. I am proud to say that through New Democrats' efforts on Bill C-56 and Government Business No. 30, we are delivering concrete results. We have rolled up our sleeves to get to work to improve this bill and insert some language that I believe is going to make the bill stronger and finally give the Competition Bureau the muscle, resources and legislative flex it needs to tackle the extreme marketplace concentration that we see in so many sectors, whether it is the grocery sector, telecommunications, oil and gas, name it, it is time.

I believe, Madam Speaker, I am getting a signal from you that—

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

Madam Speaker, I would just like to check something with my colleague. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-56. We support the elements of Bill C-56 amended by the motion, but we oppose the super closure motion, which limits all debate and committee study.

Take, for example, the elimination of the GST on new housing construction. Once again, this government is passing laws and saying that it will decide everything in the regulations. Right now, contractors are asking us questions, since they are entitled to a GST rebate if they started their work after September 14. What if they started laying the foundation before September 14? What if the first floor will be zoned commercially and there will be housing above it? Are they entitled to this rebate or not? We do not know.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will no doubt pick up roughly where my colleague from Mirabel left off. He painted a good picture of the political context. He concluded by speaking to the bill. I will go a bit deeper into the bill.

The government proposal grants the Standing Committee on Finance the power to expand the scope of the bill by incorporating three substantial changes.

First, there is the amendment seeking to increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. The amendment changes the Competition Act and will render several of its elements obsolete once Bill C-56 is passed. The two other amendments, which deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies, although subject to the wording of amendments to come, appear to have limited scope. Their inclusion seems to be rather intended to give the New Democrats a symbolic victory in order to paper over a major concession on their part. Let us review these three amendments.

The first aims to increase penalties for abuse of a dominant position to $25 million for a first offence and $35 million for subsequent offences. This is taken directly from Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. Currently, the maximum penalty that can be levied by the bureau and the tribunal is $5 million for an offending company, along with prison sentences of 14 years for directors who breach the act. This proposed revision is therefore significant, dispelling the idea that penalties are just an inherent cost of doing business. They could now have a deterrent effect comparable to that of European or American legislation. Again, as my colleague asked, if it is already in force elsewhere, why has it taken so long for Canada to wake up? I believe the explanations in the last speech were very powerful.

The second amendment, which gives the Competition Bureau the option of conducting market study inquiries at the direction of the minister or on the recommendation of the commissioner of competition, while requiring prior consultation between these two officials, is quite significant. Currently, the bureau has strict investigative powers, but only if there is a clearly defined infringement. This adopts a quasi-criminal approach. The amendment proposed seeks to address this shortcoming when market studies are conducted in order to ensure greater effectiveness in assessing the dynamics of competition.

The third amendment, which reviews the legal grounds prohibiting abuse of dominance, aims to prevent anti-competitive practices that impede or significantly decrease competition in a relevant market. Even though the current legislation prohibits various restrictive practices, it does not address predatory pricing by businesses in a dominant market position. The NDP's Bill C‑352 sought to fill this gap by specifically prohibiting the imposition of excessive prices. Despite the provision's obvious value, the government still seems resistant to passing it, offering instead a procedural amendment to the existing legislation through Bill C‑56, without really reinforcing consumers' defences against such practices.

Although it makes positive changes to the Competition Act, Bill C‑56 hardly seems an appropriate response to the housing crisis and soaring food prices. An in-depth review of the national housing strategy remains essential, as does redefining abuse of dominance to prevent price increases resulting from a lack of competition. These critical areas persist, independently of whether Bill C‑56 is passed.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion and the bill, recognizing certain positive measures and the absence of any downright harmful elements. However, we should point out that it is only a drop in the bucket in terms of current needs. With respect to housing, there is no reason to believe that Bill C‑56 will help reduce rental costs.

At the briefing offered to members on September 21, officials were specifically asked to provide the studies on which the Minister of Finance based her claim that Bill C‑56 would impact rents. To give credit where credit is due, the question was asked by my colleague from Joliette. Their response to my colleague's question was evasive, suggesting they did not have these studies. That suggests an uncertain future as to the supposed effectiveness of the measures.

It is not very likely that landlords will decide to lower their rents simply because they did not pay GST on the purchase of a new building. Furthermore, the increase in interest rates, affecting all real estate and leading to higher mortgage rates, is a major factor influencing future costs. With or without Bill C‑56, tenants might very well have to live with them.

In the best case scenario, eliminating taxes on rental buildings could encourage some builders to choose that type of construction over condominiums, potentially providing a glimmer of hope in this growing housing crisis. However, though it will not have a direct impact on prices, Bill C‑56 could still help alleviate the housing shortage, which may get worse in the years to come.

Right now, the Société québécoise des infrastructures says that only 14% of new housing units built by 2030 will be rentals, despite the fact that almost 40% of Quebec households are renting. This growing imbalance foreshadows a terrible national tragedy, and three times as many new constructions will need to be rental units if we want to resolve the housing crisis.

If Bill C‑56 manages to increase the proportion of rental housing, even slightly, it would be a modest step forward, but that will not be enough to meet the crying need. However, we note the lack of specifics regarding the types of dwellings or buildings, and the absence of accessibility requirements to be eligible for reimbursement, which hands the government the power to regulate those factors.

During the information sessions for parliamentarians, which my colleague from Joliette attended, we asked officials why the act contained no eligibility criteria, which is an unusual exception in tax matters. Their answer clearly conveyed a sense of urgency and poor preparation, which definitely suggests an off-the-cuff approach.

We can all agree that it would be difficult to impose affordability criteria on builders. They are not the future owners of the buildings under construction. However, the GST could be imposed on buyers if the housing units were rented out at sky-high prices; this is a measure that could be examined in committee to improve the bill's effectiveness, which so far is pretty limited. That might be a good idea.

While amendments to the Competition Act deserve the Bloc Québécois's support, to suggest that they will have any impact on grocery bills is wishful thinking and a misrepresentation of reality. We support the bill, but we have no pats on the back for Ottawa.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to remind the member of the bill we are talking about today. It is Bill C-56. I believe he is talking about Bill C-57, which was passed—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and his Conservative colleagues are asking Canadians to believe in a fairy tale. They want people to believe that all these problems with housing magically started over the last several years or at least since 2015. In fact, it goes on a lot longer, with the current government, the Harper government before it, the Chrétien government and the Mulroney government. What we are seeing today is the natural conclusion of 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy. This did not happen overnight.

Similarly, when the Conservatives go after the carbon tax but completely ignore the fact that corporate profits are at the highest level ever, which is a key driver of inflation, it is a shame to their constituents and a shame to the political discourse in this chamber.

I have a question on Bill C-56. Does the member at least agree that these measures strengthen the Competition Act and remove the GST? Will he support them? Will he agree that the motion today is thanks to the hard work of the NDP driving the Liberal government to do better, and in fact that the Conservatives have been, again, sitting on the sidelines doing nothing?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will first say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

I am honoured to speak to this programming motion, Government Business No. 30, and its amendment today.

Before I start, I would like to pay tribute to a great constituent by the name of Dot Thompson, the spouse of the late member of Parliament Myron Thompson, whose funeral I attended this past weekend. The two were inseparable and always had the community of Sundre in their hearts. Myron was an unforgettable MP who served on town council, was the high school principal and, through his athletic prowess, taught many youth how to play ball. Sundre was lucky to get him as his New York Yankees professional ball career was put on hold as he played backup to Hall of Famer Yogi Berra.

I am sure that Myron Thompson would have seen many pieces of legislation over his time with bills like Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, as well as motions that would have found their way to the floor of Centre Block for discussion. During his 1993 to 2005 era, there were many “suggestions” that the official opposition had lifted by the Chrétien and Martin Liberals in order to minimize the economic damage that had occurred from the era of stagflation caused by Trudeau, the elder.

Sadly, that Liberal government chose to drastically cut the transfers of health funding to provinces, which has haunted our provincial health care services for decades. Handcuffing the provinces was an easy fix to change the federal government's bottom line, but downloading the costs onto other levels of government simply took the heat off the feds and pushed it onto the provinces and their local authorities.

I am well aware of how federal neglect and financial shell games work because I was a hospital board chairman during those dark days. The federal Liberals of the 1990s artfully joined with the Friends of Medicare to back provinces into a corner when they were forced to rationalize services. There is no better example than the daily attacks on former premier Ralph Klein when he was faced with the economic reality of federal cuts to health transfers. The effects of that federal action are still evident, but, thankfully, no government has returned to the era of cuts to health care transfers since the Chrétien era.

The reason that I give this historical reference is that there are different paths governments can follow when trying to work their way through, or out of, a crisis. They can download the problems onto other levels of government; they can analyze policies of other parties in the House and, as is usually the case, claim them as their own; or they can at least acknowledge that the official opposition takes its responsibilities to Canadians seriously and that by usurping the learned advice, the government is ignoring the views of a large number of Canadians.

I will get to some of the specifics in the legislation in a minute, but, as many have stated, it is the heavy-handedness of the government and its inability and unwillingness to work with other partners, unless they are willing to rubber-stamp initiatives in exchange for propping up a minority government, that are at issue here.

What we are seized with today is the government's programming motion, Government Business No. 30. Programming motions have the effect of not only limiting debate in the House, which to many is an affront to democracy in itself, but also dictating instructions to the committee as to how it will deal with this legislation once it gets to committee. Issues related to Government Business No. 30 have to do with the expanded scope that the committee must consider. I will read from Government Business No. 30, which says:

(c) if the bill has been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance,

(i) it be an instruction to the committee, that during its consideration of the bill, it be granted the power to expand its scope to,

(A) increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse...,

(B) allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries...,

(C) revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct....

If those points were important, perhaps they could have been in the bill in the first place.

Also, we will then start with a marathon sitting of two days, after the motion's adoption, to gather witness testimony, with amendments to be submitted within 12 hours at the end of the marathon sitting. Then, at the next meeting, once that time is up, no further debate or amendments will be entertained. Finally, after a few other points, we will have closure after the bill is reported, which will once again be guaranteed.

The Conservative amendment tries to infuse some credibility by at least ensuring that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities will be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each. At least some level of accountability will be salvaged if this amendment is adopted.

By forcing Motion No. 30 to the committees through the House process, the Liberals avoid the other option, which is to force a programming motion through the committee. They always say that committees are masters of their own fate, which is true, until, as we see with Motion No. 30, it is not. Programming motions are usually enacted when the government knows it has messed things up royally.

Our responsibility as legislators is manyfold. First, we must thoroughly analyze legislation to minimize potential unintended consequences. As a country that boasts six time zones, the need to have regional voices heard is paramount in order to head off such negative consequences.

Second, it is important that Canadians get an opportunity to have input as well. Those who live in the real world understand how legislation will, good or bad, affect them.

Third, and this is so evident presently at our natural resources committee, once federal legislation has been challenged, once the regions take on their responsibilities to protect their citizens through such initiatives and once such legislation has been deemed unconstitutional, the government must stop using the challenged parts of legislation in its development of new legislation. This procedural motion, Motion No. 30, is to be determined through a vote in the House. Since the Liberal government has found various willing dance partners, that has been virtually assured.

The only time I saw this process sidetracked, ironically, was when the Liberals had a majority government. It became quite evident at the time that the Liberals never really showed up for duty on Monday mornings. The Mulcair NDP managed to create a second reading vote on a prized Liberal bill. It was quite the scramble, but the vote ended in a tie. Because it was at second reading, the Speaker voted with the government so it would live to fight another day, and, oh my, it did fight. It produced a motion that would have stripped the opposition of all tools to do its job of holding the government to account. That motion dictated how things would transpire in the House and would have been one of the most egregious motions ever moved in our Westminster system of government.

When the vote on that motion was to take place, once again, the members of the NDP were milling around and were in the path of our whip Gord Brown. There is a tradition we see all the time where the whips walk toward the mace, acknowledge each other and then, once their members are settled, take their seats to start the vote. The confusion in the aisle caused one of the most unhinged actions I have seen anywhere. The Prime Minister rushed through the crowd, grabbed our whip by the arm and told him to get the “f” in his place. As he did that, he swung around and hit a female NDP member in the chest, which forced her to leave the chamber. That bizarre action caused a question of privilege that continued for days, whereby the juvenile actions of the PM were constantly on trial by his peers. In order to prevent the continued series of questions of privilege, the government relented and withdrew the egregious motion.

Now, with voting apps being used, perhaps the Prime Minister can avoid such a conflict in the future. Of course, maybe by now the government is also aware that there is a time-out provision whereby the vote would take place whether the whips walk down the aisle or not. Hopefully this motion can be defeated without the theatrics.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-56, the Liberals' so-called affordable housing and groceries bill. I say “so-called” because nothing in the bill would make housing affordable or reduce grocery prices.

After eight long years of the Liberals, Canadians are facing an unprecedented affordability crisis. Let us look at the facts. After eight years of the Liberals, housing costs have doubled; rent has doubled and mortgage payments have more than doubled, up 150% compared to eight years ago. After eight years of the Liberals, Canadians have seen 40-year-high inflation. Meanwhile, interest rates are rising at the fastest rate in Canadian history and have reached a 22-year high. Interest rates are projected to be hiked even further. When it comes to essentials like groceries, prices have gone up a staggering 70%, resulting in nearly two million Canadians a month going to the food bank. What Canadians are facing after eight years of the Liberals is a dire situation in which Canadians are struggling to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head.

This begs the question “Why is it that Canada faces an affordability crisis?” There is one person who bears primary responsibility, and that is the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who has created an affordability crisis as a result of eight years of reckless spending. This is the Prime Minister who, in eight years, has run up the largest deficits and has managed to double the national debt. So reckless and so out of control is the spending on the part of the Prime Minister that he has managed to do the seemingly impossible: rack up more debt in eight years than all of his predecessors over the previous 150 years combined. This is the Prime Minister who thought it was a good idea to pay for his out-of-control reckless spending by printing, through the Bank of Canada, $600 billion. As a result, the money supply has increased eight times faster than economic growth. Is it any wonder that, in the face of that, Canadians have seen 40-year-high inflation and interest rates rising faster than ever before?

That is the record of the Liberals after eight years. That is what they have to show. They have manufactured a cost of living crisis, and everyday Canadians are hurting. In the face of that, what have the Liberals done and what are they doing to address the issue of affordability, the mess they have created? Earlier this week, Canadians got the answer, and that is based upon the finance minister's presenting the government's fall economic statement. What did we get from the finance minister? We got $20 billion in new deficit spending on top of the more than $100 billion of deficit spending that the finance minister has racked up in the three years that she has held the portfolio. There is $20 billion in new deficit spending that pours fuel on the inflationary fire and is sure to keep interest rates high. There is $20 billion in new deficit spending, notwithstanding the fact that even the Bank of Canada is calling on the Liberals to rein in their spending, and has made clear to the Liberal government that its reckless spending and money printing are contributing to inflation.

There is $20 billion in new deficit spending, notwithstanding Scotiabank's issuing a report recently that confirmed that a full 2% of interest rates is directly attributable to the government's inflationary spending. Canadians have been hit, after eight years of the Liberals, with a double whammy: high inflation and high interest rates. They are now also being hit with a third whammy by way of the Liberals' punitive carbon tax. It is a tax that the Liberals falsely sold as a means to reduce GHGs, but we know, after eight years of the Liberals, that GHGs have gone up and not down. I would remind Liberals across the way, who talk so much about climate action, that the COP27 rankings ranked Canada, after eight years of the Liberals, at 58 out of 63 countries.

However, I digress. The carbon tax is nothing more than another tax, but I qualify that because it is not quite that. It is, after all, a tax that disproportionately impacts lower- and middle-income Canadians. It is a tax that increases the cost of everything, including essentials such as food, fuel and heating. It is a tax that, according to both the Bank of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is exacerbating inflation. Despite that and despite the fact that Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, with nearly half of Canadians $200 away from insolvency, the Liberal government's plan is to quadruple its punitive carbon tax for hard-working, everyday Canadians.

I say to the Liberals across the way that I would be keenly interested to see whether one of them can stand up in their place and explain to Canadians how the policies of the government, namely money printing, massive deficits and the quadrupling of the carbon tax, all of which are exacerbating inflation and increasing interest rates, are a policy prescription that is going to make life more affordable for Canadians. Very simply, those policies are making life less affordable. Canadians are paying a very dear price after eight years of the costly policies of the Liberal Prime Minister.

After eight long years of the Liberals, costs are up. Rent is up, taxes are up and debt is up. The government's time is up.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. As the Chair said, it is the most anticipated question of the week.

We are of course expecting unanimity on Bill C-56 tonight. Perhaps we can count on Conservative votes to help Canadians at this time. That is our hope.

This afternoon, we will continue with debate on the government business motion relating to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-58, relating to replacement workers. We will return to Bill C-58 debate on Monday. Tuesday will be an opposition day. On Wednesday, we will call second reading of Bill S-9, concerning chemical weapons.

I would also like to note that it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement that was tabled earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is dark day. Although I have made several attempts to have Bill C-56 debated in the House, considering that it has not been on the agenda since October 5, we are currently witnessing a government manoeuvre to muzzle the House and limit debate on this bill.

Given that we will be sitting until midnight tonight and voting on Bill C-56, can the government House leader tell us what is in store for us tomorrow and next week in terms of business?

Grocery Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope he is going to vote for Bill C-56 to make sure we have more competition in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to resort to rhetoric like my colleague. One thing is clear, however: I will always stand up for the millions of Canadians out there. That is exactly what I did.

For the first time in history, a minister called industry giants to a meeting, told them that 40 million Canadians were outraged and asked them to help us stabilize prices.

If my colleague wants to do something for Canadians between now and Christmas, if he wants to give them a Christmas gift, he should convince his colleagues to vote for Bill C‑56. We are going to reform competition and stabilize prices in Canada, and we are going to keep fighting for Canadians.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent; he is an honourable man.

If he wants to convince his colleagues to do one thing for Canadians before Christmas, he must convince them to vote for Bill C-56. This is a bill that will help with affordability, reform the Competition Act after 36 years and allow us to stabilize prices in Canada.

I know my colleague is a man of influence. Will he be strong enough to influence his colleagues to do one thing for Canadians before Christmas?

Consideration of Government Business No. 30

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Calgary Midnapore. I will be splitting my time with a fellow Albertan, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

I am going to tell members something that they know, that their constituents know, that my constituents know and that all of Canada knows. Without question, Canada is in an economic crisis. We see record inflation rates. We have certainly seen this across all consumers products, most specifically food where we saw a 40% hike across Canada. All families need to put food on their tables. As well, the cost of clothing, home heating, all these things have increased.

We have seen horrific interest rates as a result of the government's out-of-control spending. Every single opportunity it has, it throws more fuel on the inflationary fire, as we saw this week with the fall economic statement. People who are currently trying to renew their mortgage, as was brilliantly pointed out by my leader, the member for Carleton, are now in a crisis as they attempt to get the best rate possible, as they attempt to hold onto their homes since mortgage rates have doubled, as have rental rates.

We are in a housing crisis. The government has a failed housing accelerator plan, which I believe built, at the last count, 15 homes in the last fiscal year. It is an absolutely shameful number. What did the Liberals do? They brought forward this bill, Bill C-56. We have hope when we hear there is a fiscal bill on the horizon. We hope that somehow the Liberals will get the message, that they will do something sweeping for Canadians, something that will move the dial, that will make even a small change in the lives of Canadians.

What did the Liberals do in the bill? They put forward two measures. We have inflation, interest and a housing crisis, and they put forward a bill with two small measures. The theme here is the same as it always is. The government could be doing so much more to help Canadians, but it consistently does the minimum. It consistently makes the choices that harm Canadians. This bill is another example of that, where it did the tiniest thing possible in the face of the economic crisis across the country.

I am sure members are aware that the most recent deficit this year was at $46.5 billion. The President of the Treasury Board and the finance minister were off by over $6 billion. Certainly, $6 billion is an absolutely incredible amount, but this shows the lack of respect they have for Canadian taxpayer money. Canadians work hard to bring home this money and the government cannot even get it right in a single year.

In fact, the deficit will be going up an average of $4 billion a year through fiscal year 2028-29. To put this into context, that is the year my son, who is now 12, will graduate from high school. He can only hope for the possibility that the government might balance the budget and get out of deficit by 2028. As we have seen, the government is incapable of that by putting forward Bill C-56 with two small measures.

Recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was at the government operations committee, and will be returning today to discuss the supplementary estimates. I am sure he will give us a lot of good information. Last time he came to the government operations committee, he did not have very positive things to say about the government and its fiscal management in this time of an economic crisis. I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer if the government reduced spending, would it have to rely less on nominal GDP, which is another area that is suffering, the productivity of Canada. In addition to having a spending problem, the government has a productivity problem. As my leader said, Canadians just want to get to work. His answer was yes, if I was asking if the government spent less could it reduce taxation.

It is not surprising as we see the government's obsession with taxation, including the carbon tax, which has now quadrupled. It will go to any extent in an effort to support this carbon tax. We heard the Minister of Rural Economic Development admit that if other Canadians had just supported the governing party, they too might get this carve-out, the exemption from the carbon tax. This is the way the government operates. It cannot manage its finances and it cannot increase productivity for Canadians. There is this level of corruption, as is evidenced by the comment from the Minister of Rural Economic Development. The government could be doing so much more.

On August 15, the President of the Treasury Board, my counterpart, said that she would find $15 billion, which is a tiny drop in the bucket, by October 2. As we have seen, $15 billion is not even a quarter of the current deficit. October 2 came and went, and what was announced? Nothing. There was one thing. One billion dollars was removed from our defence budget, at a time when we have significant instability in the world, with the war in Ukraine, with what we see currently in the Middle East and with Taiwan continuously under threat from its aggressor, China. Even she was not able to keep her promise of finding $15 billion by her imposed date of October 2.

If the deficit is going up an average of $4 billion a year, that does not even negate the increase in the deficit. As I said, the President of the Treasury Board did not even meet her own target. Again, the government, with Bill C-56, had the opportunity to do something significant for Canadians and chose not to. It could be doing so much more.

We will have the Parliamentary Budget Officer at the government operations committee today. The government is seeking approval for another $20.7 billion of spending in the supplementary estimates, which is more than a significant amount. It is a horrific amount.

What has the government spent a huge sum of money on? Not surprisingly, and unfortunately, it was on consultants and consulting services. My Conservative colleagues and I tried to raise the alarm last year about McKinsey, not only with respect to the amount being spent on consultants but how the Liberals did not take their instructions from their constituents, as we do on this side of the House, but from their Liberal insider friends. The spending on professional and special services continues to increase and will be a record $21.6 billion in this fiscal year, in addition to the significant deficit I mentioned. Again, it will probably only increase based upon the spending request in the supplementary estimates.

We have seen a failure with the Liberal-NDP government over the last eight years and a failure with the supplementary estimates. Then, when we are looking for hope in the fall economic statement, it is not there. It is more disappointment, as we see another $20 billion worth of fuel poured on the inflationary fire. We have seen this time and again. The government has a spending problem. It has a productivity growth problem. It has no leadership in Canada or in the world.

The government could be doing so much more with Bill C-56, but it again chose to do nothing.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker:

Tuesday is a day where if you thought there was something wrong in this country you would have more evidence you are right.

If you sense the system and those in charge, the high-and-mighties thought to be smarter than the rest of us, have let us down big-time and without apology, you would be right again.

If you feel a general sense of unease, dissatisfaction, your gut telling you there should be a shake-up you would be far from alone.

I just quoted a passage from Rick Bell's column in the Edmonton Sun newspaper yesterday. Mr. Bell was commenting on Tuesday's fall economic statement by the finance minister, a speech she delivered that ties directly into the legislation we are discussing today, Bill C-56. I want my friends in Saskatoon West to hear what else Mr. Bell had to say:

Sunny ways have turned into darkening storm clouds....

If this was supposed to be a Hail Mary pass in the direction of [the Prime Minister's] political redemption, the pass was incomplete, under-thrown, hopelessly off-target.

The high cost of living. Groceries, mortgages, rents, the price of so many things. Up. Federal government spending. Up.

The ever-increasing carbon tax. Up.

It is true. After eight years of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, Canadians are facing the worst affordability crisis in decades. Spending on the bureaucracy in Ottawa is out of control. The money supply has been severely increased to the detriment of consumers and wage earners. The Bank of Canada is strangling our economy with massive interest rate hikes. The NDP-Liberals keep turning the screws on Canadians with every increase of the carbon tax and with the introduction of a second carbon tax. This has led to massive inflation and grocery bills that families cannot afford. The fact is that everybody is spending more money. The uber-rich are the only ones who will be able to afford a house in the future. This needs to change.

The NDP-Liberals tell us not to worry, that they have legislation, Bill C-56 which we are supposedly debating today. I say “supposedly” because what we are actually debating today in the chamber is not Bill C-56 but an NDP-Liberal programming motion. I think it is important that the folks in Saskatoon watching this understand that while I want to be debating the legislation on its merits, the NDP-Liberal government is actually forcing us to debate what we colloquially refer to as a programming motion.

Motion No. 30 is almost 900 words long, and it would take me half of my time here to recite the whole thing, but here are the highlights. First, it would limit the amount of debate MPs are allowed on Bill C-56. Second, it would limit the amount of time the finance committee has to hear from witnesses on the legislation. Third, it would limit the amount of time and the capacity to make and then debate amendments to clauses in the legislation. Fourth, it would instruct the committee to accept amendments beyond the scope of the bill, which, under our regular procedures, would be out of order. Fifth, it would limit the amount of time for debate of Bill C-56 for report stage amendments and third reading to one day when it returns to the House.

This may sound complicated, but it is not. Each of these would override long-standing rules or procedures of the chamber that guarantee the rights of members of Parliament to represent their electors and to speak to legislation. In what is supposed to be, by design, a lengthy process of debate and a cautious and thoughtful examination by MPs, this motion would cut the committee process down to three days, and the remaining time in the House, between second and third reading, to a day and a half.

I know that defenders of the NDP-Liberals in the mainstream media will scream from the rooftops that we are approaching Christmas and that Bill C-56 was introduced in September, so Conservatives should just let it roll through. Is it really the job of Conservative MPs to roll over for a government that has so badly mismanaged its work calendar that it is in a panic to take its Christmas holidays? Does the average Canadian get the ability to ram their work through without any scrutiny just because Christmas is approaching, or does it wait there until they come back after their two or three days off?

Of course the Prime Minister does not know how regular people live. The National Post reported earlier this week that since he became Prime Minister in 2015, he has taken one-quarter of his days off. Would it not be nice if every Canadian could get one-quarter of their days off? That is the ridiculous nature of the programming motion. The NDP-Liberals are so inefficient and hopeless at getting anything done in the House that when faced with the upcoming Christmas break, they panic and go to extreme measures to get anything done.

Let me get into the legislation. Would the legislation work? Would it actually solve anything? The stated purpose of the legislation is to eliminate GST on rental builds and make changes to the competition laws that govern retail stores like grocers. It is meant to be a solution for Canadians who are stretched to their limits, but does it actually solve these problems? The answer is no. That is not my answer; that is the answer the Minister of Finance stated in her own fall fiscal update just two days ago in the chamber. She said, “The apartments that renters need are not getting built fast enough, in part because the builders who would like to build more currently don’t have access to enough of the financing needed to make rental projects financially viable.”

Whose fault is it that builders do not have access to the capital and the financing they need? It is the current government that has put in place economic conditions so dire that the Bank of Canada has increased interest rates to their highest level in 40 years. The central bank, in direct response to government actions, is cutting off the lifeblood of our economy: the ability to borrow and finance the building and buying of new homes.

John Ivison, in the National Post, succinctly put it this way: “[The finance minister]'s fall economic statement was bulging with statements that, if not outright whoppers, were certainly distortions....Growth is expected to be muted....Unemployment is forecast to rise to 6.5 per cent by the middle of next year, from 5.7 per cent now.” Conservatives agree with these damning indictments of the government’s economic policy, the fall economic statement and its failure to get housing built. It is a pattern of failure that the costly coalition repeats over and over again. The costly coalition claims that the legislation is the solution that Canadians are looking for.

Do members remember this time last year? The NDP-Liberals were singing the praises of their one-time GST rebate, which nobody even remembers now. Then, earlier this spring, the Liberals cooked up another scheme with the NDP, a one-time rent rebate for low-income wage earners that nobody remembers now. Now, they think this latest idea will take a bite out of inflation. Did they not say that of their toothless dental program last year? It was another failure, because all of these ideas are temporary and do not get to the root of the problem. Instead, the Liberals are always scheming to stay in power, never delivering tangible, real results for Canadians. It has been failure after failure.

Why is there this overwhelming record of failure? It is because with the current government, the underlying economic landscape is set to fail. It is no wonder. We only need to look back at what the finance minister passed off a couple days ago as an update to the government’s budgetary policy, the costly coalition’s fall economic plan. With $20 billion of costly new spending, the mini-budget can be summed up very simply: prices up, rent up, debt up and taxes up. Time is up.

The finance minister announced more than $20 billion in new inflationary spending that will keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford. It is an NDP-Liberal mini-budget that proposes to increase taxes on the backs of middle-class people. It is an NDP-Liberal mini-budget that will spend more money on servicing the debt than on health care. The signature policy in this mini-budget was to pour $15 billion into a fund to build barely 1,500 homes a year, while we need 5.8 million new homes built by 2030.

Do members remember when the finance minister told Canadians that the budget would be balanced by the year 2028? Since then, the costly coalition of the NDP and Liberals has announced $100 billion dollars of additional debt. After eight years, it is clearer than ever that the costly coalition is not worth the cost, and this mini-budget does nothing to help everyday Canadians. The only way to undo the damage the Liberals have done is by reversing course and doing the opposite. The common-sense Conservative plan would axe the tax, balance the budget, and build homes and not bureaucracy to bring home lower prices for Canadians.

Despite warnings from the Bank of Canada and the Canadian financial sector that government spending is contributing to Canada’s high inflation, the Prime Minister ignored their calls for moderation and yet again decided to spend on the backs of Canadians, keeping inflation and interest rates high. These interest rates risk a mortgage meltdown on the $900 billion of mortgages that will renew in the next three years. High inflation means the government is getting richer while Canadians are getting poorer.

Under the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, here are the facts. There are a record two million food bank visits in a single month. Housing costs have doubled, and mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the Liberals took power. Canadians renewing their mortgages at today's rates will see an increase from 2% to 6% or even higher. The International Monetary Fund warns that Canada is the most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. Business insolvencies have increased by 37% this year. Tent cities exist in every major city, including in Fairhaven in my community of Saskatoon. Violent crime is up 39%, and drugs are everywhere.

Instead of listening to common-sense Conservative proposals to reverse the damage, the NDP-Liberal government has introduced more half measures and photo-op funds that will do nothing to solve the problems that Canadians have. It is time for common sense to return to the Canadian government's decision-making process. It is time for Canadians to say to this costly coalition that enough is enough. It is time for a Conservative government. Let us bring it home.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon West.

I rise today to address Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. This debate is crucial, as it concerns not only the legislative process but also the fundamental issues of housing affordability and market competition that affect Canadians nationwide. This bill, introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, demands our careful consideration and thorough analysis to ensure it meets the needs of the people we represent.

In discussing Bill C-56, it is imperative to address the manner in which it is being ushered through the House, specifically through Motion No. 30. This motion, a procedural manoeuvre by the government, significantly limits the time allocated for thorough debate and consideration of this substantial piece of legislation. By limiting parliamentary discussion and expediting the bill’s passage, Motion No. 30 undermines the democratic process that is fundamental to our legislative system.

Such a hastened approach is particularly concerning given the bill’s wide-ranging implications for housing affordability and market competition. These are complex issues that warrant detailed scrutiny and thoughtful debate, ensuring that every aspect of the bill is examined for its potential impact on Canadian society.

The use of Motion No. 30, in this context, suggests a Liberal government preference for achieving catchy headlines on affordability instead of democratic thoroughness. Such a stance risks overlooking critical nuances and potential shortcomings of the bill. As representatives of the Canadian people, we have a duty to ensure that legislation, such as Bill C-56, receives the comprehensive attention it deserves.

Turning our focus to the housing affordability aspect of Bill C-56, it is essential to analyze its proposed measures and compare them with the initiatives outlined in our Conservative leader's building homes not bureaucracy act. While Bill C-56 suggests removing the GST on new purpose-built rental housing, this approach is merely a fragment of what is needed to genuinely address Canada's housing crisis.

Our Conservative vision, as set forth in the building homes not bureaucracy act, offers a more comprehensive and robust plan. It aims not only to reduce the financial burden on housing construction but also to tackle the systemic barriers that hinder the development of affordable housing. This includes removing the gatekeepers who delay the building of homes, as well as all the other red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that are adding to the housing crisis. These aspects are notably absent in the government’s current proposal.

Our plan mandates significant yearly increases in housing construction, ensuring a steady growth in supply, and it proposes punitive measures for cities that fail to meet these targets. This strategy recognizes that the housing crisis is not just a matter of fiscal policy; rather, it also requires structural changes in the way housing projects are approved and developed.

Moreover, our proposal goes beyond the mere construction of housing. It includes incentives for municipalities that exceed their housing targets, promoting not only the quality but also the quantity and expedience of housing developments. In contrast, that Bill C-56 has a singular focus on GST removal, but does not address the broader regulatory and procedural challenges, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complex nature of the housing crisis. Our approach also recognizes the importance of building communities, not just houses.

By tying transit and infrastructure funding to the construction of high-density housing around transit stations, we ensure that new housing developments contribute to the creation of sustainable, well-connected urban environments. This is crucial for improving the overall quality of life for residents and fostering community development. While Bill C-56 makes an attempt to address housing affordability, it falls short of offering a holistic solution.

The Conservative Party's building homes not bureaucracy act, in contrast, presents a detailed, actionable plan that addresses the root causes of the housing crisis and proposes viable, long-term solutions. It is a plan that not only addresses the immediate need for more affordable housing but also lays the groundwork for sustainable urban development and community growth.

In addressing the amendments to the Competition Act within Bill C-56, it is crucial to recognize their inadequacy in effectively tackling the real issues plaguing our market competition. The proposed measures, though seemingly progressive, fail to address the root causes of the problems they aim to solve.

The government’s approach to amending the Competition Act, as stipulated in Bill C-56, primarily focuses on empowering the Competition Bureau with greater investigative powers and addressing collaborations that limit competition. However, this approach overlooks the broader, more systemic issues within our market structures. For instance, the highly concentrated nature of certain sectors, such as the grocery industry, remains unaddressed. This concentration is a critical factor contributing to the lack of competition and the resulting high prices that Canadian consumers are forced to endure.

Moreover, the bill's omission of the efficiencies defence repeal is a significant shortcoming. The efficiencies defence, which allows certain anti-competitive mergers under specific conditions, has been a point of contention, undermining fair market competition and consumer interests. The Conservative Party has long advocated for the repeal of this defence, recognizing its role in facilitating monopolistic practices. By neglecting to address this defence, Bill C-56 misses an opportunity to make substantial, meaningful reforms to our competition laws.

In addition, the amendments proposed in Bill C-56 lack clarity regarding the specific entities they cover and the concrete standards for service. This vagueness creates uncertainty about the legislation's effectiveness in tackling market challenges. Effective competition law reform requires precise, targeted measures that directly address the issues at hand. Generalized amendments, without clear direction or focus, risk being ineffective in bringing about the necessary change.

While the amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-56 represent a step towards addressing market competition issues, they fall short of offering a comprehensive solution. The Conservative Party's stance on this matter is clear: We need more than just surface-level changes. We need a thorough overhaul of our competition laws, one that addresses the deep-rooted issues within our market systems and ensures a fair competition environment for all Canadians.

It is important to emphasize that while Bill C-56 makes an attempt to address housing affordability and market competition, it falls short of the comprehensive, proactive strategy that Canadians desperately need in these challenging times. As Conservatives, we are unwavering in our commitment to implement solutions that tackle the fundamental issues affecting our nation's housing supply and the integrity of our market systems.

The Conservative leader's building homes not bureaucracy act offers a road map for real, tangible change, in stark contrast to the limited scope of Bill C-56. Our approach is about addressing the root causes of these critical issues with a long-term perspective. We believe in creating legislation that not only meets the immediate needs of Canadians but also sets the stage for sustainable growth and prosperity for future generations.

Conservatives call upon the government to look beyond short-term fixes and consider more holistic, impactful measures. It is time to move away from reactive legislation and towards forward-thinking policies that genuinely reflect the challenges of Canadians. We must acknowledge these challenges and address them rather than pursuing this legislation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I'll speak to that, MP Lawrence.

You would know this. That's what we always do in our committee when we don't have enough time for a full second round. We truncate the second round and we add the time equally. We've done it since the beginning. We've always done it. We've done it for two years now. That's how we roll here on this committee. I think it's a good way, and it allows all members to have some time.

Thank you, Minister, for your testimony on Bill C-56. We really appreciate your time.

Now, we are going to go into transition. We are going to suspend here for a few minutes as Minister Champagne gets ready to come to the table.

Thank you.

We're suspended.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I have a request and two questions for you. I will fire them off, and then, you can answer.

To begin with, could you please ask your officials to send the committee the finance department's projections pertaining to the GST rebate enhancement? How many more housing units will it generate? Are the projections based solely on Mike Moffatt's assessment, or does your department have more detailed analysis? That is my request.

Now for my two questions.

First, under Bill C‑56, the GST rebate applies to the construction of any rental housing but does not include any criteria for affordability. If I understand the bill correctly, you have the power to define affordability criteria in the regulations at a later time. Do you plan to do that? Does this measure apply to all rental housing?

Second, a lot of developers are a bit confused by the fact that Bill C‑56 does little to define certain things as they relate to coming into force. Some measures are deemed to have come into effect on September 14, 2023, but they aren't well defined. I'll give you an example, so you can enlighten us or, if need be, get back to us with a written answer.

Take a construction project. Say the foundation of the building is dug before September 14, 2023. The ground floor is commercial space, and everything above is rental units. Since the construction started—but only for the commercial space—the developer wants to know whether they can access the rebate. The digging started before Bill C‑56 came into force. People have questions about that.

In short, I want to know about the possible addition of affordability criteria through regulation, and the definition that would apply in the scenario I just described.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, thank you for being here today to talk to this very important bill.

I was very happy over the weekend to get a chance to go to my first tree lighting. I had a chance to meet and talk to a lot of Davenport residents, who talked to me about what was top of mind for them. Affordability and economic issues were top of mind for them.

My first question to you is this: How does the bill we're talking about, Bill C-56, alleviate some of the economic difficulties that Canadians, such as those in my riding of Davenport, are facing today?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon everyone.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being here.

I'm going to have questions about the competition aspect of Bill C‑56 for Mr. Champagne, your fellow minister. My questions for you pertain to the GST rental rebate.

When we were briefed on Bill C‑56 at the beginning of the process, we were told about studies that included numbers, projections or forecasts for the GST rebate. We still haven't gotten that information. It's tough for lawmakers to make decisions without the numbers.

What are your projections when it comes to the GST rebate? How many more buildings or units will it generate, do you think?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

You think this discussion is relevant to Bill C-56.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

On a point of order, again, I don't see what the relevance of this discussion is to the bill we are here to analyze: Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure what the relevance of that question is to the subject of Bill C-56.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am wearing the Ukrainian colours because this weekend was the 90th anniversary of the Holodomor. There were many residents of your constituency there, and our colleague Yvan Baker was there as well on this solemn occasion. I thought it was definitely worth standing in solidarity with Ukraine today.

I am delighted to be here with you and the committee members to discuss Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act. This legislation is part of our government's economic plan to build an economy that is focused on the well-being of all Canadians, to create good jobs people can count on.

Our plan is working. In the first half of this year, Canada ranked third highest in the world for foreign direct investment and had more per capita investment than any other G7 country—better than the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France and Japan. Canada has the lowest deficit and the lowest debt‑to‑GDP ratio in the G7. The International Monetary Fund projects that Canada will see the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year.

All of that means that our economy is creating excellent jobs for Canadians right across the country. In fact, there are over a million more people working today than there were prepandemic. Building on that significant progress, our government is taking new concrete measures, under the affordable housing and groceries bill, to address two of the biggest challenges facing Canadians, access to housing and affordability.

I'd like to outline why it is so important that we work together to pass this legislation.

First, we are removing the GST on new purpose-built rental housing, which we all know will help build more homes faster across Canada. This is about making the math work for builders and giving them an incentive to build more homes that would otherwise not move forward due to construction costs. For example, in the case of a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, a builder will benefit from $25,000 in tax relief. That makes it more cost-effective for them to build. It's going to build more rental homes faster. We know Canadians need that.

Our plan is already delivering results. To give you one example, a Toronto-based developer said, after we announced this measure, that this developer will now build 5,000 new rental units across the country. These are units that were otherwise on hold. Provinces, including Ontario, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, have followed our lead by eliminating provincial taxes on new rentals, and that is getting even more new rental housing built across Canada.

In the fall economic statement that I tabled last week, the federal government is also proposing to eliminate the GST on the construction of new co-op, purpose-built rental housing, something that members of this committee have been advocating for and that we've been having very good constructive conversations about.

Today, about a third of all Canadians rent their homes, and whether they are students, families, seniors or new Canadians, it's essential that we build more rental homes and build them faster. I really believe that is a goal that all members of this committee share, and by passing the affordable housing and groceries act, we can help to do just that.

Bill C-56 would also increase competition across our economy, particularly in the grocery sector. More competition means lower prices and more choice. By increasing competition and cracking down on unfair and anti-competitive practices, we're helping to stabilize prices for Canadians. That includes by amending the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau to help the bureau investigate and crack down on price-fixing.

We are also removing the efficiencies defence to end anti-competitive mergers that raise prices and limit choices for Canadians. We are empowering the Competition Bureau to put a stop to situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

Through our economic plan, our government will continue to do everything we can to build an economy that works for everyone, and that is exactly what this legislation will help to do.

Thank you. I'm happy to take your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Welcome, everyone.

We are resuming meeting number 121 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance. Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 23, 2023, the committee is commencing its study of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

As indicated in the memo that was sent out last week, I'd like to remind members that amendments to the bill must be submitted to the clerk of the committee by noon tomorrow, Tuesday, November 28. It is important for members to note that, pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 23, the noon deadline is firm. This means any amendments submitted to the clerk after the deadline and any amendments moved from the floor during the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill will not be considered by the committee. It is important that, when submitting amendments, members also send an XML version of the amendment file. This will ensure that the legislative clerks are able to quickly put together the package of amendments, which will be a benefit to all members of the committee.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

There is interpretation. For those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to the interpreters and can cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpiece, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

As a reminder, all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can. We appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

I'd now like to welcome our witnesses. With us today is the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Honourable Chrystia Freeland. Welcome, Minister. I see that you're wearing your Ukraine pin colours. Thank you for commemorating the Holodomor this weekend with the community.

Joining you today, from the Department of Finance, is the assistant deputy minister of the tax policy branch, Miodrag Jovanovic.

The floor is yours, Minister, for opening remarks.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, regarding housing affordability, the ability to own a home or secure reasonable rental accommodations has become increasingly unattainable for many, especially for young people and newcomers. Bill C-56 proposes substantive enhancements to the goods and services tax, GST, rental rebate for newly constructed purpose-built rental housing. This initiative serves as a catalyst for fostering the development of rental properties encompassing apartments, student residences and homes for seniors. The proposed rebate system, offering significant tax relief, exemplifies our commitment to facilitating the creation of the much-needed housing inventory suitable for diverse family needs.

We urge provinces and local governments to work in tandem with this bill on rebate initiatives and actively support housing developments situated in close proximity to public transit systems, enhancing accessibility and promoting sustainable communities.

Concurrently, the government has taken concrete measures to mitigate the costs associated with groceries. The introduction of targeted inflation relief through the one-time grocery rebate in July represented a proactive step. Bill C-56 supplements these efforts by proposing legislative amendments to the Competition Act, augmenting the authority of the Competition Bureau to conduct comprehensive market studies. These amendments seek to eliminate the efficiencies defence for anti-competitive mergers and address collaborations that impede competition, specifically those disadvantaging smaller competitors in contrast to larger grocery entities.

The significance of Bill C-56 extends beyond its immediate implications. It complements a suite of measures aimed at enhancing the quality of life for Canadians. Since the beginning, our government's commitment to delivering meaningful benefits to Canadians has remained unwavering. The 2023 fall economic statement, delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance earlier this week, is a testament to our dedication toward creating an inclusive and thriving economy that supports the middle class while striving to build more homes faster.

This year's fall economic statement serves as a blueprint to tackle the prevailing challenges of high prices and impending mortgage renewals. Our government stands resolute in taking targeted measures to stabilize prices, support Canadians with mortgages and enhance affordability. The comprehensive plan outlined in this statement introduces substantial funding for housing initiatives, cracking down on illegal short-term rentals and making significant advancements in making housing more affordable across Canada.

Continuing our legacy of delivering tangible benefits to Canadians, the economic statement reinforces our commitment to supporting Canadians. The government has taken proactive steps by introducing measures aimed at making groceries more affordable, cracking down on junk fees and removing GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. These initiatives underscore our dedication to fostering an economy that offers equitable opportunities for all Canadians.

Moreover, our economic plan is not merely in response to immediate challenges. It is also strategically positioned to propel Canada toward a cleaner and more sustainable future. Investments in Canada's clean economy, the introduction of the Canada growth fund and advancements in the indigenous loan guarantee program signify our unwavering commitment to fostering a robust economy that is sustainable and inclusive.

The robustness of our economic plan is underscored by the federal government's unwavering commitment to making housing more affordable across Canada. Federal investments in housing have witnessed a substantial increase, surpassing previous benchmarks. This year, the federal investment in housing is $9 billion higher than it was in 2013-14. Since 2015, the average annual federal housing investment has more than doubled compared to the previous government. The comprehensive strategy outlined in our economic plan allocates billions in new loan funding to support the creation of more than 30,000 additional new homes and dedicates a substantial portion to affordable housing projects, all aimed at enhancing the accessibility and affordability of housing options for Canadians.

Our government's responsible economic stewardship has yielded commendable results, reflected in the employment of over a million more Canadians compared to prepandemic levels. Canada's unemployment rate has remained consistently lower than in previous records, while inflation rates are on a downward trajectory. Moreover, our commitment to fiscal responsibility is reflected in maintaining the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 nations.

In conclusion, Bill C-56 is a testament to our government's unwavering commitment to addressing the critical issues faced by Canadians today. It symbolizes our dedication to fostering an inclusive and prosperous Canada for all. As members of Parliament, it is our collective responsibility to prioritize the well-being of Canadians, ensuring equitable access to housing and essential goods. I would encourage all members to support the measures included in Bill C-56.

I am thankful for the opportunity to advocate for the passage of this crucial legislation.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss Government Business No. 30 and the affordable housing and groceries act. It stands as a cornerstone of our commitment to building more homes faster and stabilizing prices.

Regrettably, the urgency and significance of this bill have been overshadowed by the repeated filibustering and delay tactics employed by the Conservative opposition, resulting in over 20 hours of debate across five days. It is evident that despite garnering support from within its own ranks, including commitments made by the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon over a month ago to vote in favour of this bill, the Conservative opposition remains committed in its attempts to hinder the bill's progress.

Bill C-56 is designed to address the challenges faced by Canadians, specifically in relation to the cost of groceries and the need for affordable housing—

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would save that debate for when the fall economic statement comes forward. Today we are discussing Bill C-56.

While I cannot speak to the impact of the GST, I can say that in my community of Newmarket—Aurora, there is one project that will provide us with 568 new units. These were ready to go, but the business model was not effective until the GST was implemented. In a community of 24,000 housing units, that number is quite significant, so we cannot take away from the fact that this is a progressive measure that will help many communities like Newmarket—Aurora.

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

Madam Speaker, as usual, the Liberal members are awfully pleased with themselves. They are bragging about their government's achievements.

My colleague had a lot to say about housing. Unfortunately, the GST rebate in Bill C‑56 is not going to make much of a dent in the housing crisis in Quebec and Canada. It is a marginal measure, especially in Quebec.

The government tabled its economic update two days ago. Unfortunately, many of the measures in it will not take effect until 2025 or 2026. Quebec has 10,000 homeless people. I have seen them in Longueuil, Saint‑Jérôme and Rimouski. There are people on riverbanks. This is going to be very hard.

We asked the government to put an emergency fund in the economic update. Winter is coming, and it is going to be cold. We know that. It is going to be hard. I know people will die in Quebec, on those riverbanks, in small towns, all over the province. That is unacceptable.

We asked for an emergency fund to help address the problem, but we got nothing. Most of the economic measures will not take effect until 2025 or 2026, but we need to build 150,000 housing units a year starting right now. If we do not build them this year, there will be a backlog, and they will have to be built sooner or later.

When will the Liberal government get serious about this problem and come up with measures that will make a real difference?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought that when I thanked the member for his intervention, I confirmed that. However, for the record, yes, I do wish to split my time.

We also need to stabilize the cost 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 needed it the most, with up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and an extra up to $234 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew we needed to do more to address the rising cost of groceries.

Through Bill C-56, the government is introducing the first set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act to, one, provide the Competition Bureau with the powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; two, remove the efficiencies defence, which includes allowing 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 three, empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular in situations where large grocers prevent smaller grocers from establishing operations nearby.

Bill C-56 builds on other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians: delivering automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefits, starting in July 2023; supporting up to 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,400 per child under the age of six and up to $6,200 per child aged six through 17; increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and older by 10% as of July 2022, which is providing more than $800 of additional support for pensioners; and reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories reducing child care fees to $10 a day or less by April 2, 2023, and strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces.

The new proposed housing and grocery support I outlined today would make it easier to build more of the homes Canadians need and want, to help them thrive. It would also help families with the growing cost of putting food on the table. The passage of Bill C-56 would help us to provide a brighter future for Canadians. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family, and making life more affordable is a key part of that.

I urge hon. members here today to conduct their review of this bill expeditiously and support its speedy passage so that we can conclude this important work.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague.

We know the rising cost of groceries and the lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country, and I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing those important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56.

We know that for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach, and paying rent is becoming more expensive across the country. The housing crisis is having an impact on our economy. Without more homes in our communities, it is difficult for business owners to attract the workers they need in order to grow their businesses and to succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, it means they spend less of their money in their communities for necessities like groceries.

Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects that begin construction after September 14 and on or before December 31, 2030. For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need and that families want to live in.

The measure would also remove the restriction on the existing GST rules so that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, would be permitted to claim the GST new residential rental property rebate. The government is also calling on provinces to join it by matching its rebate for new rental housing. It is also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage apartments to be built near public transit.

Launched in March, the housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities, towns and indigenous governments unlock new housing supply, which is about 100,000 units in total, by speeding up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density and incentivizing development to choose public transit. It represents one of the ways we are encouraging initiatives aimed at increasing the housing supply. It also would support the development of complete, low-carbon, climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive, equitable and diverse. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster, so we need to reduce the cost of housing for everyone.

We also need to stabilize the cost of groceries in Canada. Through the one-time grocery—

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Our government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in these times of high inflation. It is committed to continue to make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger future for all Canadians.

We all know the rising costs of groceries and the lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country. I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing those important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56. We know that for far too many Canadians, including young people, the dream of owning a home is becoming increasingly—

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country.

We are debating Bill C-56. The NDP-Liberal government continually fails to address the real issues that it has caused for all Canadians. It says the bill will somehow bring down the cost of living and grocery prices.

People in my community are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. Food bank usage is the highest it has ever been, with over 30% more clients year over year. This is consistent across the country and also in my community. People with disabilities and seniors on fixed incomes are hit particularly hard.

Instead of cutting the carbon tax and government spending, which is driving up inflation, the Liberal-NDP government believes that implementing Bill C-56 would somehow solve the inflated cost of living and grocery price issue.

There is a lack of competition in Canada's grocery industry, an industry held mostly by Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, and this is a problem the bill would not solve. We have already seen the Prime Minister and the government fail at keeping their promises, like having cheaper groceries before Thanksgiving. That date has long come and gone.

Canadians are faced with higher costs than many other developed countries due to a lack of competition, whether in industries like grocery, airline, banking or telecommunications. High taxes, bureaucracy and red tape make Canada unproductive and uncompetitive. The Liberals added a second carbon fee, basically a second carbon tax. Saying the legislation takes some kind of stand against grocery stores is nothing short of performative with a nice title.

The policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition, with its inflationary deficit spending and high-tax agenda, has caused our inflation rate to be as high as it has been, and continues to be, which has caused the highest interest rates in a generation. The legislation is trying to deal with problems created by the government without addressing any of the causes. It is as if we are walking along and someone trips us and while we are lying on the ground looking up, that individual puts his or her hand out and asks to help us up. Meanwhile we would be thinking that if that person had not tripped us in the first place we would not be on the ground.

The NDP-Liberal coalition thinks that taxing farmers who grow our food, taxing transport trucks that move our food and then taxing grocery stores that sell our food has nothing to do with inflation. We have to remember that it was the Liberal finance minister who had declared victory on inflation only to see it go higher.

We also have to remember that inflation is compounding. Most people are familiar with compounding interest on their investments. However, this is the harmful kind of compounding, because it means things cost more.

For a 3% inflation, for example, that is 3% on top of last year, where during the same month it could have been 8%, as we were seeing in 2022. Therefore, the inflation rate this year is 3% plus 8%, which is 11%, but is even more because it is compounded compared to two years ago.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that inflation was homegrown and that it was costing the average Canadian $3,500 a year. That is not per family; it is per person. No wonder people are having trouble heating their homes. They were last winter and we are seeing them have a tough time again this year.

I send multiple surveys each year to every home in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, and it is amazing the huge amount of people who respond to them. A recent one was this past summer. Here are the results: 70% say they are buying fewer groceries; 81% say they are taking fewer trips; 78% say they are donating less to charity; and 89% say they are putting less into savings. Many people also put detailed notes, sharing their ideas, solutions and heartbreaking stories with me.

The John Howard Society of Okanagan and Kootenay has stated that it is now having clients come to its organization saying that they have just lost their homes and do not know what to do. Now the organization does not know how to support these people because it was not built for the capacity it is now seeing.

It is no surprise that people cannot afford a home when the price of homes and rent in Canada has doubled over the last eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years to save for a mortgage.

Saving for the average mortgage for the average home used to take five and a half years before the Liberal government. A recent C.D. Howe Institute study determined that in Vancouver, nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is 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.

The NDP-Liberal government has poured billions of dollars into housing programs and there is little to show for it. Removing the GST from home construction was proposed in a private member's bill by the leader of the official opposition. The difference between what he was proposing and what this bill would do is that this bill would help, but it is not focused on affordability like the official opposition member's bill is.

When I am home in my community at many different activities and events, a top issue many people bring to me is the increasing cost of their mortgage payments and how it is affecting their families and families they know. I was talking to a dad who said his mortgage just increased by over $1,000 a month. Another person, who has three kids, reached out. He is the sole income-earner for the family as his wife stays home to look after the kids. He was looking for any tax credits for kids' fitness and other activities, something I had to tell him the Liberals cancelled.

The latest MNP consumer debt index shows 51% of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to complete their financial obligations. It said, “Facing a combination of rising debt carrying costs, living expenses and concern over the potential for continued interest rate and price hikes, many Canadians are stretched uncomfortably close to broke. There is no mystery as to what is causing Canadians’ bleak debt outlook: it’s getting increasingly difficult to make ends meet.”

A recent survey released by financial firm Edward Jones Canada said, “Canadians are stuck in a chaotic whirlwind of personal financial stress,” and, “The poll clearly shows that Canadians are so preoccupied with just getting through the day, that the idea of paying debt feels like a distant dream.” It also found that 88% of Canadians say their personal financial situation is impacting their well-being.

In addition, 65% of Canadians now say they are concerned about saving for retirement, and 63% are concerned about how to prepare for an unexpected financial event. There are less savings, more concern and more risk. Forced sales events are up 10%, with mortgage defaults climbing, as just reported by the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board. It is not just me talking about the financial situation in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada said that Canadians are now facing the biggest financial challenges of their lives.

The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal coalition have really lost touch with Canadians. This bill would assist with one small sliver of an issue with building homes, but it is not a housing affordability bill. As we see now with the fall economic statement and the Liberals being supported by its partner, the NDP, this spending will continue on a path of deficits and keeping inflation and interest rates high. This bill would not address the causes of high food costs, inflation or high interest rates. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

We can send this bill to committee to be studied, and hopefully, some amendments can be made at committee and brought back to the House.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-56, and it is important to bring us back to what this bill could offer to Canadians.

I am particularly interested in the piece around strengthening the Competition Act. We know that Canadians are deeply concerned about the rising costs of living. Christmas is coming. Ideally, not moving toward closure is what we want to see in the House, but we need to unfortunately because of the games that are played.

Could the member speak to some of the things we are seeing in the House that unfortunately prevent us from passing critical legislation like this?

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are debating today would have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I would like to bring to this debate the Conservative Party's attitude towards legislation in general. I put it in the form of a question earlier about the Conservative Party today, the leader of the Conservative Party, his attraction to the People's Party and the membership of that particular party. As a result, the Conservative Party has moved far to the right. I would ultimately argue that the far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party today.

I do not say that lightly. I truly believe that to be the case, and we have seen a good demonstration of that. Talking about the legislation we have today, one would think the Conservative Party would recognize the value and the good within this legislation and have a desire to see it passed. However, that is not the case of the far right Conservative Party today.

We saw that amplified just the other day when the Conservative Party voted against a trade agreement. Conservatives actually voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It is unbelievable. Then they try to rationalize why.

It is rooted in the leadership of the Conservative Party. We see that far right element has virtually taken over. That has started to filter down into what we see across the way today. That is why, whether it is the Conservative Party voting against the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, or against the legislation we are debating today, there is a desire on the part of the Conservative Party to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

Then they look surprised that we would bring in time allocation for the debate on Bill C-56. The bottom line is that time allocation was brought in because the Conservatives do not want to see this legislation passed—

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, it would take me more than an hour to try to explain that to Canadians, but I do not think I could find any answers. On what Canadians witnessed yesterday, I am sure they are still at home wondering whether what they saw really happened, that in 2023 the Conservative Party of Canada would vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Did it really? A time when a nation is fighting for democracy, and when it is fighting a war, is the time when one needs to help it.

I know that maybe there is still a glimmer of hope, because Christmas is approaching. I know my colleagues are eager to go home, but Canadians are asking them to do one thing: to please vote for Bill C-56. They should give something to Canadians before they go on vacation and make sure we have more affordable housing and more affordability across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we have to do more. This is why we introduced Bill C-56. We said the meeting with grocers was a first step. We asked them to do what was necessary to help Canadians, but we are not fools; we know more has to be done.

I know my colleague will vote in favour of the bill. I can see it in his eyes. He is thinking that Bill C-56 gives more power to the Competition Bureau specifically to investigate big grocers across the country. If what he says is true—and I know he thinks what he says—he will vote in favour of Bill C-56. This bill will give more power to the Competition Bureau so it can conduct inquiries, and we know that the best way to help consumers across the country is to strengthen competition.

Quebeckers will be watching the member when he votes on Bill C-56. I am convinced he will vote the right way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question was very thoughtful, and she pointed out what is going on in this place. I hope Canadians are watching.

There is a party in front of us that will do anything to block any progress. Yesterday, we saw something egregious. The Conservatives blocked the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. What the member is saying is that we see it time and time again. If I look into my own heart, I would think there should be unanimous consent. This is a bill that would improve housing and affordability. Everyone was sent here by families and other members of their communities. I know that these people expect us to do the right thing when it is about helping them. Like the member said, she would not expect people at home to say they sent members here to block and filibuster. They sent people here, on all sides of the House, to make sure we work for Canadians.

The bill is about more housing and more competition for Canadians. I hope that every member of the House will vote in favour of Bill C-56. Let us give a gift to Canadians at a time when they need it most.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe this.

Today, my colleague tells us it is urgent, that we must quickly pass Bill C-56 for its housing initiatives. The GST credit is a marginal measure to fight the housing crisis. Still, in the economic update, two days ago, we had a unique opportunity to invest in housing. However, most measures will only come into effect in 2025-2026.

We need billions of dollars in investments now. We need to build 150,000 new units a year in Quebec. In the agreement with Quebec, 8,000 units will be built in the next five years. There are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec. We asked for an emergency fund to prevent deaths in Granby, in Rimouski and in Saint-Jérôme. Not a cent was allocated. The crisis is here now. I can hardly believe we were told this morning it is urgent to vote on the bill, while the government put nothing in its economic update two days ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take that question from the member because, as we said, Parliament is the place where we should debate ideas. This is the place where the best ideas should come from and actually be implemented. That is what we are seeing with Bill C-56 and this motion. There is a time for consideration and debate, but there is also a time for voting and acting.

If the member believes what he said, he should be in favour of the bill and running to his caucus to tell them that Christmas is approaching, Canadians are going to be watching and they need to do the right thing for Canadians. The two things that matter to Canadians are housing and affordability. Bill C-56 is going to help Canadians. If he is true to his word, he is going to convince his colleagues to vote for Bill C-56.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the reality for many Canadians. One thing we have seen across many nations is that the best way to bring affordability and stabilize prices is through competition. Bill C-56 would do something that has not been done in about 37 years in our country. It would reform the Competition Act in ways that are very clear.

The bill would give more power to the competition authority, for example, when it does a market study. The last market study was done on groceries. Can we imagine having an authority with no subpoena power? That has not been seen in any other G7 country. Now we are going to fix that. Another thing it would do is ensure that anti-competitive mergers can be blocked. We have seen, time and time again, that we have restricted competition. Lastly, Bill C-56 would remove restrictive covenants that we can currently find in leases. We have seen in the member's riding, as in my own, a grocer in one shopping centre. Today, there are some restrictive clauses in leases that would prevent an independent grocer from going and competing with them. We need to put a stop to that.

Canadians watching at home are trusting us to do the right thing for them. The only reason we are here is to serve the people at home. They sent us here to do something. We are committed to doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not bet on that. However, I would say that I know the member; he is a man of good heart. I have had a number of discussions with him, and he is someone who wants to do what is right for Canadians.

However, like me and I hope all members, when they get groceries, when they walk in their ridings on the weekend and when they talk to people in the street, they hear that there are two things that Canadians are facing today. They are facing the cost of housing and affordability. Those are the things Canadians want us to take action on, not only as government but also as parliamentarians.

Christmas is approaching. Canadians are watching, and they ask whether Parliament will finally do something to help them. They want help on affordability and on housing. This bill would do that. We can imagine: It would enhance the GST rebate on new rental housing; it would give more tools to the Competition Bureau to go after uncompetitive practices in this country.

If the Greens want to help Canadians, as I am sure they do, I have no doubt that when the vote comes up on Bill C-56, they will vote in favour of it and in favour of Canadians.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Greens, we believe we are sent here not to play partisan games but to focus on the priorities of our communities. Right now, we are not even debating Bill C-56 or the programming motion to move more quickly on Bill C-56. We are debating another motion to limit debate on the programming motion. This has happened dozens of times in this Parliament alone. I believe it is 29 or so. One day, the minister might be in opposition. Is he at all concerned with the precedent that this sets of bringing forward allocation to limit time on debate again?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague is talking about competition because we know all about competition in Quebec. Consumer protection is a value that Quebeckers hold dear. Right now, Quebeckers who are looking at my colleague must be thinking that the Bloc Québécois will certainly support a bill that promotes competition.

One of the problems we have seen recently involved the food sector. Bill C‑56 would give more power to the Competition Bureau to investigate, to undertake a comprehensive study. I am sure that Quebeckers at home are thinking that the Bloc Québécois will certainly vote in favour of Quebeckers because, if it believes in competition, it believes in Bill C‑56.

Bill C‑56 will create new tools to help Quebeckers. I am sure that people at home listening to us today are convinced the Bloc Québécois will do the right thing and support Bill C‑56.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is getting all worked up talking about competition, saying it is important to promote it.

I have a proposal for him to promote competition. In Quebec, a lot of small businesses need help. We asked that the deadline for small businesses to pay back the emergency business account be extended by one year. Due to inflation and what they lived through with the pandemic, they are not able to reimburse the loan so quickly.

The government said it would grant them 18 days. What are they going to do in 18 days? They cannot do much. We proposed that the government extend the deadline for small businesses to reimburse the loan. We also offered to help in expediting passage of Bill C‑56. The government refused.

Is it telling us it has decided to abandon small businesses in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the member, but let me repeat in English what I said in French. Do they know how much we consulted on that when it came to competition? There were 120 days of consultation. Five round tables were held across the country. Four hundred submissions were received in 120 stakeholder organizations.

On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more debate, consultation and time. On the other, they are trying to blame us for delaying. We are saying no. Canadians are saying no to them. They said no to them in the last election.

There is a time for consideration and debate, but there is also a time for action. Canadians want action on housing and affordability. Can they help Canadians for once? Bill C-56 is very simple; it is a bill for helping Canadians. I am sure people at home will look at the Conservatives and wonder whether they will do the right thing for Canadians once and for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I am going to respond to that, because I know Canadians are watching.

My colleague is right. Yesterday must have been a shock to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, seeing the Conservatives voting against Ukraine in a time of war. Did they really vote against the Canada Ukraine free trade agreement? They tried to find excuse after excuse for it.

Now we are going to see if the Conservatives find another excuse to not help Canadians. Bill C-56 is simple: It would help people with housing and affordability. I am sure Canadians are asking whether the Conservatives will ever do something for them.

Conservatives have the opportunity of a lifetime. It is just before Christmas. They should give a gift to Canadians by voting for Bill C-56 and letting us move forward in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that is exactly what we are doing. There have been five days of debate, which adds up to 20 hours. I am listening to the member, and I hear him. He says we must act, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. I hope the Bloc Québécois will be with us.

My colleagues need to remember that there were 120 days of consultations on competition, including five round tables and 400 submissions. Nearly 120 organizations filed submissions. We consulted all the stakeholders. Today, we are asking the House to move forward.

Canadians also agree with the member. They want us to forge ahead. We expect the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of Bill C-56. That way, we will be able to push forward and reform the Competition Act, which has not been updated in 37 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is music to my ears when I hear that from the party blocking everything.

We can imagine that folks at home are watching, and they are saying that the Conservative Party of Canada voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I am sure people at home are asking what is going on in Ottawa these days. They want to know what kind of Conservatives would vote against a nation that is fighting for democracy on behalf of all of us.

My hon. colleague is right; he brings words of wisdom to this House. Bill C-56 is about helping Canadians with housing and affordability. Will the Conservatives ever vote in favour of Canadians? We are going to be watching them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope all Canadians watching at home are looking at this debate. They would agree that there is a time to consider and a time to debate, but also a time to act. I have been saying that to Canadians and even to the Leader of the Opposition. There is only one thing he can do for Canadians, which is to vote for Bill C-56. Why? The Conservatives would be well advised to listen to Canadians.

Canadians have told us that the two things they are concerned about are housing and affordability. That is why we have already had 20 hours of debate over five days. Imagine that. Canadians at home need the help contained in this bill and are wondering why members of Parliament have been talking about 20 days. I think Canadians watching today want action and that is what we are going to deliver.

Fall Economic Statement

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the member for Elmwood—Transcona on calling out the extent of the disappointment on housing time and again. We saw it again this afternoon. I give credit to the NDP on Bill C-56, which was able to negotiate a fix to ensure co-ops would have access to that really important measure.

When we see this happen time and time again, at what point is enough enough? At what point do we say that the juice is not worth the squeeze and that we need to make sure more gets done on housing, along with so many of the other challenges our country faces, and we need to make sure the government does better and more?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance. We just spent the last week touring western Canada. We visited every region to hear from people. All the organizations, the chambers of commerce, the organizations representing SMEs are asking for the deadline to be extended by one year. It is the same in Quebec. We hear it everywhere.

When we speak with the ministers individually, most of them agree with this call. Most of them do not understand the Minister of Finance's reaction. That is what is throwing a wrench in the works. The Minister of Finance and senior civil servants are saying that it is going to be expensive.

We have been leading the charge for quite some time. We just want to be the voice of the SMEs we represent. We were ready to negotiate with the government. For example, if the government wants Bill C‑56 to pass, in exchange, we would like the government to extend the deadline by a year. With all due respect, we wish the NDP had followed our lead. I hope they keep this example in mind so that, in future negotiations, they can ask for this in exchange. It would be a big win for SMEs. It would mean 20% fewer bankruptcies, according to figures from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It would make a big difference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to remind the House that this is an economic statement. It is not a budget. As we know, a budget sets out the government's policies and presents the legislative, fiscal and budgetary measures required to implement them. An economic statement has a more modest purpose. It is supposed to present the evolution of the economic and fiscal situation since the last budget.

What this statement now tells us is that the deficit may change according to the government's forecasts, contrary to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer had calculated, which is worrisome. The statement outlines the government's response to these changes. There is not much there. For example, at the end of the summer, the Prime Minister asked the new President of the Treasury Board to cut $15 billion from various departments in order to balance the budget. They promised to give us an outline by mid-October. That did not happen. We were expecting to see it in the economic statement, but all they are doing is putting things off again without any concrete targets. Another objective has been missed.

What is the purpose of an economic statement? It is used to present the measures the government plans to take to deal with the emergencies that have cropped up since the last budget. There have been quite a few emergencies since the last budget. The economy has changed a great deal. There is a lot of struggling and difficulty. The economy is not doing well. Many people are affected by that. We were really expecting the minister to address the major emergencies that have come up since the last budget. Unfortunately, this is such a missed opportunity that we might wonder what the point is in having an economic statement. I will come back to that. There are several emergencies that we could have focused on that were simply not even mentioned in this statement.

I will give another example. The first chapter has to do with housing. While we are short on housing and social housing and the situation is desperate, we find out that there will be $37 million in cuts this year. For next year, not one penny more will be added to what was already presented in Bill C‑56 to get rid of the GST on social housing construction. We will have to wait two years to see the $54 million and $1 billion promised for subsequent years to tackle housing. Is that enough when we know that most of that $1 billion is money that was already announced and not spent? It is unfortunate.

A few weeks ago, we presented our requests to the minister. What we asked the government to do in the economic statement was to respond to existing emergencies, the urgent situations that we are currently facing. Take, for example, homeless people. As we know, it is starting to get cold outside. This morning, the temperature was below zero. There are people who are sleeping in tents and in the streets. It is truly awful. We are asking the government to do what Quebec did in its fall economic statement and to allocate emergency funding to immediately address homelessness. We want to set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support homeless people in their area and give them the resources they need to do so. There is nothing about that in the economic statement. This is a real emergency that we are dealing with, and yet we have here a government and a minister who are ignoring the real emergencies. There was no response to that request in the economic statement.

On the housing front—and I will come back to this in more detail later—we provided the minister with ideas of how to create an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations and set up an interest-free or very low-interest loan program to stimulate the construction of social and affordable rental housing. Our program could be easily implemented and rapidly deployed without costing the government a fortune. The main measure being announced here is that builders who want to develop a real estate project will be allowed, in partnership with their financial institution, to pay only the interest on the loan and will not have to repay the capital until the building is built and sold.

While this would improve liquidity somewhat, it is not really something that was asked for by the groups that we heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, for instance. At the end of the day, we do not think it will contribute to building additional housing. Let us just say that the impact of this remains to be seen, and we do not see it in this statement.

We know that seniors are in dire straits. With the current inflation rate and what was announced this morning, the consumer price index is not as high as what we have seen over the last few months and the last few quarters, but it is still above 3%. Low-income seniors and seniors in general are struggling, and we need to restore some measure of fairness.

The government decided to increase old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. However, since then, with my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, who is our critic for the rights of seniors, we have been saying that fairness must be restored. The increase must start at age 65. People who are struggling need this support, which will not be enough to make up for the lack of indexing to inflation or to the average wage that the program originally offered. Still, it could give seniors a little breathing room in the current inflationary environment.

The repayment of CEBA loans is another urgent situation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, chambers of commerce and many organizations representing SMEs are raising the alarm with elected officials in the House and with the government. They are asking that the deadline be extended by another year. These loans were granted during the pandemic, but after the pandemic, SMEs have had to deal with rising inflation and a difficult economic recovery. Many of them are falling further into debt. Now, the government is asking them to repay their loan or they will lose the grant portion.

According the the CFIB's numbers, approximately one in five SMEs could go bankrupt if the deadline is not extended. When we asked the minister about that, she said that it would cost too much. No serious studies were done to determine what it would cost the government, the economy as a whole and society if as many as one in five businesses went bankrupt as a result of this.

We in the Bloc Québécois are willing to bet that pushing the loan repayment deadline back one year would be much more profitable. It would strengthen the economy in the sense that it would prevent a lot of predictable bankruptcies. A few weeks ago, the Journal de Montréal published an assessment of the risk for each region. My riding, in the north of the Lanaudière region, was particularly at risk, given the minister's refusal to extend the deadline for repayment of CEBA loans by one year. That is very disappointing. We tried and tried to negotiate with the government. We could not get access to the studies it had used to make that decision because, as we understand it, there were no such studies.

In the end, the government chose to team up with its natural ally, when we could have come to an agreement in exchange for that condition, which would have greatly helped our SMEs. The government chose to turn its back on struggling SMEs. We can only conclude that the government's ally did not really care about that too much.

There are other emergencies. As I said, the purpose of the economic update is to respond to existing emergencies.

We can think of our media. Small, local and regional media, newspapers and radio stations are struggling. They are falling one after the other. The situation is catastrophic. Even the bigger media outlets are having a tough time. We do not even know if they are going to make it to Christmas or next summer. The situation is that dire. We saw the sad announcement of upcoming layoffs at Groupe TVA, with more than 500 employees affected. Even the biggest media outlets are struggling to overcome the crisis. We called for an emergency fund for the next few months at least, but that did not happen either.

Also, in order to resolve an inequity, we called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. That has not been done either, which is appalling.

Let us talk about other extremely important points. Since 2015, this government has been promising a complete overhaul of employment insurance. Once again, it has been postponed indefinitely. A year and a half ago, we were told that it was coming in the spring of 2022. After that, they said it would be no later than that fall. Now there is no mention of it, and nothing has been done. I naively wanted to believe the Liberals' promise. Let that be a lesson to me. Nothing has been done, and now they will not even dare talk about it. Shame on me for believing a Liberal promise.

When it comes to EI reform, a specific concern was also raised that once again has to do with the need to respond to emergencies. This summer, there were forest fires everywhere. That means that a lot of seasonal workers in the forestry industry were unable to accumulate enough hours to qualify for EI during the season because they could not work in the forest. We brought this to the minister's attention. This is an emergency and the government needs to be a bit flexible. The government needs to do something and to think about those workers, and yet there is nothing in the economic statement to address this emergency either.

We often asked questions in the House, and I personally drew the minister's attention to an issue that my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has been working on. The government announced $1 billion for a school breakfast program for children. The money was promised during the announcement, but it has yet to be delivered so that the program can be implemented. Inflation is high, and more and more children are going to school hungry. It is time for the government to pay out the money it announced. The government could have already dealt with this emergency, but this, too, was not urgent enough for the minister.

Many of my colleagues talked to me about regional infrastructure needs. Nothing more is being done. There is also the whole agriculture sector, which was hit by the flooding in some regions this summer. The produce and horticultural sectors are struggling. They are in serious trouble. Could existing programs have been adapted? The economic statement would have been the time to do that but, no, nothing was done. Once again, agriculture was not even mentioned in this statement.

There is a slightly technical detail that affects many artisanal businesses throughout our regions that could really change things. As we know, the government increased the excise tax on wine after Australian wine producers sued Canadian wine producers. Regulations on the matter are problematic. In legal texts, everything that is alcohol is called “wine”. The Bloc Québécois managed to get apple cider and mead exempted from the tax. That was a big win, and these producers are grateful.

Afterward we realized that if cider producers put a bit of pear in their drink, they have to pay the entirety of the tax. Producers of beverages made from maple alcohol also have to pay the entirety of the tax. As soon as there are a few small fruits in these drinks, producers have to pay the entire tax. It does not bother wine producers in Australia that we help our small artisans who produce these niche products. For two years we have been calling on the minister to settle this. I understand that she is busy, that she is dealing with many challenges, but at some point these are just formalities that need follow-up. This would only help better recognize the artisans without taking anything away from anyone, without frustrating anyone in Australia. It would be easy to do. This could have been implemented in the economic statement, but no, that was not done either and it is really disappointing and upsetting.

As I was saying, the government and the minister should have developed an economic statement to respond to the emergencies. I raised a few that have been brought forward by all of my colleagues here. It is not hard. How many of the emergencies we raised did the minister respond to? A big fat zero. I am referring here to a former minister I will talk about and quote. It was a former minister of Prime Minister Trudeau, the father of the actual Prime Minister. I definitely said “actual” and not “actuary”.

Speaking of actuaries, let me emphasize that the employment insurance fund surplus has doubled. Once again, workers have to pay to fill the government's coffers.

Let us come back to the urban affairs department. What is it? In the economic update, the government has chosen to create a new department, which my leader dubbed the “department of interference” because it deals with housing. It is interference, pure and simple. It is similar to what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did when he created a ministry of urban affairs. Its minister was Mr. Ouellet. That is why I am drawing attention to it.

This is a quote from a Library of Parliament research document:

Accordingly, in March 1971, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who took on responsibility not only for CMHC but also for a new Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA). Given the inescapable constitutional limitations [of interfering with provincial jurisdiction], this ministry had no program responsibilities...

Today, the government is bringing this department back. We can see where this is going. The Library of Parliament document continues as follows two paragraphs later:

This...eventually led to the downfall of Trudeau's intervention in federal-municipal relations.

A bit further on, it reads, and I quote:

In view of the Department's lack of credibility and the government's desire to cut expenditures, the MSUA was abolished on 31 March 1979.

Is that what awaits us with the creation of the new department announced in this economic update? As my colleagues have said, that is definitely what we can expect.

Let us talk about some other aspects of the economic statement. Over the past few weeks, we have been seeing a squabble play out between the Liberal government and the Conservatives in the House. The Conservative Party is all about slogans and is always pointing out problems. The Conservatives made a suggestion on housing. What is it? It involves punishing the municipalities and the provinces. The Conservatives are saying that, if the municipalities do not build 15% more housing units, then the federal government should hold back infrastructure funding. For example, this year, housing starts in Quebec decreased by half. That means that, were the Conservative Party in power, it would have cut the province's infrastructure funding by half. They are real winners, as my colleague said.

The Liberal government's response to this proposal is to use it themselves. In the statement, it is clear that they are using the same approach. In other words, they are threatening the provinces and, indirectly, the municipalities. The statement says that if they do not build enough housing, transfers will be cut off. My goodness, does the Liberal government want to go back to the Stone Age, too? I wonder.

There is one good measure involving Airbnb. The government wants to bring it in line with municipal regulations. It is going to be difficult to enforce, but there is hope. I am not simply criticizing everything. That is a good measure. As I was saying about the $15 billion in budget cuts, it was supposed to happen in October. However, the plan hatched by the government and the President of the Treasury Board is not even mentioned in the November statement. As I was also saying, we brought up a number of urgent matters, but none of them have been resolved here. There is no plan for dealing with the emergencies. Clearly, the Liberals do not understand what an emergency is.

I will say it again: Each and every one of the Bloc's demands and the urgent needs expressed by Quebeckers has been ignored. Clearly, this government, this Prime Minister and the finance minister are confusing fiscal restraint with inaction when it comes to emergencies. It is all going to cost us more in the end.

Again, the purpose of an economic update is to take stock of the economic situation since the presentation of the budget and announce solutions for the emergencies we know about. This statement does not address the many changes and does not fix anything. This is such a missed opportunity that we wonder why the government even bothered.

Thanks to the Liberals, things will get worse before they hopefully get better.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you.

Now I will give my ruling on this. There is a ruling from the chair.

The amendment seeks to amend section 78 of the Competition Act. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771, “an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.”

Since section 78 of the Competition Act is not being amended by Bill C-56, it is therefore the opinion of the chair that the amendment is inadmissible.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank Mr. Ste-Marie for his introductory comments.

I would just like to point out that we had over 20 hours of debate on Bill C-56 in the House, in addition to six hours of debate on motion number 30. We debated this bill at great length in the House. I understand that it was a bit tight this week, but we are 10 days from the end of the parliamentary session. As well, I think that everyone around the table agrees that this is a bill that should be passed before the holidays.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

In brief, I think that was extremely well said—eloquent, I might say as well. I realize that we are where we are with respect to Bill C-56, but Conservatives would agree almost entirely with your comments, Mr. Ste-Marie.

As we go forward into the fall economic statement, I know Mr. Blaikie particularly to be an advocate for good process. I'm hoping he will use his voice and his power to make sure that we have a good process with respect to the fall economic statement.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a few comments to make concerning the conduct of the study we are doing of Bill C-56. I don't know whether this is the right time to talk about it. If not, I will do it when I speak to the first amendment I am going to suggest.

I want to let you know that I will shortly be withdrawing two of the amendments that I submitted. I am not happy about withdrawing them, because they reflect needs that have been expressed by groups of experts in the field who are directly affected by Bill C‑56. However, as they stand, those amendments would have adverse effects that might outweigh the benefits they were supposed to provide.

I am talking about this because we have a serious problem. We had to submit our amendments at the same time as we were listening to the witnesses in committee. Why? Because, as a result of the super gag order, we did not have enough time to do our work properly in committee. This is very serious. The fact that the government has an agreement and everything will be passed does not mean that we should bypass the work that members do in committee. This kind of contempt for parliamentarians is rarely seen. We cannot do our work properly.

I will give you an example. On day 1, at the briefing on Bill C‑56, we asked the finance department officials to send us the projections they had concerning the GST rebate. What effects were expected? How many more buildings and units would be built? How many fewer condos would be built? What figures is the bill based on? The day before yesterday, I again asked the Minister for these figures, and she said yes and they would be sent to us.

Now we are shortly going to be starting the clause by clause study of the bill, but we are going to be voting blindly, in a fog, because we still do not have those figures. The Minister named an academic who she said had done a study that the officials seemed not even to have read. That is not a serious way of doing things; it is not disciplined. We are still waiting. Ordinarily, I would not be prepared to vote, because I have not received the finance department's answer, even though the Minister of Finance undertook to send us the information.

On this point, I want to reiterate that the finance department seems to regard members of Parliament with contempt. For the last two years, when in camera studies of the budget or the economic statement took place, there were no officials on site to answer our questions, despite our repeated requests. Journalists, however, get in‑person access to the officials. We are given only hard copy documents, while journalists have access to the same documents on USB keys. It is as if the media were more trustworthy than members of Parliament, the people's elected representatives. It reflects the finance department's perception of the House of Commons and its members. It is unacceptable.

This week, in addition, we received a notice of ways and means motion five minutes before the briefing started. I would reiterate that there was no summary. There was nothing. We received 529 pages of incomprehensible legislative and tax gibberish and we had only five minutes to read the whole thing before asking the officials our questions. That shows the contempt that the department has for Parliament. I have an assistant who does research and has worked in the party for 25 years, and he says he has never seen things done this way in 25 years. As well, during the presentation, the sound quality of the official's remarks was so bad that we did not understand half of what he said. I was the only member who asked questions. I asked two questions. The answers were clear, but we did not have the means to prepare.

Then they will be coming to us with Bill C‑60, the follow‑up legislation, and I warn you. There are two weeks and a bit left before the work of the House is adjourned for the winter break. Does the government seriously want to get through the entire process to enact this mammoth bill and still think we are going to be able to do our job well? Does it not care at all about our work? This is not acceptable.

Some of the amendments I will shortly be proposing and I will not be withdrawing may create inconsistencies in the act. They were drafted with the help of the Office of the Law Clerk, but it was done quickly. The message I am sending to the government is "tough": if my amendments are adopted and create inconsistencies, it will be up to you to introduce other legislation to solve the problems, because you do not respect the work we do here, and that is unacceptable.

I hope that for the next budget implementation bill acceptable time is allowed so we are able to do our work properly.

In Bill C-60, for example, there should be the follow‑up to the reform of the Competition Act. This is the first time in 37 years that there has been such a reform. However, if we want it to be enacted by Christmas, we can expect that we will not even have time to study it. Ultimately, there will be a reform of the Competition Act, when there has not been one for 37 years and there have been 20 years of calls for reform, but we will not even be able to do our work on it properly. This is not a serious way of doing things and it is undisciplined.

I oppose gag orders. Obviously, my party will always be in opposition here. I do not like it when Parliament is gagged. The government, which is in charge of how the work is done, could at least allow enough time for us to be able to hear witnesses and experts in committee, to talk to officials, and be able to delve a little more deeply into things and do our work properly.

That has not been possible with Bill C‑56. That is why I am shortly going to withdraw two of my amendments and why some of my other amendments might create problems in the overall structure of the bill. However, we have no choice, because of the super gag order that limited us to a single day of study before going to the vote. That is unacceptable.

During the pandemic, it might have been excusable; that was a special situation. Now, however, we have had two years of the finance department not respecting members of Parliament by preventing us from doing our work properly, both in camera and in committee and the House. This has to change, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are resuming meeting number 121 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 23, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

I'd like to provide members of the committee with a few comments on how the committee will proceed with the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-56.

As the name indicates, this is an examination of all the clauses in the order in which they appear in the bill. I will call each clause successively, and each clause is subject to debate and a vote.

If there is an amendment to the clause in question, I will recognize the member proposing it, who may explain it.

I'd like to remind committee members that pursuant to the order adopted by the House on Thursday, November 23, all amendments had to be submitted to the clerk of the committee by noon yesterday.

As a result, the chair will allow only amendments submitted before that deadline to be moved and debated. In other words, only amendments contained in the distribution package of amendments will be considered.

When no further members wish to intervene, the amendment will be voted on. Amendments will be considered in the order in which they appear in the package each member received from the clerk.

In addition to having to be properly drafted in a legal sense, amendments must also be procedurally admissible. The chair may be called upon to rule amendments inadmissible if they go against the principle of the bill or beyond the scope of the bill—both of which were adopted by the House when it agreed to government business motion 30 and the bill at second reading—or if they offend the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendments have been given a number in brackets in the top right corner to indicate which party submitted them. There is no need for a seconder to move an amendment. Once it has been moved, you will need unanimous consent to withdraw it.

During debate on an amendment, members are permitted to move subamendments. Subamendments must be provided in writing. Those subamendments do not require the approval of the mover of the amendment. Only one subamendment may be considered at a time, and that subamendment cannot be amended.

When a subamendment is moved to an amendment, it is voted on first. Then, another subamendment may be moved, or the committee may consider the main amendment and vote on it.

Finally, pursuant to the order adopted by the House, if the committee has not completed the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill by 11:59 p.m., all remaining amendments submitted to the committee shall be deemed moved, the chair shall put the question forthwith and successively without further debate on all remaining clauses and amendments submitted to the committee, as well as each and every question necessary to dispose of the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, and the committee shall not adjourn the meeting until it has disposed of the bill.

I thank members for their attention and wish everyone a productive clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-56.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to Standing Order 15.1. Members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application.

I'd like to make a few comments for the benefit of the witnesses and members.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your microphone, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

Regarding interpretation for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French audio.

For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

Although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful to interpreters and cause serious injuries. The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to the microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on. In order to prevent incidents and safeguard the hearing health of the interpreters, I invite participants to ensure that they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order as best we can, and we appreciate your patience and understanding in this regard.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I've been informed that all witnesses have completed the required connection tests in advance of the meeting.

Members, just before we welcome our witnesses, you should have received the budgets that we need approved. Could I just get a thumbs-up?

(Motion agreed to)

That's great. Those are approved.

Thanks to you and to the clerk.

Today, we are studying Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

With us today are our witnesses. From the Department of Finance, we have Robert Ives, who is an expert adviser on real property and financial institutions. From the Department of Industry, Mark Schaan is with us. He is the senior assistant deputy minister of the strategy and innovation policy sector. Also from the Department of Industry, we have Samir Chhabra, who has joined us. He is the director general of the marketplace framework policy branch. Finally, we have Martin Simard, who is the senior director in the strategy and innovation policy sector.

Those are all of the officials who are with us today.

I saw MP Ste-Marie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, PS Bendayan.

To our excellent expert witnesses, thank you for your hard work and for your advocacy on housing and competition. We thank you for your testimony before our committee on Bill C-56.

We are suspended until Wednesday.

[The meeting was suspended at 9:29 p.m., Monday, November 27, 2023]

[The meeting resumed at 4:37 p.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2023]

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Williams.

We are getting close to the finish line here with witnesses on Bill C-56.

Our final questioner is MP Weiler. No. PS Bendayan is our final questioner.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boswell, obviously in Bill C-56 there are some important new powers that the bureau will be getting, and presumably there are some commensurate expectations as well. I'm wondering, does your office need some time after royal assent in order to prepare for managing those new powers, or are these powers that, in your opinion, your office will be able to implement immediately?

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

Thank you.

Bill C-56 proposes to remove the GST for the construction of rental housing. Would it have been useful for the government to consult the provinces so they could better align their tax policies in this regard?

[Anthony Durocher]

The way it's framed in Bill C-56 right now is such that it would be going forward and take effect a year from royal assent. Part of what that provision for that change to section 90.1 would do is that it would enable us to address anti-competitive agreements between parties that are not direct competitors, so to address vertical agreements, including in the form of restrictive covenants, when appropriate.

To add on restrictive covenants, it's certainly an issue that we examined in the context of our grocery market study. One of our key recommendations to governments, particularly at the provincial and territorial level, was that these can be very harmful to competition, particularly in the grocery sector, and that provincial and territorial governments should consider limiting their use or banning them outright.

[Matthew Boswell]

Well, more competition in the economy, however that's generated, will result in a bunch of very positive outcomes. I'm sure you've heard about it all day today in terms of lower prices, more choice, more innovation and better service. It also drives productivity growth, though, which we all know Canada is in desperate need of at this time, and GDP growth. Improvements to the competition law framework over time will, we believe, improve competition in Canada.

I should say, though, and Mr. Lee referenced this in his opening statement, that this is not the end of the discussion. One of the big problems we have in Canada is regulatory barriers to competition. We at the bureau have been pointing this out for some time now. We really need to take a whole-of-government approach to competition in our economy, at all levels of government, to examine the regulations we have that might unnecessarily hinder competition.

These reforms are important to give the bureau more powers to be an effective law enforcement agency. The government increased our budget, which had been stagnant for a very long time. They did that in 2021. In 2022 there were amendments. There are amendments in Bill C-56. As we heard last week in the fall economic statement, there's more to come.

That's all very important for the policy framework and for the enforcement of the law, but we also have to be a country that takes competition seriously in the organization of all its affairs, including how governments regulate and how they can unintentionally hinder competition through regulations without analyzing the competitive impact.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank everyone for answering questions and being here with us this evening to answer questions on Bill C-56.

My first question is for you, Mr. Boswell. We had officials here earlier, and I asked questions about all of the ways we're trying to improve competition policy in Canada. For me, it didn't seem like it was willy-nilly. It seemed like there was a very deliberate plan to improve competition in Canada. It was very thoughtful in terms of how they were going about doing it.

One thing we are worried about here in Canada is around productivity and business investment. Can you comment on the changes we've made to competition policy? Do you think it will have a positive impact on improving productivity and business investment here in Canada?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Castiblanco, in my party, we prefer to provide more support for social housing, which includes cooperatives, as a housing intervention measure or strategy. We have problems with the term "affordable", because affordability is not based on ability to pay, and affordable housing is very often not really affordable. The Minister was very clear earlier: in Bill C-56, the GST credit is for all housing units, not just affordable units. The Minister would have had the power to define it, but she decided that what is wanted is simply more housing.

Since the bill was presented to us, we have been asking the Minister and her team to show us their studies, their projections, their figures, and we have been given an undertaking by them that they will do so. The measure is expensive and targets all housing, so we wanted to know what more it would provide. Just now, the officials seemed to say that there had been no studies, and the Minister quoted a study by an academic, Mike Moffatt. That is all.

My question is this: is the GST credit for all housing units a good measure? Should we support it? Can you remind us of what has to be done and, if you have the time, the importance of having data or models on which to base decisions of this kind?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

If we were to seek an amendment around this, what would you like Bill C-56 to say?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Boswell, I want to pick up where my colleague left off with respect to the issue of market inquiries. Michael Geist, the professor you're probably familiar with, has expressed concerns that the provisions of Bill C-56 relating to inquiries by the Competition Bureau into the state of competition in the market or industry could undermine the bureau's independence from the government by allowing the minister to order an inquiry not only if he believes an offence or contravention of the act has been committed but also on the basis of public interest. Do you share his concern?

[Matthew Boswell]

As it stands now in Bill C-56, the commissioner wouldn't be able to initiate a market study inquiry to allow us to go to court to compel records and testimony from participants in the market study. The minister would have the power to commence that inquiry in discussion with the bureau, and we'd create terms of reference paraphrasing how Bill C-56 is set out. We believe that the commissioner should have the ability to initiate a market study inquiry, which gives us the right to go to court and make an application for records and information.

That's not exactly how it's worded now. I understand that in motion 30, there is some potential change to the market study provision, but I'm not clear on what the details are there.

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

Thank you.

I am now going to ask Mr. Boswell from the Competition Bureau to answer these questions.

You also would suggest that the Bureau have the power to undertake these kinds of inquiries on its own. Under Bill C-56, the Bureau will instead have to obtain a court order to compel witnesses to produce documents or appear.

Do you agree with that too?

[Sara Eve Levac]

In fact, Bill C-56 provides that the Competition Bureau may ask a court to make an order to obtain information. In other words, it does not have the autonomous power to compel a witness to give testimony or provide information. We believe that this could cause delays in a market study inquiry, when Bill C‑56 provides for a maximum of 18 months for that type of study.

I would also like to point to what happens elsewhere, outside Canada. For example, the European Commission, which has the power to initiate sectoral inquiries, also has the power to compel witnesses to provide information.

If the Competition Bureau had the ability to compel people to provide information to it, that would enable it to get a more complete picture of the situation when it does a market study and, at the end of the study, to make more useful recommendations.

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

Yes, your answer was very clear. Thank you very much.

My next question is for Ms. Levac.

Ms. Levac, thank you for being here and for your presentation.

You are asking for the Competition Bureau to have the power to undertake inquiries into the state of competition on its own. If I understood your remarks correctly, under the current provisions of Bill C-56, when the Competition Bureau conducts an inquiry, it does not have all the tools it needs to demand all of the evidence or compel people to testify. That is also my interpretation of the bill. However, Mr. Champagne seemed to be saying, earlier, that everything was provided in the bill and there was no problem. As we know, however, the Minister sometimes takes a very cheery view of things.

I would like to hear your comments on what I am asking you. Do you think this is already in Bill C‑56 or should it be added?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good evening to all the witnesses, whom I thank for their presentations and for being with us to answer our questions.

My first question is for the representatives of the Competition Bureau.

As Ms. Levac said, Bill C-56 repeals the efficiencies defence in anti-competitive agreements. My question relates to this change and the other measures set out in Bill C‑56.

You analyzed the potential acquisition of HSBC Canada by the Royal Bank. Do you think that if Bill C‑56 were enacted, the conclusions of your study might be different?

[Matthew Boswell]

We often discuss—particularly Mr. Durocher's team, which leads these studies—what study we should do next and what area we should look into. Where do we see potential competition issues that matter to Canadians? That's one of the driving forces behind what we decide to do.

Going forward, if Bill C-56 is to become law and these changes come about, at that point we'll have to assess the landscape and the options available to us in terms of market studies. We'll make decisions at that time.

We don't have any plans right now to revisit anything, but it's very fluid. We'll see what happens if the bill is passed.

[Sara Eve Levac, Lawyer, Option consommateurs]

Hello, Mr. Chair and committee members. We thank you for offering us the opportunity to present our comments today.

My name is Sara Eve Levac and I am a lawyer with Option consommateurs. I am joined by my colleague Carlos Castiblanco, who is an economist and analyst.

Option consommateurs was created in 1983 and is a not-for-profit association whose mission is to help consumers and defend their rights. Option consommateurs has been involved in issues relating to competition for decades. It often answers consumers' questions concerning deceptive marketing practices. It has initiated class actions alleging violations of the Competition Act. It also contributed to the recent consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada.

We are therefore in a good position to provide our comments on Bill C-56.

Option consommateurs supports Bill C-56 and urges that it be enacted. First, in this inflationary period, it proposes better oversight of market competition. We also welcome the repeal of the efficiencies defence in corporate merger cases. Second, it is part of a comprehensive and multi-faceted approach for stimulating the housing supply.

However, we propose that the measures put forward in the bill be strengthened. Our presentation will focus on two of these suggestions.

First, the amendments to the Competition Act should give the Competition Bureau the necessary leeway in carrying out market studies.

Second, there should be more focus on creating affordable housing. This would mean specifying the criteria for housing units that are eligible for the excise tax rebate, for one thing.

I would note that we have produced a written brief setting out our position on the bill in detail.

First, Bill C-56 gives the Competition Bureau a mandate to conduct inquiries into the state of competition in a market, at the request of the minister. We propose that the Competition Bureau have powers that enable it to obtain the necessary information directly in conducting such inquiries.

For example, the Competition Bureau recently did a market study on the retail grocery sector. In that study, it pointed out that the companies had not all cooperated to the same degree.

To ensure that the market studies provided for in Bill C-56 are effective, the Competition Bureau should have the power to compel a person to provide information to it.

At present, Bill C-56 provides that the Bureau must apply to a court for an order that a person provide information to the Bureau. This additional step cause additional delays in the conduct of inquiries.

We note that elsewhere in the world, including in the United States and the European Union, the institutions responsible for overseeing the state of competition do have that power.

As well, the power of the Competition Board to undertake a market study should be included in the act. Elsewhere in the world and in Canada, the power of other oversight institutions to undertake studies is expressly provided in the law.

I will give my colleague Mr. Castiblanco the floor to talk to you about our comments on the proposed amendments to the Excise Tax Act.

[Timothy Ross, Executive Director, Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada]

Good evening. Thank you again for the invitation to appear this evening.

My name is Tim Ross. I'm the executive director of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. CHF Canada is the national voice of housing co-operatives from coast to coast to coast.

In a world of growing housing insecurity, unbearable rent increases and social isolation, housing co-operatives offer solutions to these economic and social challenges. Co-operative housing is a well-documented success story. For over 50 years, co-ops have been providing good-quality and affordable housing owned and managed by their members. There are more than 2,200 housing co-operatives located in every province and territory. They are home to a quarter of a million Canadians.

Co-op housing operates at cost, meaning members' housing costs remain stable. They cover the costs of operating and maintaining vibrant communities.

Research from last year proves that co-op homes cost $400 to $500 less per month than comparable private rental buildings in similar cities. Think of what an extra $400 or $500 a month could mean to your household. It could mean more nutritious meals. It could mean supporting extracurriculars for kids. It could mean saving for education, saving for a house or saving for retirement. The value of co-ops is well known to their members, but we want to do more to build more co-operative housing.

Another benefit of co-operative housing is that co-ops offer security of tenure. There is no outside landlord who might sell or renovict the property, or jack the rents just because the markets can bear it. Finally, co-ops are very strong communities. The members who live there care about their community, and they care about their neighbours.

The value of co-op housing has been recognized by governments of all political stripes throughout Canada’s history, most recently in the legislation that is the purpose of this study by the committee and in the fall economic statement.

I wanted to offer that context before I spoke a bit about our reaction to Bill C-56.

Bill C-56 includes the new GST rental rebate, which has been designed to incentivize the construction of purpose-built rental housing. While we know that increasing the supply of multi-unit rental housing is important, we need to make sure that we are building the right kind of supply—the type of housing that people can actually access and afford. Co-ops certainly fit the bill.

The fall economic statement proposes including co-operative housing in this rebate. We appreciate this policy change, as we know it will be directly passed on to future members living in future co-op homes built across the country.

Reduced project costs will translate to lower project debts, resulting in lower housing charges for the members from the outset. Through the co-op housing model that operates on a not-for-profit basis, these savings will be passed on directly to the households occupying these new co-op homes from day one, and this benefit will increase over time.

I would also be remiss if I didn't speak about this rebate in the context of the co-operative housing development program. We are quite excited to see the co-operative housing sector growing in Canada. The federal budget in 2022 included the first federal investment in co-op housing in over 30 years, as well as a commitment to codesign the program with the co-operative housing sector.

CHF Canada encourages the federal government to launch the co-op housing development program as soon as possible, as there is a lost opportunity cost in waiting for a program to launch as costs continue to rise.

Our excitement for this program is tempered by the fact that we know more is needed to solve the housing crisis. Ms. Marie-Josée Houle gave some of these numbers as well. The key to solving the crisis is not just building more homes; it’s building more community homes, meaning more co-op and non-profit housing.

You would ask, perhaps, “At what cost?” I know we're all mindful of the fiscal situation and its potential impact on inflation. It's very important that we tame inflation.

I want to highlight a study that was just published today by the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. It was written by Deloitte. It demonstrates the benefit to Canada's economy if we continue to grow the community housing sector in Canada just up to the OECD average. By doing so, by 2030, we would increase economic productivity in Canada by 5.7% to 9.3%. It would lift our GDP by up to $136 billion. What's very important is that this study further demonstrated that government investment in the creation of new community housing was non-inflationary.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share some of these updates from the co-operative housing sector. I look forward to your questions.

[Matthew Boswell, Commissioner of Competition, Competition Bureau Canada]

Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you this evening.

My name is Matthew Boswell. As you've heard, I am the commissioner of competition for Canada. Joining me is my amazing colleague Anthony Durocher, the deputy commissioner responsible for competition promotion.

The Competition Bureau is an independent law enforcement agency that protects and promotes competition for the benefit of Canadian consumers and businesses. We do this because competition drives lower prices and innovation while fueling economic growth.

We administer and enforce the Competition Act by investigating and taking action to address anti-competitive business practices that harm consumers, competition and our economy. These include price-fixing, deceptive marketing and abuse of market power. We also review mergers to ensure they do not substantially harm competition. Finally, we advocate for pro-competitive government policies and regulations. We believe that our experience as Canada's only competition law enforcement agency affords us an important voice in identifying the limits and issues surrounding the act's application on a day-to-day basis.

In March of this year, we made a public submission to the government's consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada. We identified a number of areas where the bureau believes reform is required, informed by our experience in administering and enforcing the act. In fact, we made over 50 recommendations to the government for its consideration. We are pleased that some of our suggestions could be implemented through Bill C-56.

These suggestions include:

First, there is the updating of our market study powers, including the ability to compel information when warranted. That would permit us to better investigate certain industries as necessary.

Second, there is the repealing of the efficiencies defence, which will strengthen the Bureau’s position to challenge anti-competitive mergers for the benefit of all Canadians.

On introducing a vertical collaboration provision, while such a change was not part of our recommendation package to the government's consultation, the bureau welcomes this addition to tackle potentially anti-competitive conduct.

Further, we were encouraged by Parliament's decision to potentially expand the scope of Bill C-56 to allow this committee to make additional amendments to the act, most notably to increase the penalty amounts for the abuse of dominance provision, to give the commissioner of competition the ability to initiate market study inquiries, and to revise the legal test for abuse of dominance prohibition orders.

We believe these amendments mark a key step in modernizing Canada's competition law and ensuring the bureau can better protect and promote competition in Canada. A more competitive economy will benefit all Canadians by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses.

If these proposed amendments become law, the Bureau will take care to ensure that its approach going forward with respect to their application is communicated clearly and transparently to businesses and stakeholders alike. We are keenly aware of the importance of predictability in this realm.

We look forward to discussing these proposed amendments today with you.

Thank you. We look forward to your questions.

[Keldon Bester, Exective Director, Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project]

I am the executive director of CAMP, a Canadian think tank dedicated to addressing issues caused by monopoly power in Canada.

This is an exciting time for competition policy in Canada, and CAMP is glad to see parties across Parliament putting forward plans to strengthen Canada’s competition law and protect affordability for Canadians.

Bill C-56 is an important investment in the future of competition in Canada, and CAMP is happy to support it.

By removing the efficiencies defence, giving the commissioner of competition the power to conduct market studies and expanding the scope of enforcement against anti-competitive agreements, Bill C-56 makes material positive contributions to the Competition Act.

I'll be frank. I don't believe that these changes will make groceries more affordable tomorrow. The situation today is the result of decades of thinking, at the heart of the Competition Act, that has supported consolidation and reduced competition at the expense of Canadians. The work to reverse that thinking will take time. As I mentioned, we see these proposed changes as investments that will pay off for Canadians in the coming months, years and decades, and in sectors well beyond grocery.

That being said, within the current scope of Bill C-56, we would like to propose two changes to strengthen the bill so that it might better serve Canadians.

First, the commissioner of competition should have the independent authority to conduct market studies without the direction of the minister. Bill C-56 provides appropriate checks and limits on the commissioner's use of the market study power and, as such, independent study authority should be granted to preserve the agency's independence.

Second, powers related to anti-competitive agreements should be further strengthened to ensure meaningful enforcement. This means adding the ability to pursue past agreements and penalties for those who engage in these agreements, the absence of which currently renders the provision ineffective.

With these changes, Bill C-56 will deliver more benefits to Canadians sooner, but looking beyond Bill C-56, more comprehensive change is still needed to the Competition Act to ensure competitive markets for Canadians going forward. Even with the removal of the efficiencies defence, Canadians will not be fully protected from further consolidation in important markets. Future reform should introduce presumptions against mergers in already concentrated markets, banning them outright in highly concentrated ones. It should also set the standard for remedies to harmful mergers at preserving or improving competition, not making things worse at a more acceptable pace.

For markets already characterized by a small number of players, we need stronger provisions to ensure that any dominance isn’t abused at the expense of Canadian businesses, workers and consumers. Today, abuse of dominance cases are few and far between and can take years to investigate. Expanding the scope of the provision and streamlining its enforcement should be a key priority.

Finally, the enforcement of the Competition Act should be more transparent and decentralized. The Competition Bureau has made important strides in communicating how it works to Canadians, but it is still very much a black box and we fall short of the transparency of peer jurisdictions like the United Kingdom. Canada's competition law enforcement is also quite centralized, with the Competition Bureau responsible for all markets across our $2-trillion economy. By allowing private parties to seek damages under the Competition Act, Canada will have more eyes on the ground to identify and address unfair methods of competition going forward.

Today, with Bill C-56, I think this committee has an opportunity to make a material improvement toward more robust competition law, but after Bill C-56, the priority should be to finish that work with more comprehensive reform of the law that Canadians depend on to protect competition and affordability.

Thank you for your time today. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting back to order. Welcome, everybody.

We've already had three hours of testimony with two ministers and the officials, and now we have some excellent witnesses on Bill C-56.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 23, 2023, the committee is meeting to resume its study on Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informed that all witnesses have completed the required tests in advance of the meeting.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses.

With us today, as an individual, we have Ian Lee, associate professor at the Sprott school of business, Carleton University. From the Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project, the executive director, Keldon Bester is joining us. From the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we have the federal housing advocate, office of the federal housing advocate, Marie-Josée Houle. We have, from the Competition Bureau of Canada, the commissioner of competition, Matthew Boswell. He is joined by the deputy commissioner, competition promotion branch, Anthony Durocher. From the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, we have the executive director, Timothy Ross. From Option consommateurs, we have the economist and analyst, Carlos Castiblanco, and Sara Eve Levac, lawyer. Welcome.

We are going to start off with associate professor Ian Lee, as an individual, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, MP Thompson.

We want to thank our officials and our witnesses before us. Thank you for your testimony on Bill C-56. You did a great job. We got a lot of information from you. Thank you for being with us here late in the evening.

Now members, we are suspended for our health break until 7:30.

[Mark Schaan]

I appreciate the question.

I'll say a few things specific to the Bill C-56 changes.

Market studies have proven effective, even without subpoena power, to have a certain amount of directional impact on markets. We can think about the bureau's ride-sharing market study and their work in the telecommunications switching study. Obviously, those studies will be far more enriching when they can actually understand the real market dynamics at play and then be able to make recommendations in transparency both to consumers and to governments.

The efficiencies defence essentially empowers them to ensure that they actually have the tools to stop mergers that will potentially harm markets, harm competition and ultimately harm Canadian consumers.

The vertical collaborations is actually quite important because it expands the construct of what looks like competition in a marketplace to recognize that it's not just two competitors facing off against each other, but that actually they're using other players within the market structure to get anti-competitive outcomes.

All of that means they'll now have tools in their tool kit to really go after some of those particularly difficult or challenging aspects of the market structures that are harming prices, overall Canadian choice and ultimately competition.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Thanks very much.

Thank you to the officials for being here in overtime. We appreciate it and appreciate all the work that you do.

My questions are going to be sort of feeding down into a request for documents, just to give you a heads-up there.

This is called the affordable housing and groceries act. I'm assuming that there was some due diligence done with respect to the impact that these provisions would have on reducing the price of groceries and reducing the cost, if not of housing, then of rent.

I know my colleague, Mr. Morantz, talked about this, but I'm just wondering if you can give me anything on housing or groceries. We'll start with groceries. Just to give some structure, can you estimate how much the price of groceries will go down as a result of this bill?

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

Mr. Mercille, in response to the questions I asked, we were told that there were no studies and it was not known whether affordability criteria will be included in Bill C-56.

I am sensing some unease. I get the impression that the measure relating to the GST was put together off the cuff.

Bill C-56 provided the broad outline of the measure, but the rest was sent to us by way of a departmental opinion.

Did your department work on a similar measure or a version of this measure before the pre-sitting caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada in the fall?

[Mark Schaan]

I appreciate the question.

If you go back even before the legislative amendments in budget 2022, you can look at the fact that the government has made a significant resource addition to the bureau. By providing a significant injection of new funds to empower the bureau to be well placed and fit for purpose, one of the things the bureau has done with that, for instance, is that it has created a digital markets group that can more specifically look at the way in which technology and data-driven parts of the economy are actually understood from a competition perspective, because they run very differently, in many ways, than traditional industries do.

The 2022 changes to the budget created a number of important foundational elements. It took a look at penalties, for instance. It made penalties uncapped in a number of key zones and created essentially very important consensus-based items that were the foundation for early reform.

Bill C-56 then targets three core areas, and it is now proposed, under motion 30, to include at least one more, which would tackle things like the efficiencies defence, which, as the minister noted, right now allows for projected efficiencies on the basis of the collaboration to potentially outweigh the significant lessening of competition and allow a merger to proceed. Then, what is in the fall economic statement takes that even further, and what M-30 proposes is much similar.

Right now, for instance, abuse of dominance is one of the more challenging things to actually enforce against. Can you prove that someone really big in the market actually had intent to use their bigness, if I can put it that way, to harm competition, and that there are then effects of that in the market, as in you can prove that they've lessened competition? What M-30 suggests is that, for those purposes, that test should now be an “or”. You have to be big, but in order to be able to potentially get a prohibition order from the bureau, it's either intents or effects—not necessarily both.

Other really important changes are these killer acquisitions, for instance. It lengthens the period of time that the bureau has to review a merger. Oftentimes when a small company is being acquired—we can think of some in the tech space, for instance—we didn't even know at the time of the merger that it was going to be really foundational or important. Right now, there's a time limit on the degree to which the bureau can actually look at those mergers, so it will extend it to three years to allow for the bureau to be able to look back, take appropriate action and bring action to bear, if necessary.

In sum, what the overall effort has done is that it has tried to tackle the necessary resources, the fit-for-purpose regulator and then a series of legislative amendments that correspond with the kind of market dynamism that I think the government has suggested it seeks.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

That's very helpful.

I know that you were starting to talk a little about this in your opening remarks. You were talking about some of the changes in Bill C-56, but you also started talking about the fall economic statement.

I was in the business world for about 15 years before I entered politics, and I will say that a lot of people have been saying that we need to make a lot of adjustments to our Competition Act to ensure we have competition in Canada. Can you maybe talk about all the different parts you're looking at to try to ensure that we have good competition and we have a productive, prosperous economy, moving forward?

[Mark Schaan]

Thank you for the question.

In plain language, the way the act currently thinks about collaboration is traditionally a collaboration that potentially is between a competitor and a competitor, and that collaboration potentially harms competition and therefore is within the reach of the bureau. What our change does in Bill C-56 is that it expands the concept of what could be a collaboration to not just those that are between competitors and competitors, but those that are between competitors and someone else in the value chain that actually potentially are going to impact competition.

The case that has often been used, or the example in the grocery sector that has often been cited, has been that it might not be two grocers getting together to collaborate to significantly lessen competition, but potentially a grocer and someone else in the value chain, like their landlord. When the grocer signs a lease agreement, they specifically and explicitly state that part of the lease agreement is that the landlord will not rent any other part of the premises—let's imagine that it's a strip mall—to anybody else who competes or sells in any vertical of the grocery store.

This isn't just preventing another grocery store. In many cases, this is actually saying, if they run a grocery store in this strip mall, you can't have a bakery, because a bakery sells baked goods and we sell baked goods. You actually can't have a hardware store, potentially, if they have homeware items.

What essentially this would do is expand the scope for the bureau to be able to look at those collaborations, deem whether or not they are significantly lessening competition and take action as appropriate.

[Mark Schaan]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The member will know that the test for ordering a market study as proposed in Bill C-56 is not for me, but the minister. I won't speak for the minister on the determination he will make on market studies, but I think he has been clear that the last market study certainly lacked some of the full information that would give rise to the transparency about what's actually happening in some of those marketplaces.

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

I was glad to hear the minister almost commit to using the new powers in Bill C-56 to launch an investigation into the more specific market conditions than I'm talking about, but I wonder what the effect is of a minister almost recommending that such an investigation be launched. Does that meet the threshold for actually getting an investigation, or does it just meet the rhetorical threshold for getting through committee testimony?

[Mark Schaan]

Thank you for the question.

It is important to say a couple of things on the subject. One is that the minister, quite rightly, pointed to the fact that a comprehensive competition reform looks at effects and judges on the basis of effects, rather than just stating that...there is no right prohibition on a particular kind of aspect. This is because they are often use case-specific. The goal of the Competition Act is not to be a price regulator in every single market vertical, but instead to ensure that there are effective restraints on behaviour, and where those behaviours significantly lessen competition, we have the tools to be able to act.

Between the actions of Bill C-56 and what was announced in the fall economic statement, there's a pretty comprehensive approach to try to make sure that we have actually targeted and provided the right tools for those effects that are particularly noxious to competition, whether that's abuse of confidence, whether that's a merger that potentially rules things out, whether that's the betrayal of inputs that are fundamental to the competition or whether that's competition that will harm the labour market. All of those kinds of functions are built into the changes that are proposed.

An outright prohibition that simply suggests something is prima facie anti-competitive is often best left to vertical regulators that are versed in the specifics of that use case, rather than trying to do it through a lot of general application, which can then apply on the basis of effects.

[Pierre Mercille]

Those are tax policy questions and we are here to talk about Bill C‑56.

[Yvan Baker, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, all, for coming to the committee, speaking with us today and answering our questions.

At the finance committee, we've been hearing from folks. We've been performing a study on the rising cost of living in general. We've heard from a lot of folks who talked about the housing market and what's driving the increased cost of housing—from my constituents and, frankly, constituents across the country. The primary reason they've said it's happening is that there is a lack of housing supply.

I guess my question is, how do you see this bill we're studying today, Bill C-56, increasing housing supply throughout the housing spectrum?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Okay.

He went on to say that “the amendments in Bill C-56 are mostly useless because competition law, which seeks to prevent monopolies and cartels, is not designed to solve macroeconomic problems like inflation.”

How long will this act take to actually bring down the price of groceries? It is called the “affordable housing and groceries act”. Will it take a week? Will it take six months? Will it take six years?

[Mark Schaan]

I would contend that the Bill C-56 changes to the Competition Act will fundamentally and importantly shift the overall playing field in favour of greater competition, including in the grocery sector.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

He wrote, “The federal government has introduced a bill, C-56, containing amendments to the Competition Act that the government claims will make groceries affordable again. Some of the amendments are good, more are bad, but most are useless.”

Would you agree with that assessment?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

I'm sorry. Just on my question, though.... When average Canadians hear the name of the act, the affordable housing and groceries act, would it be safe for them to assume that, if it were passed, housing and groceries would be more affordable from their perspective?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Would it be fair to say, from the perspective of Canadians who are tuned in, that once the affordable housing and groceries act passes, they could expect housing and groceries to be more affordable?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

I call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 23, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses.

From the Department of Finance, we have Pierre Mercille, director general for sales tax legislation, tax policy branch; and Amanda Riddell, director of real property and financial institutions, tax policy branch.

From the Department of Industry, we have Mark Schaan, senior assistant deputy minister for the strategy and innovation policy sector, who was with the minister also; Samir Chhabra, director general of the marketplace framework policy branch; and Martin Simard, senior director in the strategy and innovation policy sector.

Welcome to all of you.

They have all joined us and there are no opening statements or remarks. We are going to go right into members' questions. In this first round, as the officials would know, it's six minutes per party.

We are starting with MP Morantz for the first six minutes.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chair, the language was circulated to all of the relevant individuals immediately upon the government member moving the motion. We can end up playing politics with this all night. It's actually the government's legislative agenda that's being put at risk.

By the way, the Minister of Finance has requested that we begin the review of the proceeds of crime and money laundering act, which is statutorily obligated to occur before the end of this calendar year. That's one meeting. We only have six meetings left. We're supposed to do Bill C-56 and the fall economic statement.

I'm a bit puzzled why the government has decided to move this motion now and not accept any friendly amendments that have been recommended until now.

By the way, we're also supposed to hear from the Minister of Finance. Now, I think the minister has given us a date—December 7. I assume it will be a combination of Bill C-56, the fall economic statement, plus inflation and housing. The minister only likes to show up to committee when there's legislation to pass. There's either that theory, which is reasonable, or the other theory, which is that the Prime Minister's Office doesn't allow her to come, because she's actually too good at committee and she overshines the Prime Minister.

We went through this last spring. To remind people, it's actually the Prime Minister's Office that doesn't want the Minister of Finance here, because she's actually doing a better job than the Prime Minister on some things. We'll only get her for an hour, and she might say that she's going to be very generous and give us an extra 20 minutes. The reason why this committee's dysfunctional is because the Minister of Finance actually hasn't agreed to any invitation to this committee outside appearances that she decides to make to pass legislation.

If we want reasons for which Conservatives are making a point about this motion, then I'll sum them up in a few points. The first is that we have an opportunity as a committee to actually have a consensus and tell Albertans that we, as an entire committee, feel that the Canada pension plan is important. The second is that we are going to harm ourselves in our ability to pass legislation through the committee. I can't believe I'm making recommendations to the government about how they can pass legislation quicker through the committee. This is what's going to end up happening.

The government's decided to move a politically motivated motion to distract from its failing results in the polls. They think that Premier Danielle Smith is better fodder for the Prime Minister than the leader of the official opposition. It's unfortunate that we can't get a consensus on the committee to send a message to the Alberta government and Albertans about the importance of the CPP.

I will take Mr. Blaikie's recommendations and intervention to heart and reflect upon whether as a matter of principle I'll continue to hold up the passage of a politically motivated motion, or whether there may be an opportunity just to abstain. At this juncture, it defies logic why we're here arguing about a politically motivated motion, when there's so much work the committee needs to do. We could pass it pretty quickly otherwise. If the government members are signalling that they're open to a friendly amendment, I think we could probably wrap it up pretty quickly. That's not the message that we've been given.

We only have six meetings left. We're going to take one, I believe, for a ministerial appearance.

We're supposed to take one for a statutory review of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act. By the way, if we don't do that, the government is going to get a bad mark from the Financial Action Task Force, which is reviewing Canada's approach to money laundering. I don't really think we want a black X; I don't think that the government wants a black X.

It seems to me that the government doesn't have a ton of leverage to decide to put this politically motivated motion through the committee. I guess they should have thought about that before they decided to bring the motion.

In addition, the motion doesn't recognize that, by design, the CPP has with it withdrawal criteria for provinces if they decide they want to set up their own plan. I don't think that's a great idea, but we could hear from the Bloc Québécois about the QPP. It has actually functioned fairly well, I think, for Quebeckers.

It's within each provincial government's right to ask whether it's getting value for money for its own taxpayers and its residents in the CPP. There is a mechanism by which a province can exercise that ability and have a discussion.

I don't actually believe that the methodology is on such sound footing as to provide the result in terms of the assets that would be given to Alberta should it withdraw. But the truth is, that's for Albertans to think about and discuss internally. We could send them a message, as a committee, that is unanimous, or we can let a politically motivated motion pass the committee and not get much traction or attention because it's politically motivated.

Call me an idealist. I just happen to think there's an opportunity to do something here where we're all on the same page. I recognize that it may not be where everybody is at the moment, but I still hold out hope.

I suppose if Mr. Blaikie's intervention is the signal that we can't get there, then I'll certainly have to reflect on the path forward. But I do think it would be something if the committee actually said that we all support the CPP.

Whatever member wants to move concurrence in the House and talk until their heart's content about the political decisions of a particular premier in order to score local political points at home, that's up to that member. I just don't think the committee is a perfect place to single out a provincial premier.

I stand to be corrected by the historians on what previous committees have done in this respect, but I'll remind members that just as the winds of change may sweep through Wellington Street and Langevin Block—yes, that's right, I still call it "Langevin Block"—the winds of change can sweep through provincial legislative buildings, as it has in Manitoba. We now have an NDP government in Manitoba. We have an NDP government in British Columbia.

I don't really want to create a precedent for the future where committees will single out various premiers, when a particular party is failing in the polls, in order to score political points to distract from a narrative.

We have an opportunity to send a message as a committee. If we're now being told that no one wants to take that opportunity, we're prepared to talk it out.

The government is just wasting its own time at this point. I hope it's clear—we're going to burn through this meeting, and we're going to burn through Thursday's meeting. We won't be getting any legislation passed here. It will require a direction from the House. We will shortchange stakeholders who have serious concerns about the fall economic statement. As we understand, there will be some tax measures put in that legislation that deserve to be scrutinized. There are lots of stakeholder concerns about Bill C-56, which we're not going to spend a lot of time on anyway.

Frankly, maybe we could make a deal and maybe the motion could be passed. If no one wants to take the nice approach and pass a unanimous motion, but their government is intent on having the political fight, maybe we could make a deal where the Minister of Finance would actually show up at the committee. I could be persuaded to abstain on a vote on the CPP if the Minister of Finance is going to actually appear on any one of the number of studies we have open, other than just showing up, as is the tradition, to pass legislation through committee.

Mr. Chair, I hope I've given my colleagues something to think about. If they are open to hearing, formally, that amendment, to reduce the political tension and get a nice moment where we all lock arms and send a message to the great people of Alberta about the Canada pension plan, I'd be open to moving that at the appropriate time.

However, Mr. Chair, as I say, call me an idealist, but I think we're going to miss a sincere opportunity to do some nation building and unifying for once, and instead continue down the path of sowing the seeds of division.

With that, Mr. Chair, I'll cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

I thank you too, Minister, for coming and talking to us about Bill C-56.

You packed a lot into this hour. We got a lot of questions out.

Thank you for your testimony on this study. We appreciate it.

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

You can say that the minister will judiciously use the new powers given under Bill C-56 and work with committee members any day of the week.

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

That is a very good question.

In the last study done by the Competition Bureau we saw that there were missing pieces. The Competition Bureau does not have the necessary powers. I want to congratulate its representatives on the work they have done in spite of those flaws.

Mr. Blaikie, you can be sure want to know more about this. I want to do more and get to the bottom of things. That is why Bill C-56 is so important to me. With the powers it provides, I think we will be able to do more to get to the bottom of things in relation to what the report we received today says. Ultimately, we did not have the investigative power that would have enabled us to move forward.

So I do really want to go further.

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

Would the changes made by Bill C-56 mean that you, as minister, would be able to initiate an investigation or ask the Competition Bureau to do so?

Would you be prepared to initiate that kind of study once you have the powers proposed in Bill C-56?

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

I will start by thanking you for making your comment in French.

You make a good point. During a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, or the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology—I am not certain which committee it was, I heard several things on this subject.

Representatives of the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, which represents about 6,900 members across Canada, said that one of the most complex problems concerns grocers in remote regions or in rural regions. They gave examples in northern Saskatchewan, if I recall correctly, and northern Alberta, or even indigenous communities living in the north. The dynamic in those places is even more complex.

I would say that given the powers that would be granted by Bill C-56, we should consider undertaking a study on this subject.

What is concerning is that the big food product manufacturers are sometimes less inclined to sell to independent grocers. A shortage, such as we experienced during the COVID‑19 pandemic, then causes problems. I was told that there were products available in big chains in a city located in a remote region while the independent grocer carrying on business in the same city did not have access to them.

The fact that food product manufacturers gave priority to the big chains over independent grocers should be the subject of a study by a committee. I am not persuaded that the motion that has been made, or Bill C-352 sponsored by Mr. Singh, would necessarily have the desired effect. I think the cause has to be tackled.

The cause may have been connected with the contracts that favour the big chains at the expense of independent grocers. There may be a study to be done to get a better understanding of the market dynamic.

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

I would first like to thank you, Mr. Ste-Marie. You are always well informed when you analyze bills. I have known you a long time. I sat with you when I was parliamentary secretary to the minister of finance at that time.

I think the bill proposed by Mr. Singh talked about tackling the effects: price increases, or what you called price gouging.

What we want to do is tackle the cause: the lack of competition, which leads to these price increases. History shows that regulating prices is a complex undertaking. As you have seen, some countries have tried to do this. You talked about price gouging, which is the effect, when the cause is a lack of competition.

I think that all of the measures set out in Bill C-56, the fall economic update and budget 2022 are the best way of tackling the causes. We decided to focus on doing that, because that is really what we need to tackle.

With that said, we have incorporated a number of the suggestions in the bill introduced by Mr. Singh. For example, the penalties to which you referred will be reformed. There is also the legal criterion. It talks about intent and effect. That was taken from Mr. Singh's bill.

We are listening. I think we have demonstrated our goodwill and our desire to move forward. Bill C-56 is a step in the right direction. As you say, Government Business No. 30 allows you, as a committee, to look at these various aspects. There will then be the fall economic statement.

I think that when we have finished working on the three core areas, the Competition Act will bring us into the modern economy. We will have the tools we need to ensure more competition, better prices, and certainly more innovation in the Canadian market.

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

Very well. It has to do with market studies, then.

That wasn't clear to me when I read Bill C‑56. Obviously, we don't have the text of the amendments flowing from Government Business motion number 30 yet, so we are eager to see them.

You said that a number of the amendments stemming from Government Business motion number 30 came from a bill introduced by NDP leader Jagmeet Singh. I'm thinking of the amendment to increase fines and really make them punitive instead of just being the cost of doing business. The fine would go from $5 million to $25 million. There is more to it than that, but the fine would be at least $25 million.

As it currently stands, Bill C‑56 still fails to address something, as far as I'm concerned. There is nothing stopping a company from profiting from the lack of competitors by overcharging consumers. For example, if a grocery store has a monopoly in a particular area, the bill wouldn't stop it from taking advantage of its monopoly to gouge customers by overcharging for products.

The bill sponsored by Jagmeet Singh, Bill C‑352, deals with that aspect. It adds the practice of directly or indirectly imposing excessive and unfair selling prices.

Why didn't you include that provision in the possible amendments covered by Government Business motion number 30?

Does the government agree with that amendment?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I also want to let Ms. Dzerowicz know that her French is excellent. I commend her, and I want to say thank you.

Minister, if I understand correctly, you said that, if Parliament passes Bill C‑56 with the proposed amendments in Government Business motion number 30, the Competition Bureau will have powers when it conducts a study on competition. The powers don't apply for the purposes of legal proceedings. They apply to the study of a sector or market. The bureau will be able to compel witnesses as well as evidence.

Is that what you are saying?

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

First off, thank you for asking your question in French. I am delighted to be able to speak with committee members in French.

The first amendment proposed in Bill C‑56 pertains to market studies, which will provide more transparency and help the Competition Bureau better understand the market dynamics.

The bureau's study on the retail grocery industry across the country is the most recent example of how that change comes into play. The study revealed a number of deficiencies, and that is why your fellow members on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recommended that the Competition Bureau be given enhanced powers.

One of the problems your fellow members flagged was how difficult it was to understand the market dynamics without all the information. That is a deficiency today. We have a regulator that doesn't have all the tools it needs to compel information and evidence, so it can understand the dynamics of the market. To understand anticompetitive practices, you first have to understand the dynamics of the market.

I'll give you an example. When I spoke with executives at U.S. grocers who were interested in entering the Canadian market, I learned that one of the barriers they faced was vertical collaboration between suppliers and customers in the form of agreements. As I was telling Mr. Ste‑Marie, something that happens a lot in mall settings, especially in rural and remote areas, is that the mall has only one major grocery store. Leases contain non-compete clauses that prevent competitors from opening within several kilometres of the area.

If a wholesale-style retailer decides to leave the mall, which does happen, it creates a food desert. In other words, you end up with no grocery store within several kilometres, because the non-compete clauses have deterred new players from entering the market over the years.

When we met with independent grocers across the country—

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you for being here today, Minister.

You said the changes in Bill C‑56 would ensure greater transparency.

Would you mind explaining how?

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

Yes. Thank you, dear colleague, for asking that question.

On the point about the Competition Act, it was really like a three-part act. As you said, in budget 2022 we did a number of things at the time. There was an issue about penalties and wage-fixing, for example. I called that a down payment on competition. We knew at the time that there was much more to be done. That's why we've had this consultation work that has lasted for about two years. I think members on both sides would agree that competition is key in our country. If nothing has been done in 37 years and you're going to do something, you need to do it quickly but certainly you need to do it right. That's why we have consulted widely.

What we are presenting in Bill C-56 are these three measures—subpoena power, an end to the efficiencies defence, and looking at vertical agreements—but you also saw in the fall economic statement a reflection of what we heard. In the “what we heard” report, there are a number of things that people have said we need to look at. You're talking about predatory pricing, about what they call “killer acquisitions”, about greenwashing and a number of other things.

Take greenwashing as an example. We're going to have a regime where if you're making a statement that what you're doing is improving the environment, or you're linking that to your record on the environment, you'll have a framework around that. I think with these provisions we're also allowing more private parties to raise actions. This is really going to complement things.

I think we'll be the government, Ms. Thompson, that will have done for this country, with both the Competition Act and the Investment Canada Act, the biggest reform we've seen in decades for the country to really be able to protect itself. We want foreign investment, but we also want more tools in the tool box to protect our national and economic security. On Bill C-56 and what you find in the fall economic statement, if you take these three acts together, you'll have the broadest reform of competition in the country.

The reason we want to do that is to bring us into the best in class in the G7. I'm always looking at what we're doing and how it would compare with the G7 countries. I think these reforms are much needed to really modernize our framework and for market participants to take us seriously when it comes to competition. The subpoena power comes to me as one very simple example that people look at and say, “Wow, imagine. To think that in Canada you have to engage with the competition commissioner, but he doesn't really have any power.” That doesn't make sense. We need to put a stop to that as quickly as possible.

The work of this committee and Bill C-56 will help with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are on Bill C-56.

MP Perkins, I stopped the time. The floor is yours.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

This is simply a point of order on relevance. As Conservative members reminded us earlier, we are on Bill C-56. I believe the member opposite is asking about an entirely unrelated issue.

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

I think Bill C-56 is sending a very clear signal that we take competition seriously in this country. It's going to be a game-changer in the relations between the Competition Bureau and the market players, because today—imagine—you have the Competition Bureau, which, if it wants to understand the dynamic of a market, has to rely on the goodwill of the participants in order to understand. I would say that probably you have some that are very forthcoming, but we've seen, for example, when we did the last analysis on the grocery sector, that some others were much less willing to share.

In terms of the market dynamic, it's going to change the balance of power, if you see what I mean. Market participants will now know and say, “Hey, if I'm not willing, they can subpoena and get the information.” Therefore, I think we're strengthening the Competition Bureau and the enforcement tools.

The NDP was also with us with respect to penalties, making sure the efficiencies defence is gone or will be gone, and making sure that we look at vertical agreements. Those are all signals that, if you're sitting there as a market participant who engages in anti-competitive behaviour, you would look at that and say, “Okay, now the tide is changing.”

We're going to be in a world where competition is going to be a cornerstone of the Canadian economy. We're a mature economy. We should be able to allow pro-competitive mergers to go forward, but certainly not those that harm consumers, as we have seen.

Ultimately, we need less consolidation and more competition in this country. This is really sending a very clear signal to industry that we're going to get serious about competition.

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

As I said, we're always open. Bill C-56 is doing a number of important things, but I think you will see in the fall economic statement.... It was kind of a three act type of thing. First, we started in budget 2022 with a number of things, because we saw low hanging fruit that would help competition. Second, Bill C-56 was really targeted at specific measures that we could pass quickly to help in the grocery sector. The third act was what we put in the fall economic statement, which was another set of reforms.

I would certainly be open, and I know the NDP has been looking at this issue in particular. The committee should do a bit of study around that. I know that different jurisdictions are dealing differently with that particular issue. We want to make sure we're in line with international best practices.

If your question is, should we have an open mind on that? I'd say yes, and I would invite committee members to look at that particular piece of legislation. Maybe there's some expert testimony that could be brought to the committee that could inform what Canada should do in order to address the issue you mentioned.

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

That's a very good question, Mr. Blaikie. Thank you for your contribution.

I want members to keep in mind that I blocked the Rogers-Shaw takeover because I was adamant that we needed a fourth player nationally. Why did I do that? It was clear that with Videotron, in Quebec, prices were 20% to 30% lower, on average, than in the rest of Canada. I wanted to block the transaction in its original form, to have a fourth strong player and put downward pressure on prices.

According to Statistics Canada figures, things are moving in the right direction. Prices are coming down. It's tough to predict what would have been different had Bill C‑56 been in place at the time. I can speculate, although I shouldn't. With the Competition Bureau's new market study powers, certain aspects of the transaction may have been available before it was referred. The bureau may have been able to gain a better understanding of the market dynamics, something that will be possible under Bill C‑56.

It's important to look under the hood, if you will. When you're examining a specific market, understanding all the dynamics isn't exactly easy when you don't have access to witnesses and documentation. I'll go back to the example Mr. Weiler brought up. If refiners in a region adopt a particular practice, you really need the powers to find that out.

Today, it doesn't make any sense to have a regulator that doesn't legally have the power to compel information or evidence, so it can understand what's going on and bring it to the attention of the government and Parliament. I think this is a step in the right direction. It definitely can't hurt. I believe these provisions are going to make a difference.

It's unrealistic to think that some big companies can be counted on to co‑operate voluntarily. Doing the work that needs to be done requires judicial powers.

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

As always, I think your assessment is spot‑on, Mr. Ste‑Marie.

Three players actually control over 50% of the market, Loblaw, Sobeys and Metro. Two U.S. companies, Costco and Walmart, also play a role in the industry. I have spoken to various grocers, specifically, in Europe and, of course, in the U.S.

I think Bill C‑56 can help us attract a new player, at the very least. Believe it or not, one of the reasons why a U.S. grocer didn't come to Canada has to do with the infamous covenants in leases. Currently, if there is a grocery store in a mall, the owner can stipulate in the lease that a competing store can't open within so many kilometres. Imagine what that's like for a new grocer trying to enter the market. The simple fact that these agreements will be reviewable changes the market dynamics. When I met with grocers, that's what they told me. They want to be able to look further ahead to see how they could set up shop in Canada.

I take your point about the abuse of dominance. Government business motion number 30 gives the committee the latitude to examine those very reforms. I think that's important, so I encourage you to pursue that. The bill introduced by Jagmeet Singh, Bill C‑352, contains some amendments. There are some things worth exploring in there as well.

We have a historic opportunity. The last time the act was reformed was 37 years ago. If we want to change the trajectory we've been on for the past 30 years, now is the time. Bill C‑56 will give us some excellent tools to do that.

That said, there is still a lot to do. We addressed that in the fall economic statement. I think Bill C‑56 moves us in the right direction. Having spoken to grocers interested in coming to Canada, I can tell you that they are watching all this closely. I think we have some good stuff here.

The reality of the market is this: three players control half the market in Canada. Today, as parliamentarians, we would do well to change that reality as quickly as possible. Ultimately, I want to see food prices stabilize, new players enter the market and—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, Minister. Thank you for being here today.

We are very pleased with all the amendments to the Competition Act proposed in Bill C‑56. These are fundamental changes. People have been calling for them for some 20 years. The amendments will bring us more in line with practices in the United States and Europe, particularly when it comes to the bureau's analyses going forward. Up to now, any time a proposed acquisition promised economies of scale or efficiency gains, it was approved, regardless of the abuse of dominance that might ensue.

In that connection, the committee has begun looking at Royal Bank's acquisition of HSBC Bank. The Competition Bureau did a study, but under the old toothless regime. Do you agree with me that, once Bill C‑56 is implemented, the Competition Bureau should redo its study of the transaction under the new more binding rules, particularly from an abuse of dominance standpoint?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I want to start by thanking you for taking my private member's bill on eliminating the efficiencies defence. The Competition Bureau hasn't intervened yet, but I promise not to have it intervene. It's great to see that we have some good ideas for competition in this bill.

Minister, I want to start with something you said on September 19 in the House of Commons. You said, “One thing that was clear yesterday with the major grocery chains from across the country is that we must not allow any measure to affect our farmers, the small and medium-sized businesses across the country that contribute to the food chain.”

We talk about competition. We talk about all the elements that add costs up the chain, and this bill is called the affordable housing and grocery act. We have taxes on our farmers, on our manufacturers, on our truckers and on our storage facilities, cold storage specifically, that get added to all the food bills and then get added, of course, to the grocery bill.

Minister, do you agree with a tax freeze on the Canadian food supply chain, yes or no?

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

Thank you, Minister Champagne. Thank you for coming before our committee on Bill C-56.

We are now getting into our first round of questions. In this round, each party is going to have up to six minutes to ask you questions.

We are starting with MP Williams, please, for the first six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think it's my first time at your esteemed committee. I feel privileged to be here today.

Good afternoon everyone.

It is a pleasure to be able to speak today to the Competition Act amendments contained in Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

Competition drives innovation. I think every member would agree. It lowers prices and encourages better product quality and choice. That's what we want for Canadians.

Our competition framework needs to be updated to keep up with today's reality. This is why we've introduced Bill C-56, which includes some of the most significant reforms to the Competition Act since 1986, some 37 years ago.

As I said, over the past decades, markets have greatly changed due to digitization and globalization. We have seen corporate consolidation and an imbalanced distribution of economic power in our country.

Delivering on the government’s commitment to undertake a formal review of the law and its enforcement regime, I launched the consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada, in November 2022.

The consultations were extensive and very comprehensive. They lasted 120 days, with five round tables across Canada. We received more than 400 submissions from Canadians and stakeholder organizations.

Bill C‑56 contains important amendments that give the Competition Bureau increased powers. We focused on prioritizing these changes because we knew they would have a real and significant impact on Canada’s retail grocery sector, which needs greater competition and, certainly, more choice for consumers.

It's very simple, colleagues. The bill makes three key amendments. The first one is to allow the bureau to seek subpoenas to compel information when conducting market studies. Second, we will repeal the so-called efficiencies defence, which currently allows harmful mergers to proceed, even if they don't benefit Canadians. Third, we'll expand the scope of reviewable agreements that could harm competition, such as restrictive covenants you find in leases when you have a large grocery store that collaborates with the landlord to block a small grocery store from coming in nearby.

Let me talk a bit about market studies.

The purpose of market studies conducted by the Competition Bureau is to better understand competitive dynamics and make recommendations to government. Currently, the bureau cannot compel companies to provide information outside a law enforcement investigation. As a result, the studies it releases may be missing important information.

This deficiency was made clear by the bureau’s recent retail grocery market study. The bureau did not benefit from the full co-operation of the major grocery chains for its study, and the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food recently recommended that this gap be remedied.

A large number of submissions to the public consultation were also in favour of granting formal information-gathering powers for market studies.

However, many stakeholders insisted that any framework that would be put in place should also provide safeguards to avoid fishing expeditions and undue burdens on companies. Our proposed framework takes these concerns into account, and it balances the need for the collection of vital information with reasonable safeguards to protect businesses.

On the so-called efficiencies defence, as you would recall, Mr. Chair, that's quite a unique and highly criticized feature of our competition law regime. It currently protects a merger that harms competition so long as generated corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition.

Think about that for a moment. Why should we allow mergers that demonstrably harm competition in this country? That's the question we need to ask ourselves.

In our consultation, we heard that this exception was possibly the single-largest weakness in a law that had failed to rein in corporate concentration, including in the grocery sector.

The elimination of the efficiencies defence will give priority to the protection of competition in merger review. I would say to my esteemed colleagues that it is time for corporate mergers that don't benefit Canadians to be consigned to the history books.

Next is vertical collaboration.

However, agreements between non-competing entities, such as landlord and tenant, also known as vertical agreements, are outside the scope of the bureau’s review of potentially anticompetitive agreements.

An example of the kind of agreement that we want to stop is the use of what we call “land controls”, such as restrictive covenants that can prevent new grocery stores from setting up shop across our country. This hurts competition and can even lead to food deserts, when the original tenant leaves a particular location. This is, simply put, unacceptable, and I hope every member of this committee thinks so too. We will ensure that these agreements, whose very purpose is to restrict competition, will be reviewable.

In conclusion, the bill will benefit Canadians with an empowered Competition Bureau, enable greater competition, bring more transparency to markets, block harmful mergers and ensure the bureau can review all forms of anti-competitive agreements. I think what we want, and what every Canadian wants, is less consolidation, more competition and better prices for Canadians.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will be more than happy to take questions from my esteemed colleagues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Peter Fonseca]

We are back. I call this meeting back to order.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 23, 2023, the committee is resuming its study on Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

I would like to welcome our witnesses with us here today. We have the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne.

Welcome, Minister.

Joining the minister is the Department of Industry senior assistant deputy minister, strategy and innovation policy sector, Mark Schaan.

Minister, you'll provide members with opening remarks, and then the members will have an opportunity to ask you questions over the next hour.

Minister, the floor is yours.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you very much, so I'll get another opportunity.

This is on the amendment.

I appreciate the comments by my NDP colleague, Mr. Blaikie. I always find that I have to do a little bit of self-reflection every time he speaks. I think he makes some fairly good points about opportunities. We don't always have the opportunity to make consensus choices. Certainly there are examples in which motions are passed at the committee that not everybody agrees with, whether they abstain or what have you.

The challenge I have with this motion is that there is actually an opportunity to have every party at the committee send a message, to the Government of Alberta and Albertans, that reiterates the importance of the CPP, that Canadians benefit from the CPP and that Albertans can be encouraged to stay within the CPP. There is all-party support for that motion. There is not all-party support to make the motion politically advantageous and for the government to use a province to help them in their failing poll numbers.

We could get out of this room today if we actually just dialed down the motion a bit, and I could guarantee you that there would be a news article written about all parties supporting the CPP. I can tell you that there probably won't be a news article written about a highly politically motivated motion that's passed with non-consensus votes.

The bigger point is that there is an opportunity, as the leader of the official opposition has put forward language that supports the CPP. If the other parties aren't interested in considering that language, which was circulated well in advance.... In fact, immediately upon the motion's being moved to debate, the Conservatives worked on and provided sample language that would take the political language out of the third point, including standing with Canadians who wish to protect the CPP and encouraging Albertans to remain in the CPP so that it can be secured for Albertans and all Canadians—with, of course, apologies to the good people of Quebec, who have their own pension plan.

We can pass that today, but the government has decided that it wants to make an example out of Premier Danielle Smith because they're failing in the polls. They'd rather fight her than fight the Leader of the Opposition.

The odd irony in all of this is that this is actually derailing the government's own legislative agenda. There are two bills that have to come before this committee to be passed before we break for the holidays, and it's actually the government that's chosen to move this motion instead. The government's choosing to move a politically motivated motion at committee instead of allowing its legislative agenda to go forward, which seems pretty bizarre to me. They're choosing to pick a fight with Danielle Smith rather than getting certain bills passed through this committee.

What's going to end up happening is that we're going to rush. We'll have very few meetings on the fall economic statement when it gets here. We'll have few meetings on Bill C-56 when it gets here. We won't do our diligence as a committee because the government's interested in picking a fight with Danielle Smith.

I'm not a great historian of parliamentary precedent and motions that have been reported to the House, but it seems a little odd that a committee wants to single out a particular province. Personally, if it said British Columbia, with an NDP premier, or now an NDP premier in Winnipeg, I still don't think that would be appropriate.

There are questions in question period every day about Danielle Smith's CPP plan. Some members can be encouraged to run for provincial Parliament, but the motion as it's written allows the chair to report to the House. That means concurrence can be moved on that motion, which will spark a debate, and members of Parliament can get up and make any comments they like about Premier Danielle Smith and Alberta's CPP.

We have the opportunity—

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 certainly, I think, after some improvement by New Democrats, would help a bit with the housing crisis but would not solve the housing crisis.

The fall economic statement is an important opportunity to make further progress on both the housing crisis and the affordability crisis. Funds have been depleted for social housing that need to be replenished, and there is further work to do on strengthening competition laws in Canada. Are these initiatives that we are going to see in the fall economic statement, or are Canadians going to be left waiting again?

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada could do a huge favour for Canadians today. Conservatives could recognize that there are two very important pieces of legislation that we are debating and allow both pieces of legislation to ultimately pass.

Bill C-56 is there to deal, in good part, with the housing crisis and price stabilization. These are things that are in the best interests of Canadians. Later this afternoon, we will be debating the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It is the same thing. These are—

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

Madam Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have been afforded to address this very important legislation. I want to start by commenting on when the legislation was introduced for debate earlier this morning, at which time the member for St. Catharines stood in his place and indicated that he would be happy to share his time with me.

I expected and hoped that, at least in part, there would be a general feeling that this is a substantive piece of legislation, which will have a very positive impact for Canadians. One would think that there would be support on all sides in favour of the legislation.

The member for St. Catharines, who is a little wiser than I am, pointed out in his comments that the Conservatives are filibustering, preventing legislation from passing. It was interesting that, when he pointed that out, he also referred to the fact that there are Conservative members who support the legislation and will be voting in favour of it. He then cited a specific member who indicated he would be voting in favour of the legislation.

After the member for St. Catharines spoke, I had the opportunity to speak. Based on previous experience, I also referred to the fact that the Conservatives have this natural inclination to prevent legislation from passing, even when they support it. A Conservative member across the way, speaking during Private Members' Business, made his perspective very clear in his opening comments. At the time, we were debating a private member's bill on a different issue, which is not government legislation, but he was critical of the government for not debating important issues.

I agree in the sense that the issues he referred to at the time, during Private Members' Business, were housing affordability and inflation. He may even have mentioned groceries. Within five minutes after the Conservative member sat down, we brought forward this piece of legislation, Bill C-56. If we read the title, it is about affordable housing and groceries. If we listen to what members opposite are saying, we would think they would be a little more sympathetic in terms of seeing the legislation passed.

Here is the catch: What did the very first speaker on Bill C-56, the member for Bay of Quinte, choose to do? He stood in his place, said a few words and referred to my speech, in which I referred to the efficiency argument in the legislation, which I will get back to. He referred to my saying that and said that is a very good part of the legislation. He acknowledged that. Then, toward the end of his speech, what did he do? He moved an amendment, with the real purpose of ensuring that there would be additional debate on this legislation.

Someone might ask what is wrong with a little more debate. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with it. However, people who follow not only this legislation but also many pieces of legislation that the government brings forward will know that the Conservative agenda has nothing at all to do with what is in the best interests of Canadians. For the Conservative Party of Canada today, it is all about putting roadblocks in place and the members doing whatever they can to assassinate the characters of government members and prevent legislation from passing. It is as simple as that.

That is why the Conservatives brought forward an amendment. What does the amendment actually say? It says:

...and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each....

Every member of this House is very much aware of their opinions and thoughts on the economy, inflation and housing, as the ministers themselves have commented on the issue in different forms. The purpose of the amendment is, again, just to prevent or slow down the legislation's passing.

The Conservatives have no reservations in doing this. I appreciate that it gives me another opportunity to address the legislation. I look to the member for Bay of Quinte and thank him for allowing me to express myself a little more on the legislation.

At the end of the day, some members have said they support the legislation and other members have said there is good stuff in it. There is no reason why the Conservative Party should be attempting to prevent this legislation from passing.

Let us look at what is happening around us. If we want to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and if we want to look at how we could support low-income Canadians, in terms of getting into non-profit housing or even, in this situation, purpose-built homes, there is good stuff in here. Increasing competition is a good thing. Conservatives talk about that, but their actions are very different.

We introduced the legislation this morning, with the idea of having three hours of debate; maybe the Conservatives would see the light and the advantage of helping Canadians and would allow the legislation to pass. However, that is not the case.

It is just like one of the other pieces of legislation that really surprises me: the Canada-Ukraine agreement. We are going to be debating that legislation. It is scheduled for this afternoon. What is the Conservative Party of Canada going to do to prevent that legislation from passing? Will it bring in another concurrence report?

We have even had members in the chamber accuse the Canada-Ukraine agreement of being woke legislation. They have portrayed Canada as taking advantage of Ukraine, even though the President of Ukraine came to Canada and had a ceremony with the Prime Minister to sign this agreement.

There is no one steering the Conservative Party today on policy, ideas or things that would help Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Conservatives are more concerned about bumper stickers than they are about good, sound policy. A good example of that would be in trying to figure out what the Conservative Party of Canada stands for on the issue of the environment. I said, “What is the policy on the environment?” Members across the way just heckled, “Axe the tax.” That is what I mean about bumper stickers.

The reality is that the leader of the Conservative Party and his entire group are more concerned with social media posts, which are often very misleading, if I am being kind, and the bumper stickers they could use in the next election, as opposed to being concerned with what is in the best interest of Canadians.

This legislation, Bill C-56, is good legislation. We finally have a government that is trying to address the issue of affordability and stability of grocery prices, and the Conservatives do not want the legislation to pass.

Earlier, I brought up the issue of competition and how Canadians benefit through competition, and this legislation would provide the opportunity to take away efficiency as an argument that could be made by companies to acquire other companies. The example I used earlier was grocery stores. In Canada, as I am sure members know, we have five major grocery stores: Metro, Loblaws, Sobeys, Walmart and Costco. Those are the big five. We used to have Shoppers as a separate entity until Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party thought there was nothing wrong with Shoppers being acquired by another company. That reduced competition.

On the one hand, we hear the Conservatives talk about the benefits of competition, but on the other hand, when it comes to voting for legislation that would help with competition pass, what do they choose to do? They choose to filibuster the legislation. They do not want to pass the legislation. That is why the member for Bay of Quinte moved an amendment. It is to prevent the legislation from passing. It is so they can continue to debate endlessly. As a government, we will have to go to the New Democrats or the Bloc to negotiate bringing in time allocation to pass this legislation, or it is not going to pass.

On the one hand, the Conservative Party will be critical of the government because it wants to see more competition, yet when it was in government, it allowed Shoppers to be acquired, with no questions asked. It was an acquisition worth billions of dollars, and its members allowed it. Then, when it has come time for us to be able to deal with those kinds of acquisitions, they are now preventing the legislation from passing. Many would suggest that is somewhat hypocritical, myself included, but it does not meet their agenda.

I ask members to take a look at what the legislation actually does. It would provide a GST exemption for purpose-built homes over the next number of years. That initiative is expected to see tens of thousands of homes being built, and that would be a direct result of this legislation. As I indicated earlier, the idea is sound and it is good. The Conservative Party of Canada should support it.

We are seeing provincial governments recognizing that this initiative is good, and they are applying it to the PST too, the provincial sales tax. We have provinces of different political stripes, and we have the Liberal government, the NDP and the Bloc all supporting that initiative. On the other hand, we have the reckless Conservatives, who feel that their job is to prevent legislation of all forms from passing in the House. I would argue that it is at a great expense to Canadians.

When we think of the housing issue, it is of critical importance. I have heard about it being of critical importance from all sides of the House, but when there are initiatives, whether legislation like this, budgetary measures that support housing co-ops and organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, the transfer of billions of dollars to provinces and non-profit groups to assist in subsidizing units, or the housing accelerator fund and the monies allocated for that, the consistent thing we get from the Conservative Party is that they vote against them, or they filibuster. In the meantime, Conservatives have the tenacity to suggest we are not doing enough on the housing file.

The reality is that no government in the last 60-plus years has been more proactive on the housing file than this government has been. No government has, and the numbers will clearly show—

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

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we are defending small businesses. We wrote the minister. We raised the issue. There are many things that we would like the government to do but that it will not do.

When we negotiate, we are not sitting in front of a mirror. We negotiate with a government that has its own priorities. Naturally, we propose things that it is opposed to.

I do not understand why the government wants to go after the small businesses that needed a loan during the pandemic. I do not understand why the government believes that it will get more money by causing bankruptcies. The government is clearly headed down that road even if it makes no sense.

We negotiated with the government to obtain what could be obtained. Regarding the loans, we do not think that it is something the government is prepared to do. I believe that the government is on the wrong side of this issue. I do not think we could have come to an agreement about this in Bill C‑56.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to understand. I hear my NDP colleague boasting about the amendments obtained in Government Business No. 30 pertaining to Bill C‑56. These are amendments that are going to be made to the bill and are elements that are important to the NDP. However, the points contained in this motion could very well have been brought as amendments at committee stage.

The Bloc Québécois was calling for something important, namely financial flexibility, particularly for small businesses, with respect to the Canada emergency business account that was provided during the pandemic. A lot of businesses are asking us for this, and a lot of SMEs are telling us they need it to survive.

Why did the NDP not want to defend that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to today's motion. As will come as a surprise to nobody in this place, Canada is facing a housing crisis. It is not a recent housing crisis but, as time passes, it gets worse and worse.

My father used to offer an anecdote regularly, particularly when talking about the environmental crisis we are facing. He would talk about lily ponds. One of the features of the growth of lily pads is that they grow exponentially.

It starts with one and then, the next day, there are two and, the next day, there are four. The lesson, both for the environmental crisis, and I do not want to diminish that in any way, and also for the housing crisis and where we find ourselves in the housing crisis, is that the day before the entire pond is full of lily pads, it is only half full.

To a spectator who does not know anything about exponential rates of growth for lily pads on the lake, they might come by the lake and say, “There is a lot of lake there. There is lots of time. Certainly, the lily pads are coming in but it is not that bad. We still have half the lake.”

As I say, there is an important lesson when it comes to the environment and the climate crisis we are facing and the accelerating rate of change. It is also important to understand the housing crisis. We are now at the point where the lake is full. We do not have any more time to act. We have to start repairing the situation right away.

There is the sense of urgency. It is why, when we came back to the House after summer, we were pleased to see the government had an idea that it wanted to move forward with respect to housing, something new and tangible that New Democrats and many stakeholders have been calling for for a long time, which was to eliminate the GST on purpose-built rentals.

For our side, we wanted to see that done as part of a comprehensive housing strategy. We certainly do not agree that what the Liberals have called a national housing strategy since 2015 is that. It is clear that it is missing many components and that even the components that are there have not been effective in meeting the challenge that we face in Canada.

We were glad to see the government taking some good ideas from stakeholders and, indeed, from the NDP, saying that it is something that it wants to move forward on.

Our problem was that we knew, with respect to the changes to the Competition Act, that they were inadequate. We know this because our own leader, the member for Burnaby South, has done a lot of work on the Competition Act and proposed a suite of changes to the Competition Act right around the same time.

We wanted to see the changes proposed to the Competition Act and Bill C-56 take the stronger tone that our leader has taken. Our leader does not shy away from taking that tone when it comes to talking back to corporate Canada and letting it know that we see the role of government as requiring it to do right by Canadians, not exploiting its market position to gouge Canadians.

That is something we are not shy about and we believe the government should not be shy about it. It is why we run to form a government that is not shy about taking corporate greed to task.

In the meantime, we want to get as much done in that regard as we can, working with the Parliament that Canadians elected.

There was work to do on strengthening the Competition Act provision. When it came to housing, we wanted to see a more comprehensive strategy and more initiatives, particularly to focus on building more non-market units in Canada.

No matter how many market units are created, there are going to be a lot of people who cannot afford or cannot access those market units. When we build non-market units, whether that is in co-op housing or whether that is social housing, where rent is geared to income, or whether it is investing in projects alongside the private market, to ensure that there are at least some suites that have a below-market value, whatever the combination of those things is, we know that this also helps relieve pressure on the housing market.

There are people who are sacrificing their prescription drugs and food in order to pay market rent. When they get an option to be able to rent a home that meets the needs of their family and allows them to have money left over for essentials like food and medicine, that frees up market units for those who can afford them but may, nevertheless, be struggling to access them.

One glaring oversight in Bill C-56 was that it excluded, without any good reason, co-operative housing from getting a break on the GST for purpose-built rentals. That was something we definitely needed to fix, and we have received a commitment from the government to fix it at committee, along with some changes to strengthen the Competition Act.

All we have to do is look at the latest case of the Rogers-Shaw merger to know how frustrating it is for our Competition Bureau to do its job. It could not compel evidence from Rogers or Shaw, which would change here, as the Competition Bureau would be empowered to require certain kinds of evidence from the folks they are investigating. This would also mean that when the commissioner of competition believes a market study is required, the bureau would be able to embark upon it on its own initiative, something we think is very important. We also argued for tougher fines for companies that break the rules, and tougher fines not just generally but also for recidivist corporations that do not learn the lesson the first time. Those penalties would increase to deter companies from continuing to do things they know full well they should not be doing. The government has agreed to this suite of changes, and we will continue to press.

Another thing we think ought to have been included here in respect of the GST exemption were projects that had already received a commitment of some kind of funding through the various programs of the national housing strategy. We know that not enough projects are getting funded under that strategy as it is, but some of the ones that have been funded have been put on hold. Why? It is because of rising interest rates. That means for a project to proceed, people have to find more money. They either have to do that through private fundraising, which is very challenging to do at the best of times, or have to increase the amount from government grants in a project. They could benefit from the GST exemption as well, and we do not think they should be excluded just because a project started before September 14 of this year.

We think extending the GST rebate to non-profit housing projects that the government has already agreed to fund to make projects work, after a year of punishing interest rate increases, is a small thing the government can do to ensure that people out there in our communities, who are already doing great work to build housing that Canadians can afford, do not have work stymied by rising interest rates and can see something in their budget that makes it work. Removing the GST is the simplest way to do that.

The government will collect no GST from these projects if they do not move forward, because the business case is being ruined by rising interest rates. We think waiving the GST for projects that are otherwise not going ahead is a very low-cost way to ensure that the government delivers on promises it has already made by allocating funding to the projects that have stopped because of circumstances beyond their control. That is not a fight we are prepared to give up on. It is something we think should be happening, and we are going to continue to argue for it.

However, we are not insensitive to the fact that a lot of folks have announced that they want to move forward with new purpose-built rentals as a result of the GST rebate the government is offering in Bill C-56. We know that we are already well past the time to contemplate how to act. We know this is a demand that stakeholders in the housing industry, whether they advocate for market-based housing or non-market-based housing, have talked about as a way to pencil out projects, so it is something we need to move forward with.

There was an opportunity to move forward quicker if debate on the bill had collapsed, but of course it is not collapsing because no debate on bills is collapsing in this place. The official opposition sees to that daily, whether it is by moving motions to take time away from dealing with government business or by putting up speakers ad infinitum. It ensures that we need some kind of time allocation or closure just to get to the point of having a vote on a bill.

When we are talking about a crisis that is in full swing and the need to build more market housing and non-market housing, New Democrats are prepared to work with the government to move the bill through far more quickly than it has been. We will use the opportunity here to improve the bill, as we believe it is our duty to do.

We would go further if we could, but there is only so far we can go with the Liberal government, apparently. However, we are willing to test how far we can go every day of the week and are going to keep fighting for the things we think are very important, including fighting for new announcements in the fall economic statement around housing that make more funding available for organizations that want to pursue non-market housing, and offering financing on better terms for those who want to build more rental housing in the market but are struggling to make projects work from a financial point of view because of rising interest rates.

That is a bit about why we think Bill C-56 is important, how New Democrats have worked hard in this place over the last couple of months to improve the bill, what we are going to continue to fight for and why we think, now that we have reached some agreement on improving the bill, it is important to move it forward. The contractors out there waiting to pick up the shovel and put it in the ground need the deal done on the GST and want to see it move ahead. We think it is important that it move ahead. We think it is important those units come to market and Canadians have the opportunity to rent them. We want to see them come to market in sufficient volume so there is a lowering of their price.

We know that is going to take time, but delay will not help. We have been delaying already for too long, certainly for eight years under the current government, which is after 10 years of delay and no meaningful action in the housing market from the previous government, and even longer before then, going back to the mid-nineties, when the national housing strategy was cancelled and we saw the federal government completely walk away from building social housing units in Canada. That is when the first lily pad started hitting the pond, so to speak, and it has taken us 30 years to see the pond fill, with really no more time to wait to enact important solutions.

Is there more the government can do? Absolutely. We want to see it get rid of the special tax treatment that real estate investment trusts enjoy. We want to see it take action to make sure that non-profits with experience and a great track record of delivering non-market housing in our communities have access to capital so that when buildings with low rents come on the market, they have an opportunity to bid on those buildings and have the money to close a deal successfully to make that happen. The term of art for that is a non-profit acquisition fund. It is a fancy term, but all it means is making sure the non-profit housing providers in our communities, which are already doing a great job, have the opportunity to run low-rent apartment blocks when the current owners do not want to do it anymore, instead of having a corporate landlord come in, superficially renovate the building, kick everyone else out and invite tenants with higher incomes to rent suites that were formerly homes for Canadians who cannot afford luxury rent prices.

Those are some of the things we think the government ought to be doing. We are not going to get them all done in one bill, but we managed to improve what is in this bill, and we think it should hurry along so we can bring more units to market.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are seeing another phenomenon that keeps happening fairly regularly. We can no longer call it a phenomenon really. I would say it has become routine: another Liberal time allocation motion supported by the New Democratic Party. As we know, imposing time allocation is very democratic. I invite them to consider changing the name of their party.

Bill C‑56 was supposed to be the magic solution to the cost of living crisis we are dealing with. That is what the government said. The government introduced this bill two months ago and failed to convince the opposition parties to adopt it quickly. That must be because the bill is not that good.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the fact that the government, who claims to have a miracle bill to address the housing crisis and the cost of living crisis, is telling us that it needs time allocation and two months to be able to take action.

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

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and paying my respects to the Cree nation following the death of Charly Washipabano, who was a member of Hockey Abitibi‑Témiscamingue's board of directors and a program coordinator with the Eeyou Istchee Sports and Recreation Association.

I am rising in connection with the debate on Government Business No. 30, which seeks to impose a gag order and make amendments to Bill C‑56. This bill, which aims to eliminate the GST on the construction of rental housing and amend the Competition Act, was introduced in the House in September by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

The government's motion authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance to expand the scope of the bill in order to amend it in three ways.

The first amendment would increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, which amends the Competition Act and contains several elements that would become obsolete with the passing of Bill C‑56. The motion proposes to “increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum)”. In the case of a large company, the maximum penalty could be even higher, up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the practice.

The second and third amendments deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies. As currently worded, the amendments being submitted to the committee have no real effect. The goal is to “allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced”.

The Competition Bureau has significant powers. It can compel witnesses to appear, demand documents and request searches if necessary. However, these powers are available to the bureau only when it is investigating a clear infringement following a formal disclosure. The investigation then becomes quasi-criminal. However, when the bureau is conducting a study to determine whether competition is working properly in a given field or market, it has no such powers. For example, in its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June 2023, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. They refused to hand over the documents it had requested and refused to answer some of its questions.

Government Business No. 30 includes a proposed technical amendment to the way the Competition Bureau can conduct a market study, although it does not change much from current practice.

The third amendment will “revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market”.

Everyone knows that there is a serious housing crisis in Quebec and across Canada. We often hear about rising prices and housing shortages in major urban centres, in big cities, but it is also an issue in rural regions and smaller towns. The housing crisis is in its 18th straight year, and its impact is being felt more and more in the towns, villages and communities of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. In Val‑d'Or, for example, the vacancy rate is now around 1.4%, adding pressure to the average cost of rent, which has jumped by 5.4%.

The housing shortage, combined with higher rent, is directly impacting the most vulnerable, by which I mean people living alone, single-parent families, women, young people, seniors, first nations and Inuit people, immigrant families, and persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, some of these people often end up having to stay in shelters longer or live in apartments that do not meet their needs, and that is unacceptable. We also need to consider the growing number of people left homeless by this crisis. It is important to find real solutions to this problem. The ongoing housing crisis is adding to the already pressing needs, and the homelessness problem is only getting worse.

The social housing stock is also aging. The government needs to upgrade and renovate it as quickly as possible, while ensuring that rent remains completely affordable for the low-income families living there now or in the future.

The government's national housing strategy, which was launched in 2017, falls far short. The funding allocated for social housing, both to maintain existing units and to build new ones, is not enough to meet the needs of all the nations.

When it comes to housing, there is nothing to indicate that Government Business No. 30 will add any value to Bill C-56 in terms of lowering rents.

It would be surprising if a property owner decided to lower rents just because they did not have to pay GST on the new building they bought. What is more, it is important to remember that the cost of higher mortgage payments will likely be passed on to renters.

I understand the minister's intention in moving this motion, but the measure to provide a GST rebate on the cost of labour and materials will apply to future rental properties, regardless of the market value and rental prices.

I represent Nunavik, where residents experience the impact of the housing shortage in many persistent ways. In Nunavik, 47% of Inuit live in overcrowded housing, compared to 7% for Quebec as a whole. This means their situation is seven times worse. The housing problem in the Far North is nothing new. Nunavik has been short on housing since the 1990s, when Ottawa stopped funding housing construction for five years. We have never caught up since, and now that has to change.

We have a moral responsibility, from one nation to another, to ensure that Inuit communities have decent housing. Housing is definitely one of the most important social issues in Nunavik. It is not uncommon for five, six, seven, eight or even more people to live together in a two-bedroom dwelling. If one of these people has social problems, the entire family is affected. The situation is far from ideal for raising children and supporting their education.

There can be up to three generations living in one house without much privacy. This has numerous consequences for their quality of life. Some 98% of Nunavik's Inuit residents live in social housing provided by the Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau. Approximately 1,000 families are hoping for housing, yet only about 100 units are built each year. Construction costs are astronomical, at least three times higher than in southern Quebec. Materials arrive by boat, and it is difficult to build more than 100 homes a year. Even at that rate, we cannot keep up with population growth.

It is important to note that, in my community, the housing shortage is also affecting the economy. Large mining and forestry companies would like to bring workers to the region. However, they hit a brick wall when it comes to housing. Companies have no choice but to reserve homes and rent housing for fly-in, fly-out workers, which reduces housing availability for the rest of the population.

As the families, children and social development critic, I feel it is important to address the impact that the housing shortage is having on families and children.

In its eighth report on housing and poverty in Quebec, the social housing group Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain states that three out of five renter families have had to cut back on activities, clothing and even groceries in order to pay their rent. According to the same report, no less than 30% of parents with children aged five and under live in a home that does not meet their needs, often in terms of space, because of the lack of housing in their price range.

What is the government waiting for? Why does it not take action now? The situation is urgent.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not understand my colleague's question. I was not listening to the interpretation and it was hard to hear him. I will just mention something that I meant to address in my speech on Government Business No. 30 concerning Bill C-56.

We spoke about supply and demand, but the problem is that when it comes to the housing crisis, the government never talks about demand. It always talks about increasing the supply. Increasing the housing supply will take a long time, but the demand may increase rapidly as a result of the actions the government is taking.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It wants to increase the demand by significantly increasing the number of people coming to Canada from abroad, but it cannot claim that adding more people will cost less money. If more people are added to a saturated market, then that is going to create more pressure. The government needs to take that into account.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. That is a rather long riding name. Many riding names are quite long. Mine certainly is, and so is hers.

Today we are debating Government Business No. 30. It is a government motion to shorten the debates on Bill C‑56, which seeks to implement a rebate of the GST on the construction of residential rental properties. The bill also seeks to give the Competition Bureau more power to conduct an inquiry. Notably, it could force the procurement of documents, which was not previously the case.

Unfortunately, we are debating government business instead of the bill because the government decided to impose closure yet again. We are faced with another gag order. Sadly, the current government seems to want to govern by gag order. It is one gag order after another. Obviously, the government will argue that it was meant to stop the Conservatives' filibustering. I am not saying that the Conservatives never filibuster, but we get a sense that this procedural device is being abused.

In the current case, we in the Bloc Québécois were open to speeding up debate. The government said that doing so might help build housing faster. It said that the measures in Bill C‑56 to strengthen the Competition Bureau's powers could make a difference. We were sensitive to all these things. We are very open to studying Bill C‑56, but we had other concerns too.

One of our concerns, and we have been repeating this for weeks, has to do with the emergency business account that was launched during the pandemic. It was meant to support small businesses by offering them a $40,000 loan. Twenty-five percent of that amount, or $10,000, was forgiven if the loans were paid back within three years. The problem was that, following the pandemic, there was a supply crisis and an inflation crisis, not to mention the fact that interest rates have gone up considerably. The economy is struggling even more now. Those businesses were already struggling during the pandemic, because many of them could no longer operate for health reasons. We must stand together as a society, which is why that program was put in place at the time, and we agreed on it.

However, the government did say that these businesses would have to pay back their loans. We agree that businesses should pay them back. A loan is meant to be repaid at some point, but it is important not to put Quebec businesses at risk. We have to use our brains a little and be somewhat flexible in how we do things.

I mention this while we are debating Government Business No. 30 regarding Bill C‑56, because we told the government that it should be giving Quebec businesses more flexibility. In return, we would have been prepared to fast-track the passage of Bill C‑56. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the Bloc Québécois. It decided to let Quebec businesses fail. It will continue to leave them in jeopardy, even though people from my riding talk to me about this every week. When I am out and about in my riding, people tell me that things are not going well, that their sales are lower than expected, that things did not return to normal like they thought they would and that money does not grow on trees.

Unfortunately, the government has not been sensitive to that. We have been asking questions in the House about this for weeks. Members on the other side have responded by saying that they extended the deadline, but they extended the deadline by only 18 days.

I doubt that 18 days is enough time for a small or medium-sized business to rake in $40,000 in profit. There is no way. Unfortunately, that is what we are looking at with the Liberals.

Instead, the government decided to turn to the NDP. As we all know, the NDP can be bought quite easily. They give the government everything it wants. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the reality that Quebec businesses are going to pay because of the Liberals and the NDP.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to push for our companies to have more flexibility in repaying the Canada emergency business account so that, come January 18, the banks are not waiting for them. I can just picture them, big smiles on their faces, telling companies that they can get their $10,000 back by simply taking out a high-interest loan. Considering the significant jump in interest rates, we know full well that there are plenty of companies that will not make it through.

To come back more specifically to Bill C‑56, earlier I talked about getting rid of the tax on new rental housing construction. The government claims this is going to fix the housing crisis. Maybe not exactly, but it claims that it will make a big difference.

The Bloc Québécois has a few concerns. Will this make a difference? It may make a difference in making some projects more profitable than they were as a result of interest rate increases. It may help, but we would have liked to see a study done on this. Did the government do a study on the impact that this bill might have on the price of housing and on its availability? No, it pulled this bill out of its hat. Since we are in a housing crisis, it decided to make a quick announcement and that is what it did.

This will likely have a positive impact on housing construction, but we do not really know because we have no baseline data to confirm the result.

I have another point. In a supply and demand market, there is typically a going price for housing. Right now, that price is very high. Homes are being sold at a high price, but unfortunately, some people would benefit from lower prices. I say unfortunately, but that might be an exaggeration. What I mean is that this could have an unfortunate impact. There is absolutely no guarantee that this much-touted 5% cut to the GST on new housing construction will impact social or affordable housing. In fact, there is zero chance that it would be used for social housing because that type of housing does not qualify.

For example, if a city decides to build social housing, it is already exempt. The proposed measure will not work. The same thing applies to co-ops or non-profit organizations. There is already a type of exemption in place. This will not benefit them. Therefore, it will not result in social housing or low-cost housing. On the other hand, it will certainly help the construction of expensive housing.

The government says that it may take care of the specifics through regulations. We look forward to seeing those, but there is no guarantee. We have no guarantee that the exemptions that will be granted will be used to build reasonably priced new housing. They could be used to build units that rent for $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a month. I cannot even say $2,000 a month anymore because that is practically considered affordable housing nowadays. Unfortunately, the government thinks that it is going to fix the housing crisis, but this bill is no silver bullet. I find that unfortunate.

I also want to talk about the Competition Bureau. Not so long ago, the minister said in the House that he would fix the problem. He said that he had spoken with the grocers and that there would not be an issue anymore, that grocery prices would drop. The week after, he said that he had checked the flyers and seen some great discounts. He claimed to have fixed the inflation crisis by checking the flyers one week and speaking with grocery CEOs. He should have spoken with families instead. The inflation crisis is not over.

Some elements of this bill will give the Competition Bureau more oversight over large companies. This change will not necessarily happen overnight, however.

The same goes for this much-vaunted 5% rebate. It is not going to solve the problem in the short term. The effects of this measure will be felt more in the very long term. We therefore expect—

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the types of things the government can do to support Canadians in all regions of the country. We are witnessing that Bill C-56 is a substantial piece of legislation with an intent to support Canadians.

Unfortunately, as my colleague has pointed out, the Conservative Party has chosen, once again, to use this legislation as a way to slow down the process of proceeding and prevent the government, wherever it can, to allow legislation from ultimately passing. I will hold my breath in the hope that the Conservatives will wake up and understand the reality Canadians are facing.

We often talk about the issue of inflation. There is no doubt that inflation is hurting people. Yes, it has improved. If we look at the bigger picture and compare Canada to the United States, France, the G7 or even the G20 countries, we are doing relatively well regarding our inflation rate on a worldwide basis. Since June of 2022, we have had an inflation rate of just over 8%. If we look at the last number of months, we have made significant gains in bringing down that inflation rate. We are focused on doing that because we recognize the harm it causes to our economy and, most importantly, to Canadians. That is one of the reasons we have been very targeted, whether with legislation or budgetary measures, to give those breaks to Canadians. We want a government and an economy that works for all people.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we believe in Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We understand and appreciate the importance of lifting people out of poverty. We have demonstrated that with hundreds of thousands of children and seniors. We recognize the harm it does. That is why I look forward to the fall economic statement that will be coming out tomorrow from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who has been out in the communities to get a better understanding and a better sense of the types of actions we can take as a national government to provide relief wherever we can to support Canadians.

The fall economic statement we will see tomorrow will be a reflection of what we have been hearing, whether from individual members of Parliament bringing back their concerns to Ottawa or the consultation work that the different ministers, in particular the Minister of Finance, have been doing. We are doing this because we understand the pressures that are on Canadian families. It is the reason why we have developed programs of a national nature, such as the affordable $10-a-day child care. It is the reason why we have brought in programs such as the grocery rebate program.

When we think of Bill C-56, we should think of two aspects: housing and groceries. Fighting to stabilize the price of groceries is important to the government. We often hear about how we need to improve the Competition Act. Bill C-56 is an attempt to not only improve it today, but also to continue to look at ways we could modernize it.

One of the significant improvements we are seeing today in this legislation is the use of the efficiency argument so that the Competition Bureau does not have to listen to companies saying that, for efficiency purposes, they need to buy up a company. If members think about it, at one time we had six major grocery suppliers, and we are now down to five. Why are we down to five? It is because, when Stephen Harper was prime minister and the leader of the Conservative Party sat around that cabinet, Shoppers was bought out for billions of dollars, so we went from six to five.

Even today, we hear Conservatives say that the way to ensure lower prices is to ensure that there is more competition. This legislation would go a long way in getting rid of the efficiency argument, so we would be better able to ensure there would be more competition.

I would like to think that most people in the chamber would recognize that as a positive thing. It is one of the reasons we should not have to wait endlessly and accept the ongoing filibustering of the Conservative Party. If they are serious about the cost of groceries, and if they are serious about wanting to stabilize grocery prices, Conservatives should be supporting the amendments to the Competition Act that are being brought forward, amendments that would enhance the Competition Bureau's ability to protect the interests of Canadians and of consumers. Actions speak louder than words. We look to the Conservative Party to start taking action.

On the other part of the legislation, we often hear Conservatives talk about the issue of housing. We often hear them raise the issue. However, when it comes to taking action, again, they sit on their backside and do nothing but filibuster. This legislation is good, sound, solid legislation. The proof is in the pudding. Let us think about it. The federal government, through this legislation, is saying that for purpose-built rentals, there would be no GST.

It is a sound idea. I can say that because we have provincial entities in Canada today that are copying what Ottawa is doing, but with the PST. In part, we need to recognize that, when it comes to the issue of housing, it is not just the federal Government of Canada that has to deal with the issue. The federal Government of Canada has a role to play. No government in the last 30, 40 or 50 years has played a stronger role in housing than the Prime Minister and this Liberal government. No government has.

If we are talking about a disaster, we could look at the previous Harper government and the lack of attention the Harper government gave to housing. We could contrast that to today's government, which has brought in a national housing strategy, the first of its kind, with billions of dollars of investments.

We could talk about what the government has done to support housing co-ops and other non-profit organizations in building non-profit housing, as well as our investment in tens of thousands of housing units. When I say “tens of thousands”, it is well over 150,000, so it is a bit of a guesstimate. I would say it is probably closer to 250,000 units the federal government continues to support, based on income, at least in good part, by working with provinces.

We talk about the housing crisis, and the Liberal government's approach is to work with the stakeholders and with provinces and municipalities. The Conservative approach is to hit them with a stick. The Liberal government plays an important role, which I believe we have been fulfilling, not only with legislation but also from a budgetary perspective. We are actually materializing and demonstrating that leadership.

However, cities also need to play a role with things such as zoning. Provinces also have to play a role. We are working with other jurisdictions. We have brought in programs through the housing accelerator program that ensure there is a higher sense of co-operation on the housing file.

I can assure the House that our government, whether it is the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers or the Liberal caucus as a whole, will continue to deal with the issues of inflation, the price of groceries and affordable homes the best way we can. As a government, we are concerned and care about Canadians and their well-being. That is why we work every day to try to make a difference, working with different levels of government at the same time.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I could help bring the House together on that potentially controversial point about the member for Winnipeg North.

The Conservative member who just spoke was concerned that we are not addressing the housing crisis. I have great news for the member and for the House. We are debating this motion on Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. I am sure he will be thrilled to vote in favour of it.

After months of Conservative filibuster and delay and over 20 hours of debate over five days, it is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of allowing Bill C-56 to get to a vote. During question period, for 45 minutes of the day, the Conservatives pretend to care about affordability issues for Canadians, but when the rubber meets the road, they are nowhere to be found. They delay, delay, delay.

It was surprising to hear the member who spoke just before me say the Liberals are not prioritizing this. He does not look back to this own members and his own leader to ask why they are not getting Bill C-56 through fast enough to help provide relief to Canadians. This is despite the fact that many of his own members support Bill C-56, such as the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who more than a month ago committed in this House to voting in favour of the bill. Here is what he said on October 5: “I will be joining my Conservatives colleagues in voting to move this bill forward to committee”. That was 46 days ago.

Given all this, I look forward to hearing what is going to be said today. Before my Conservative colleagues rise, I would like to remind them of what this bill does, because I think some of them may have forgotten.

We know that the rising cost of groceries and lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country. I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing these important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56.

We know that for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach and paying rent has become more expensive across the country. The housing crisis has an impact on our economy. 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 like groceries.

Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rental rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects that began construction on or after September 14, 2023, and on or before December 31, 2030, and that complete construction before 2036. For a two-bedroom rental unit that is valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rental rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing we need for families to live in.

The measure would also remove restrictions in existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profits, that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing are permitted to claim the 100% enhanced GST rental rebate. The government is also calling on provinces that currently apply the provincial sales tax or the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax to rental housing to join us by matching the rebate for new rental housing.

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. 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, with about 100,000 units total, by speeding up development and approvals through fixing out of date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density and incentivizing development close to public transit. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster so we can reduce the cost of housing for everyone.

We also need to stabilize the cost of groceries in Canada. With the one-time grocery rebate in July, we delivered targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who needed it the most, with up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew more needed to be done to address the cost of groceries.

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 is introducing a first set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act to provide the Competition Bureau with the 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 a higher price and have fewer choices; and empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

Bill C-56 builds on other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians, including delivering automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit, starting in July 2023, to provide up to $1,518 for eligible single workers and $2,616 for an eligible family, split between three advance payments and a final payment after filing their 2023 tax return; supporting about 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,437 per child up to the age of six and up to $6,275 per child aged six through 17; and reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories reducing child care fees to $10 a day or less by April 2, and strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces.

This government is taking action, and again, more often than not it is the Conservatives voting against, holding things up and delaying committees with filibuster after filibuster. It is shocking to see, especially because it is blatant hypocrisy. I am sure we will hear speeches about how important it is to provide relief to Canadians, but when will members opposite speak to the Leader of the Opposition and their House leader to say that we need to get this legislation through?

I will not hold my breath that they are going to do that. We have been seeing for a lengthy period of time delay after delay. When will the actions of the Conservative Party match the rhetoric that occurs during question period? Granted, its members love a good slogan, but let us take a look at their voting record. All of the things I mentioned, they have either held up or voted against. They do not care. They only care about chaos in this place. It is unfortunate, because I believe some of them truly do care about their constituents and want to see these benefits flow to them.

Some have said they are going to vote in favour of this legislation, but they remain silent when their leader holds it up in this place. This legislation has been debated quite a bit. The filibuster needs to end. It is time to move forward.

The new proposed housing and grocery support I outlined today would make it easier for Canadians to build more homes and would help them thrive. It would help families with the growing cost of putting food on their table. The passage of Bill C-56 would help us provide a brighter future for Canadians.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses, who are joining us remotely as well as in person. Thank you for coming to meet with us in person, Mr. Wood.

Ms. Clapp, you wrote in an article that the major agri-food firms play a significant role in undermining global food security.

I recently met with constituents to talk about food security in Canada. The government introduced legislation that has met with wide support, Bill C‑56. In part, its purpose is to address the concentration of power among the major food chains, which creates problems, including undermining food security in Canada.

In concrete terms, how do those big food chains weaken or undermine food security in Canada and elsewhere in the world?

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as we all return to our respective ridings to mark Remembrance Day and honour the men and women who proudly fought and died to defend our country, I have a few questions for the government House leader about the work that awaits us.

I especially hope that she will have an answer for the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who asked us forcefully and adamantly during question period today precisely when Bill C‑56 would finally be passed. I refer the question back to the government House leader since this bill has not been called in the House since October 5. Can the government House leader tell us when she intends to call Bill C‑56?

It will certainly not be tomorrow or next week, since the House will not be sitting. Could she tell us what business awaits us when we return from our constituency week?

Grocery Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, we did even more than that. For the first time in Canada's history, we called all the CEOs to come to Ottawa to tell them one thing. We expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians, and we expect everyone to do their part, including signing the grocery code of conduct to help stabilize prices in Canada.

However, there is one thing that the members on the other side can do to help Canadians, which is to vote for Bill C-56 so we can reform competition and ensure that we have more competition in this country. Why will they not act?

Public Accounts

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been plenty of legislation that Conservatives have agreed with and voted for. There were bills on disabilities, child care and extending COVID support payments. If it is good legislation, we will vote for it. In fact, the Liberals have legislation they still have not brought back to the House, such as Bill C-56, which Conservatives have indicated they would support.

Canadians were told that Liberals could not cut or pause the carbon tax for any Canadians because of fires, floods and hurricanes, and I want to know how any member in the Liberal Party sleeps at night. How does the member sleep at night knowing that they paused the carbon tax on heating oil when just six months ago, they said they could not pause anything because of hurricanes, floods and fires?

Innovation, Science and Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and members of the House will have an opportunity to do something for Canadians. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to do one thing for Canadians, which is something that he does not do very often, but that one thing is to vote for Bill C-56. Canadians will be happy to learn that Bill C-56 would reform competition by giving more power to the competition commissioner, removing the mergers that are harmful to competition and removing the clauses that are hurting competition.

We want more competition and lower prices in this country.

Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a genuine consensus of agreement in the legislation and the principles of the legislation, yet the Conservatives continue to want to prevent the House of Commons from being able to pass legislation with all forms of filibustering. A good example of that is Bill C-56, something that we debated earlier today as part of a private member's bill where members on all sides were talking about the importance of competition. However, Bill C-56 is yet another victim of Conservative filibustering.

I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the filibustering that takes place, which hurts Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question again. There were 11 meetings at committee to talk about that and 20 hours of debate. This has been debated at committee. People had the chance to debate it, but now that the debate is taking place in the House and everyone agrees, it is time to vote.

Canadians watching at home are saying there were 20 hours of debate in 11 committee meetings and 20 hours of debate in the House. Members had the chance to debate it, and they said that they agree with the amendments. Now they are asking why the government is asking them to vote on it. It is to protect Canadians' national security and make sure we have modern tools in the tool box.

There are real questions, which I know Canadians are asking. What is the hidden agenda of the Conservatives? Why would they want to block legislation? Why are they blocking Bill C-56, which would reform competition? Why are they blocking amendments to the Investment Canada Act?

When it comes to national security, members need to forget their political affiliations and do what is right for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the question. I wish I could answer it. I do not know, honestly, because Conservatives agreed to the legislation and the amendments. They support them, yet they do not want to vote.

I am glad Canadians are watching. They must be wondering at home why the Conservatives agree but do not want to vote. What is the logic of that? The only thing I can find is that they want to obstruct the work of Parliament. They want to delay everything. They will not even allow Bill C-56 to pass, which we talked about before, to make sure we reform competition.

They say that Canada should work at the speed of business, and look at them this morning. What about the speed of business? What about voting on something they want? Find the logic in that. Folks watching at home are wondering why Conservatives agree but do not want to vote for it. It is very tough for me to understand that. I am sure my kids, who are watching at home, would ask how that is possible. That is the real question we are asking. Why do they not do what is right for Canadians? They supported the amendments. They support the bill. We had 44 witnesses. We had 20 hours of debate in the House, 11 meetings at the INDU committee and 20 hours of witnesses.

As I said, there is a time for debate, but there is also a time for action. The time for action is now.

Lowering Prices for Canadians Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this weekend in my riding I was at the Saint‑Janvier Optimist Club, whose mission is to work for youth and children. I want to take this opportunity to commend Linda Cardinal and the entire team who work very hard for children.

Attending this type of event always allows us to reconnect with people, the business community and community organizations, and I find it interesting that we are talking about competition in the House today because I heard people talking about that on Saturday evening. I was at that event with people from the Mirabel Chamber of Commerce, who came to see me to tell me that every year, there is a gala for entrepreneurs in Mirabel, but that this year the gala will not be held because the entrepreneurs are in over their heads, because businesses are extremely worried as they wait for extensions and flexibility for their emergency loan and because for some members the survival of their business is potentially at risk.

If we want to increase competition and stimulate entrepreneurship, and if we want people who enter stores and businesses to be able to shop—we talked about mergers and acquisitions that reduce the number of businesses in the market—then we need to make sure small and medium-sized businesses can survive and breathe and enjoy some flexibility. I find it mind-boggling that, out of all the parties that have spoken today, not one so far has asked the government to extend the deadlines and show flexibility when we know this would immediately increase competition.

I ask the government once again to show some flexibility. What it has shown to date is complete disregard for our entrepreneurial base. The government says it has shown flexibility, that it took measures during the pandemic and invested significantly. Yes, but the current economic circumstances are exceptional, as they were during the pandemic. Times are tough. This must be extended.

That said, it is true that we have a bill in front of us that is good for competition. It is time we started talking about our competition regime. What does this bill do? It increases penalties for some anti-competitive behaviour. We need tougher, more meaningful penalties. It changes the competition regime for Canadian businesses, big multinationals, when they merge with or acquire other companies, so that consumers and the price they will pay are considered in the Competition Bureau's decision-making process. It allows the Competition Tribunal to issue additional, broader orders so that mergers, acquisitions and so on can be more easily prevented. It extends the limitation period for the review of mergers and acquisitions from one year to three years.

These are good measures given our ailing competition regime. We talked about this during the debate on Bill C‑56. Around the world, when there is a major merger or acquisition, competition authorities ask two general types of questions. The first is, how will this make things more efficient? Will these businesses, which are expanding and increasing market concentration, operate more efficiently? That is a legitimate question. The second type of questions is, considering that consumers will have fewer places, fewer stores where they can shop, do they risk being fleeced? Could they end up paying more? Could there be an increase in the cost of living? Do consumers risk being held hostage by this smaller number of larger businesses?

Canada's system is unique in the world in that the Competition Bureau is not allowed to ask this second type of questions. As a result, in certain markets, such as grocery stores, we have seen market concentration, merger after merger, acquisition after acquisition. It is now at the point where there are three major grocery stores in the market, not including Walmart and Costco, even though Canada is a G7 country. When the minister invited representatives from these big companies, they were all able to sit around a small coffee table, in 10 square feet. That is just one example of the disease plaguing our competition system.

HSBC Bank Canada is the perfect example. It is selling its subsidiaries around the world because it needs cash. What is happening? HSBC is selling its subsidiaries and, obviously, it is the biggest, strongest player that is most likely to buy that bank, especially since we know that the mortgage market is struggling and some banks are vulnerable. The system is already vulnerable.

The Competition Bureau is keeping an eye on that to determine whether there are efficiencies to be had. Of course, there are efficiencies to be had. We do not have to have a honorary doctorate, like the member for Trois-Rivières, to know that. The biggest bank is going to buy the portfolios of customers from other banks. It will own the mortgages and will be able to close branches and reduce the number of players in the market. HSBC will likely not have any storefront locations after the merger or acquisition. It will be the same bank with the same customers. It will provide the same loans, with the same employees and the same systems.

The Competition Bureau allows this because it will save money. However, not even the Competition Bureau is authorized to check on whether this will reduce competition, and consumers are the ones who end up paying. What is interesting is that the government even recognized that. With Bill C-56, the message is that Canada's competition regime needs to be changed, because consumers have been getting shafted at every turn for decades.

The Competition Bureau allowed this to happen under the old rules. This has made it to the desk of the Minister of Finance, who is about to sign it. If I were the Minister of Industry, I would really feel like I was a laughingstock. It is imperative that this transaction be put on hold until we see whether Bill C-56 passes, depending on the will of Parliament, so that the Competition Bureau can reissue a notice under the new rules of Bill C-56, taking the consumer into account. That is why it is so important to review our competition system.

Bill C-352 looks at supply chains, which is a good thing. We experienced this during the pandemic. We know that when there are mergers and acquisitions, transactions often involve head offices elsewhere and there is a risk that foreign suppliers will replace local suppliers. A few years ago that was not seen as dangerous. However, with the closures during the pandemic, we realized the extent to which consumers’ buying power in Quebec and Canada could be weakened by supply chain disruptions in the event of a major shock to international trade. We have come to realize that, sometimes, it is good insurance to have local or national suppliers. It is a very good thing.

Furthermore, we will be able to give the Competition Tribunal some power to cancel mergers and acquisitions. We realized after all that, because the Competition Bureau’s advisory opinions are not always perfect, consumers were being cheated far more than people thought. Some trial and error is involved here, and, often, when the Competition Bureau has not taken everything into account, when circumstances have changed, the consumer ends up paying.

They say that a transaction will be cancelled if it takes the new company that merged or made an acquisition to a 60% market share. That could be at 30%. We are not sure where these figures come from, but we think this deserves to be properly assessed in committee and, perhaps, be amended. That said, the bill does leave the tribunal a lot of latitude to take other criteria into account.

There is also the dominant market position issue. Until now, companies with a dominant position have been prevented from forcing their competitors to not do business with some suppliers. A number of practices have been blocked, but nothing prevents these companies from abusing their dominance and charging prices that are too high. We know that when a company gains market power, when it becomes a monopoly or comes close, its first reflex is of course to raise prices excessively high, because the consumer has no other place to shop. The consumer is stuck with one brand, one company. In some regions, there are very concentrated markets where the consumer is stuck with one company.

What this bill shows is that the competition regime is in serious need of reform. Most of all, it shows that Canada's competition regime has been favouring business and capital, not consumers, for decades. With today's cost of living, the importance of putting consumers at the centre of our thinking, at the centre of our approach, is not lost on anyone.

I would therefore like to thank the leader of the NDP for introducing this bill. We will be pleased to debate it in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a competition problem. I think we all know this; it has been repeated over and over today in the House. After eight years, Canadians pay the highest prices in the world for almost every good and service they can imagine. Canadian monopolies are making money on the backs of hard-working Canadians. It is not corporate greed; it is government incompetence driving these changes with the unwillingness to change the Competition Act, as well as the carbon tax driving up the prices of almost every good and service.

We can look at all of it. Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills on the whole planet. We pay three times as much as the Australians and twice as much as people do in the U.S. and in Europe. For Internet, we pay some of the highest fees. When it comes to rural Canadians, seven million Canadians, 60% of them do not have high-speed Internet. When it comes to trying to get high-speed Internet, most of them get it from the sky, from Starlink and Xplore, which are owned by American companies. With banking, six banks control 80% of all the mortgages in Canada. For airlines, 85% of all of them are controlled by two companies in Canada.

We are talking about the highest grocery bills. A 50-dollar basket in Canada is only $35 in the United States. A decade ago, we used to have eight Canadian grocery companies, which has now been whittled down to only three Canadian companies and two American companies that control 80% of all the groceries in Canada. Even for beer, we have InBev, Molson Coors and Sapporo that account for 90% of all the beer sales in Canada. What a travesty that this is controlled by three companies.

If we look at the top 20 Canadian companies, the average age of those companies is 110 years. The average founding year for Canadian companies is 1914. In the U.S., the average age is 80 years, and the average founding year is 1944. Of the top five biggest companies in Canada, our oldest is RBC, which was founded in 1864. In the U.S., it is in Microsoft, which was founded in 1975. We have major monopolies that have controlled all Canadian markets. They control everything Canadians buy. After eight years of the government, the Prime Minister, coupled with the NDP government, is just not worth the cost, literally, for almost everything Canadians buy.

Why do we want competition? Competition is freedom. It is freedom of choice. Families can decide where to put to put their money, their hard-earned tax dollars. That always means better service. It always means lower prices. However, to have freedom, one needs to have courage to change the rules and to break up the trust to stand up for Canadians' wallets.

The Competition Act is the culprit. It is outdated. It was meant to be based on an industrial 1960s-style policy that was meant not for competition in Canada but for competition in the world. We wanted Canadian companies to get as big as possible in order to be able to compete internationally. That meant we made sure all our big companies, starting from the founder, the Hudson's Bay Company, which was the original monopoly, were a big as possible and ensured those companies could compete. However, at the invention of free trade and as we have gone global in the world, we have never changed the Competition Act, so the Competition Act, in fact, protects only large companies. It protects them to get bigger, and at the end of the day, Canadians pay the highest fees on the whole planet.

After eight years, here are the mergers that have been approved by the Competition Bureau. Air Canada was approved to buy Air Transat. Rogers was approved to buy Shaw in 2022. Westjet bought Sunwing, which was approved in 2022. Bell was approved to buy MTS. Superior Propane was approved to buy Canexus. Superior Propane was approved to buy Canwest Propane. Sobeys, in the grocery market, was approved to buy Farm Boy in 2018. Tervita bought assets from Babkirk Land Services in 2015. The most egregious, to me, is happening right now. It is RBC, which has been approved to buy HSBC. RBC, Canada's number one bank, with 21% of all the mortgages, has a hard time getting new clients. When it looked to buy new clients, of course it looked at the deal with HSBC, which had 800,000 mortgage holders, and said “Is this not a great deal?” and that it would love to buy it. Why would it not, with 800,000 mortgage holders? The Competition Act, based on outdated rules, said that this company was going to get bigger and saw nothing in these rules to stop the merger.

Let me tell members what this merger would do. Of those 800,000 mortgage holders, HSBC has 10% of all Vancouver mortgages and 5% of all Toronto mortgages. When we look at the housing markets in the world, Toronto is the number one hottest market in the world. Vancouver is the third-hottest market. The approval of this merger would effectively mean that, when we look at prices for mortgages, the lower mortgages by the scrappy competitor, HSBC, would be bought wholeheartedly by RBC. We will want to compare those numbers. RBC, last week, had a posted variable mortgage rate of 7.15%, HSBC at 6.4%. That is a basis point difference of 75 for a mortgage market, which may not have meant anything three years ago when interest rates were really low. However, when interest rates go higher, that means that a family in Toronto or Vancouver with a half-a-million-dollar mortgage would be paying, per month, $312 more, based on the fact that this competitor would be gone.

The Competition Act favours monopolies; it says so in the purpose statement. Part of the change in this is the courage to change the rules. Conservatives were the ones who came up with eliminating the efficiencies defence, the defence that allows, in the Competition Act, any big companies, regardless of their size and regardless of the merger, to be able to merge based on efficiencies. A lot of times, they were job markets or job losses. I know that the removal of the defence is a good idea because it was my idea, my private member's bill, which was introduced in the House on June 12, when it was read for the first time. It was scheduled to go the second time and the government first took it with Bill C-56. Now, of course, the efficiencies defence removal is coming under this private member's bill. Of course, this is a good idea. Conservatives are looking forward to presenting more good ideas as we look to tackle the Competition Act.

It comes down to one thing: do we stand up for the people or do we stand up with monopolies? When we look at the monopolies across Canada, we certainly have to be brave in terms of looking at how to tackle those.

When we look at grocery prices and grocery stores, only three Canadian companies, three Canadian grocery chains, own two-thirds of the whole market. They are Metro, Shoppers and Sobeys. We can look over the years at how that was able to occur. In 1986, Safeway was able to buy Woodward's. In 1990, A&P was able to buy Steinberg's. Sobeys bought IGA. That one is the most egregious to me. The Independent Retail Grocers Association is not independent; it is owned by Sobeys. We have Loblaws buying Safeway. Metro bought A&P. Loblaws bought Provigo. Amazon has bought Whole Foods. Metro has bought Jean Coutu. Sobeys has bought Farm Boy and Longo's. There is no competition in Canada; there are only oligopolies.

When it comes to the grocery sector, we also have another item, another piece, that makes it completely uncompetitive; that is the carbon tax. The carbon tax has added on for the farmer. The medium farm in Canada pays $150,000 in carbon taxes and gets no rebate, meaning it passes that cost on to the consumer. Truckers get a carbon tax added on to the price of fuel. They do not get a rebate, so that gets added on to the price for consumers. Cold storage facilities and warehouses all get a carbon tax added on to their heat bills and to their bills to freeze food and keep it cold. All of that gets added on for consumers. When the carbon tax gets added on one, two, three, four or five times, the food goes up one, two, three, four or five times. That is why, when we compare Canadian grocery prices to American grocery prices, Americans pay less; it is because they have no carbon tax.

Large monopolies should not be able to merge with one another. The large monopolies should not be able to gobble up other, smaller competitors. That is the key we are missing in the Competition Act. When we have large competitors competing internationally, that is one thing. When we have Canadian monopolies buying small competitors just so they can get bigger, just so that they can make more money on the backs of hard-working Canadians, that is wrong. To break that up and to change the Competition Act takes courage, and that is what we want to do as Conservatives on this side of the House.

Competition is freedom of choice and freedom of courage. Let us have the courage to change the Competition Act and to create competition for a change, for my home, your home and our home. Let us take competition and bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the issue that the leader of the New Democratic Party has brought to us this morning in the form of a piece of private member's legislation.

It is interesting to look at Bill C-56, a government piece of legislation. I think some of the principles are there. I look forward to hearing the feedback from my friends in the New Democratic Party with respect to Bill C-56. I believe that Bill C-56 is going to be able to make a difference.

Before I get into that, I think it is important for all of us to recognize a few facts. One is that Canadians are hurting in a very real and tangible way. We recognize that. If we compare inflation and the price of groceries in Canada to other places around the world, Canada is doing fairly well, but that does not mean that we just accept that. It is important that we continue as a government to look at ways to bring more stability to the prices of groceries, to even have an impact on reducing the cost of groceries indirectly, which is still important, and directly, provide that support to Canadians. An example of that would be in the last budget. In the last budget we had a grocery rebate. I believe over 11 million people directly benefited from that. That put more money in the pockets of people during a difficult time, ensuring that they would have that additional disposable income.

I would suggest there are many benefits throughout the budget that help Canadians with disposable income, such as the national child care program, the national dental care program, both brought in by this government, again, with the idea of ensuring that disposable income, which could go toward groceries, would in fact, be helped.

More specifically, in regard to the bill itself, when we think in terms of the big five grocery chains, Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart and Costco, our government called them from the minister's office here in Ottawa and had them make a presentation to the standing committee in a genuine attempt for more accountability. That was relatively unique. We want to ensure that there is a healthier sense of competition and that consumers are not being taken advantage of, as we know that can take place. In fact, not that long ago, colleagues will recall when Canada Bread company was caught price fixing. Over the last couple of years that allegation was established and the company taken to court. I believe there was an agreed-upon fine somewhere in the neighbourhood of $45 million to $50 million. That was because the government does take this issue seriously.

Bill C-56 deals, in good part, with ensuring there is a healthier sense of competition. Let me give an example. They call it the efficiency debate. Members might recall that Shoppers Drug Mart used to be a stand-alone independent company, producing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in sales throughout the country. They used the issue of efficiency partly to justify the merger of Loblaws and Shoppers. That was the last real significant merger that we saw in the grocery industry. There is no doubt that Loblaws and Shoppers benefited immensely by that, using that particular argument. The ones who lost out were the consumers because there is less competition when two large companies form one, based on the issue of efficiency.

As much as the Conservatives criticize the Liberals, I will remind my friends across the way that the same thing happened while Stephen Harper was prime minister. It was the Conservative government that approved that particular merger. In good part, it was based on the efficiency defence. That is why Bill C-56, which I believe the Conservatives are filibustering, would change the game. I am not 100% sure they are filibustering it, but I would be surprised if they were not. We will have to wait and see, and maybe do a little more research on it. Suffice it to say that Bill C-56 would change the game, because we can no longer use the efficiency argument. We need to have more of a focus on Canadian consumers, and we would see that in some of the changes in the bill.

In Bill C-56, we would see more of an empowerment of the Competition Bureau, giving the bureau additional money and resources to conduct investigations to ensure we have healthier competition in a wide spectrum of areas. The best way to keep corporations more responsible, to prevent price-fixing and some of the shenanigans that take place, which ultimately shaft consumers, is to ensure there is healthier competition. That is why we looked to the Competition Bureau to give the legislation more authority, not only from a legislative perspective but also as a budgetary measure. As a government, we have invested more, into the tens of millions of dollars, so the bureau would be in a better position to conduct the investigations necessary to protect our consumers.

Over the last year, I have been invited to grand openings in the community, and one thing I really appreciate is that it is the small businesses of Canada that provide the backbone to our economy and that are so important to the whole idea of competition. I look at some of the ethnic grocery stores. I am a little reluctant to use the word “ethnic”, so I will say “community-based grocery stores”. Look at the impact they have in the community by providing additional competition, not to mention some wonderful alternative foods. In my community, there are a Punjabi grocery store and a Filipino grocery store that emphasize products from those two communities. Superstores nowadays are starting to broaden their selections, which I suggest has a lot to do with competition. Superstores will start to lose more and more of their market if they do not diversify the types of products they offer.

The same principles apply with regard to prices. We would encourage all opposition members to look at Bill C-56 as legislation that can and would make a difference for the consumers of Canada, for all of us because we are all consumers. The government is focused on having the backs of Canadians, in supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and in boosting up individuals who need to be boosted, while, at the same time, ensuring that the wealthiest 1% pay their fair share. It is one of the very first actions the government took in 2015; we raised the taxes of Canada's wealthiest 1%. We have the backs of Canadians and will continue to do so through legislation and budgetary measures.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try my hand at interpretation at this time of the day. All I understood was that there was some question as to whether the national housing strategy was the right measure, and whether it had accomplished its mission after five years.

Personally, I would rather ask the government the following question. There are five years left in this strategy. When we returned to the House of Commons in September, the housing crisis was already bad. The government wanted to respond by introducing Bill C-56, which aims to abolish the GST on the construction of rental housing.

The government is spending $82 billion on the national housing strategy, which includes several programs. That said, a strategy is meant to be adjusted when it is not working. I would have expected the government to ask itself how it intends to resolve this situation or help resolve it over the next five years by supporting Quebec and its municipalities when it comes to social and affordable housing. That is how it is. I do not expect them to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I do expect them to make major adjustments to the strategy so it can achieve its objectives.

The Economy

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make life more affordable and ensure that companies pay their share.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry met with the CEOs of the big grocery chains and of domestic and international food producers to clearly explain the need for a more affordable grocery basket and improved competition.

I hope that all members will join us in expediting the passage of Bill C‑56 on affordable housing and groceries to improve competition in the food sector, among others.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was tabled in the House last week on October 17. I am hoping the member can enlighten me, because the government's own policy requires that before the tabling of legislation, 21 sitting days have to expire so that members of Parliament can take a look at the agreement before any enabling legislation is brought in. We did not have that presented to members of Parliament. We also do not have an economic statement.

The government has attached a lot of importance to Bill C-56, so I am just wondering why the government did not take the time to do those two key priorities. We have plenty of time to consider this legislation. Instead, maybe we should devote the House's time to Bill C-56, which the government often likes to complain is not moving ahead.

Requirement of Royal Recommendations for Bills C-353 and C-356

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to what the Speaker said on Thursday, October 19, when he raised two items for Private Members' Business that appeared to infringe on the Crown's financial imperative and asked members to bring forward interventions on these matters.

Without commenting on the subject matter of the two bills in question, I submit that Bill C-353, sponsored by the member for Thornhill, and Bill C-356, sponsored by the member for Carleton, both infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative and that both bills require a royal recommendation.

Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-353 relating to the programs to encourage co-operation provides that:

The Minister may, in cooperation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, establish and implement programs designed to encourage individuals to co-operate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of Canadian nationals and eligible protected persons who are held hostage or arbitrarily detained in state-to-state relations outside Canada.

Subclause 21(2) of Bill C-353 further provides that “the Minister may pay a monetary reward to the individual who provides that information in an amount and manner determined by the Minister.”

I submit, respectfully, that there is no authority in statute or in an appropriation to establish such a program set out in subclause 21(1), nor the authority to make payments subject to the provisions set out in subclause 21(2). Therefore, subclause 21(1), in toto, seeks to impose a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund in a manner that is not currently authorized.

Turning to Bill C-356, I submit that the repurposing of $100 million from the housing accelerator fund and the provision to give effect to a 100% GST rebate on the new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate both seek to infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative.

First, the housing accelerator fund was established as a program administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is funded by a voted appropriation by Parliament through the estimates process. The member is seeking to change the terms and conditions and the purposes of the housing accelerator fund in a manner that is inconsistent with the program parameters as established and that therefore deviates from the authority granted by Parliament. The tabling of the main estimates and supplementary estimates is preceded by the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General for voted appropriations. That royal recommendation sets the maximum amount, the purpose and the terms and conditions of the voted appropriations contained in the estimates documents and voted upon by Parliament.

Second, the 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property would be a rebate paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for which a builder, landlord or buyer could claim the said rebate. I would point out that Bill C-56, which also proposes a 100% GST rebate for purpose-built rental housing, while different in design, was accompanied by a royal recommendation. Since, when brought into force, it would create a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund, it stands to reason that the program for which the terms, purposes and conditions of the GST rebate envisioned in Bill C-356 cannot rely on the royal recommendation provided with Bill C-56. Bill C-356 must, similarly, require a new royal recommendation to authorize a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to MP Ste-Marie for setting the table for some of the things I will also say.

Obviously there is a lot of talk, and rightly so, about the competition regime in Canada these days. The government recognized as much with Bill C-56, and NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has proposed some even more forceful amendments to Canada's Competition Act.

I doubt that I'm the only MP around this table hearing from frustrated customers in light of the Rogers-Shaw merger and the way that it's unrolling. Of course, when there's a merger in the offing, it's always usual to hear how it's going to be great for customers and 1,000 flowers will bloom, but I have been around long enough now to see the fallout of those kinds of mergers, whether it's Rogers-Shaw or Bell-MTS back home in Manitoba, where Manitobans have seen a marked lack of—or, shall I say, deterioration in—service, so it should be no surprise.

I remember talking about bank mergers for the first time around 1998 with my father, who was a New Democrat MP at the time and opposed the bank mergers of those days, so I'm glad to see we're in more mixed political company these days in terms of our opposition to those mergers and I welcome all those folks to the party.

I think it's also worth mentioning that HSBC has been compared to large banks, so that's an important caveat, Mr. Chair, but it has been more pioneering in the green finance space that this committee has been looking at and has a more diversified portfolio, while RBC is one of the biggest Canadian bank investors in the fossil fuel sector. They are, with the exception of the federal government, the most exposed on the TMX pipeline, and I think it would be tragic to see a financial institution that seems to be making an effort to diversify its portfolio and provide capital for the new energy economy that's coming out get swallowed up by a larger bank that has shown a decided lack of interest in pursuing financing for these kinds of projects that are going to be the basis of a lot of good union-paying jobs for Canadians into the future.

There's a lot to consider here, but I think that when you consider the facts that are already available, it's clear that this is a merger that should not proceed, and that's why I will be happy to vote for the motion presently.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll vote in favour of Mr. Hallan's motion, but I'd like to point out a few things.

I understand why the merger needs to happen. HSBC has the right to sell its Canadian operations. My political party and I understand that. However, we also know that there is an equilibrium among the big Canadian banks, which are all similar in size. The fact that it's the biggest of them, Royal Bank, that wants to buy HSBC worries me because it will make the banking sector less balanced.

We also know that HSBC's environmental policies are more rigorous than Royal Bank's. If Royal Bank acquires HSBC, the financial sector's climate change commitments could take a hit, and that worries me too.

I would like to raise what I think is another very important consideration. Bill C‑56 is before the House now. Part 2 of the bill would expand the Competition Bureau's powers to review transactions. The review of whether Royal Bank should be allowed to acquire HSBC was therefore done by a more anemic version of the Competition Bureau that had no real powers, as we've come to see in recent years. In my opinion, one very interesting approach that could provide some reassurance would be to ask the Competition Bureau to re-evaluate this proposed transaction once Bill C‑56 has been passed and implemented and the Bureau has more teeth. Ideally, some other financial institution would acquire HSBC's Canadian operations.

That, in a nutshell, is why I will support the motion put forward by my colleague, Mr. Hallan.

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

Thank you.

I want to turn next to Mayor Guthrie.

One of the measures we've tabled through legislation, through Bill C-56, is eliminating the GST on purpose-built rentals.

I was hoping you could explain to this committee the feedback you've heard in Guelph from developers on what that might do for getting new apartments built.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think it's in the vein of some of the witness testimony today, so I thank you, witnesses.

We are in a wrecking ball between a housing crisis and a competition crisis in Canada. We have a major competition problem. A Competition Bureau report released this week stated what we already knew for the last 25 years—competition has never been worse in Canada. Canadians pay some of the highest fees in the world for cellphone bills, for groceries, for airlines and for banking.

When it comes to banking, we have a highly consolidated industry and large oligopolies that control all the banking in Canada.

At the same time, we have a competition reform problem and a policy problem. That's evident because the federal government itself has just launched Bill C-56, which addresses competition reform, and there's a private member's bill by the leader of the NDP. There is a competition problem, and we have to address that.

At the same time, we have a merger right now. Canada's number one bank, with a 23% market share in mortgages, is trying to buy Canada's number seven bank, which represents 800,000 mortgages, mostly in Vancouver and Toronto.

To give an indication of that, HSBC has 10% of all the Vancouver mortgages on the books, and roughly 5% of Toronto's.

When we look at the difference between mortgages for a family in Vancouver or Toronto who had a half-million-dollar mortgage—and that's probably pretty low for most families—we see that the variable mortgage rate posted today from HSBC is 6.4%, and from RBC it's 7.15%. That's a difference of 75 basis points. That didn't really matter two years ago during the pandemic, but when interest rates have risen, 75 basis points is a lot for any family.

To give that context, for a family that's going to be over $300 more just on that basis point difference on a half-million-dollar mortgage. If you compare that to a family that right now is at 1.8% or 2% and has to refinance a mortgage—which 70,000 families are now doing every month—you can imagine the pain the families would have in trying to make that relevant to their family budgets and their lives. No wonder we're seeing a lot of families in all cities across Canada screaming that they simply can't afford that.

With regard to this merger itself, certainly HSBC is a scrappy competitor that offers competitive rates in the market. However, the Competition Bureau itself stated, in giving approval, that it's doing so under the current rules and that in competition reform, we have to change the Competition Act.

During the competition reform that the government started and that all parties have agreed to look at, when we're looking at a housing crisis—and borrowing from Mayor Guthrie, who said that the day of reckoning has come—we have to have an intervention by this government right now to ensure that a scrappy competitor can stay in the market and offer lower mortgage prices for Canadians. If that competitor is removed, there's nothing that's going to be worse than having higher mortgage fees and interest rates for consumers and Canadian families.

We're asking the finance minister to reject this deal and we're asking this committee to support this motion.

Carbon Pricing

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say with a straight face is that the Conservative Party has voted against every measure proposed by this side of the House to provide support to families. The Canada child benefit and every investment we have made in housing come to mind. We still expect the Conservatives to vote in favour of Bill C‑56, which will stabilize grocery prices and get rid of the GST on new housing construction.

On this side of the House, we are taking care of people every day.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if they really wanted to pass Bill C-56, they would put it on the agenda. Since October 5, the Liberals have not called Bill C-56 for debate in the House. They should make a decision and stick with it. One would think they would have a better sense of what they want.

Meanwhile, the middle class knows what is coming. They are lining up at food banks. This morning, the newspapers were saying that food banks are desperate. In the last three years, food prices have risen by 23%.

Meanwhile, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois want to drastically increase carbon taxes. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly now, and it is going to get even more costly.

Will the Liberals abandon their plan to raise carbon taxes?

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable growers should be paid for the fruit and vegetables they grow, full stop. Bill C-280 will ensure that fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers are not unduly disadvantaged by the bankruptcy of a produce buyer.

The deemed trust established by this bill will also support the highly integrated produce trade between Canada and the United States. Farmers and other suppliers in Canada have been pushing for these measures for almost 20 years. The absence of a deemed trust has cost produce suppliers their farms and livelihoods and has jeopardized our domestic food security. With Bill C-280, we can finally change that.

This is a common-sense Conservative bill that has been supported by all parties in this House. I want to thank all members for that, especially the Conservative shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, the member for Foothills; the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the member for Kings—Hants; the member for Berthier-Maskinongé; and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for their support. It goes to show the cross-country support this bill has.

Bill C-280 will provide financial protection measures for those growing fruits and vegetables from coast to coast to coast. This includes asparagus in Quebec, sweet potatoes in Nova Scotia, and carrots in the soup and salad bowl of Canada, home to the Holland Marsh in my riding of York—Simcoe. Of course, this week we saw the leader of the official opposition clearly loved the Ambrosia apples in the great province of British Columbia. How about those apples?

I am also grateful to Ron Lemaire and Shannon Sommerauer from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Quinton Woods from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, Fred Webber from the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, Jody Mott from the Holland Marsh Growers' Association, and of course, my number one staff in Ottawa, Patrick Speck, who worked tirelessly on this bill with me, as well as my staff in the riding: Jennifer, Michael and Carol.

My thanks to Suzanne, my wife. I told her that it would all be worth it, all the long days and nights here in Ottawa, which I know all members can appreciate.

It is time we get this over the line. I urge members to support Bill C-280 when this is voted upon next week. I trust that legislators in that other place with the red carpet, who can be a little slow sometimes, will deal with it promptly, given the multi-party support for these measures. Like we say in York—Simcoe, “Be ready, Senators”.

Right now, Canadians are dealing with the high cost of food. With Bill C-56 and other measures, the government has been talking about stabilizing food prices. Bill C-280 is going to lower prices of fresh fruits and vegetables that Canadians need now, so we all need to get behind this.

Too often Canadians, especially rural Canadians, think we cannot work together in this place. They think we cannot get anything done and they believe that whatever is accomplished does not have any relevance to or impact on their lives. In rural communities, people band together every day. They are the foundation of what it means to be Canadian. They want to see this place work for them, they want to see the way it works for one another. I firmly believe that Bill C-280 sends a message to every produce farmer and supplier that we understand the issues they face and that we are committed to addressing them.

The hard work of passing this bill is nothing compared to the boots in the muck in the Holland Marsh, which all farmers face right across Canada, but I can tell colleagues this. We are going to get behind them with this bill. We are going to get it done. Let us get Bill C-280 passed for the farmers right across Canada.

Alleged Duplication of Private Member's Bill—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte concerning Bill C-339 and Bill C-56.

Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence), standing in the name of the member for Bay of Quinte, received first reading on June 8 and was added to the order of precedence on September 20. Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, received first reading on Thursday, September 21, and is currently being debated in the House at second reading.

In his intervention, the member for Bay of Quinte noted that the government had presented a bill which contains the same provisions as his private member's bill. The member sought assurance from the Chair that, if required, he would have recourse to replace his bill with another item according to the provisions of the Standing Orders.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it would be premature to consider the matter until the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had completed their work pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 and presented a report to the House.

Bill C‑339 contains only two clauses, which are identical to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C‑56. Bill C-339 seeks to repeal the provision of the Competition Act setting out the “efficiencies defence”, which prevents the Competition Tribunal from making an order if it finds that the likely gains in efficiency will be greater than the effects of any lessening of competition resulting from a merger.

Bill C-56 aims to repeal the exception brought about by mergers involving efficiency gains, while also establishing a framework to conduct an inquiry, permitting the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders, as well as amending the Excise Tax Act.

It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business held a meeting on Thursday, October 5, to determine whether the bills added to the order of precedence on September 20 should remain votable or not. While the subcommittee and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have not yet made a final recommendation to the House concerning Bill C-339, the official process has not yet run its course. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make any determination on this matter at this time.

There is an opportunity to resolve the concern raised through the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which are the designated bodies for considering items added to the order of precedence. I trust that the usual process will be followed in accordance with the rules and practices of the House. If a procedural issue remains after that process is complete, the Chair is open to considering the matter.

I thank all members for their patience and attention.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be very happy with my answer.

I hope that happiness will result in him supporting Bill C‑56 and not just giving a speech about it. The bill is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-38, which deals with new registration entitlements. I am sure my colleague is very interested to hear that, on Monday, we will debate Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, which was introduced earlier this week.

Thursday, we will proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, concerning the Investment Canada Act. I assume that my hon. colleague is very happy with this news, and I look forward to hearing his speech on Monday.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit you are putting a little pressure on me to produce a Thursday question that lives up to this House's reputation.

During Oral Questions, there were a lot of questions about Bill C‑56 and comments by government ministers about the Conservative Party's decision to support or oppose it. They urged us to support it. I would note that the government has not put Bill C‑56 on the House's agenda since October 5. I actually have an excellent speech ready about my position on Bill C‑56.

I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the Government if a discussion of Bill C‑56 is planned for next week's House business so that I can finally deliver my speech.

Housing

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a housing crisis in Canada. Our government is on the front lines fighting this crisis. We introduced Bill C‑56, which will eliminate the GST on the construction of housing and speed up residential construction across Canada. However, as we speak, the bill is still being debated in the House, which is causing delays in getting help to Canadians.

Can the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development remind the House how this bill will help Canadians who have been hard hit by the housing crisis?

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

You're probably aware that the government has tabled a bill, Bill C-56, which they call the affordable housing and groceries act. My contention is that it makes neither housing nor groceries more affordable, which I think is easily and arguably justifiable.

One of the things that the government hangs its hat on is getting rid of the efficiencies defence. The reality is that getting rid of this defence is a competition issue. It has nothing to do with addressing the immediate issue of inflation, government-driven inflation through taxation, that is affecting both home prices and grocery prices. Would you agree with that assessment?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member could provide some clarity to Canadians. When the Conservatives talk about austerity and cutbacks, one of the issues they like to bring up in the House is that of housing. As a government, we are investing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in housing. In fact, we have Bill C-56 before the House now, which would allow for literally hundreds of thousands of new purpose-built rentals to enter Canadian markets over the coming years. On the one hand they say that we should not spend money, and on the other hand they say that we need to do something about the housing crisis.

Not only are we spending money, but we are also working with other levels of government. Does the member believe that the federal government should be spending money to ensure there is housing for Canadians into the future, or does she oppose that expenditure too?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, at times, just want to put their heads in the sand and stick with their slogans and bumper stickers, quite frankly. The member talks about inflation. Back in June of 2022, inflation in Canada was at around 8%. In the United States, it was at 9%. Today it is 4% and 3%, or just under 4%. Let us put it that way.

The Conservatives will go around Canada and say that Canada is broken. Does that mean the whole world is broken? The Conservatives are so extreme. They like to get those slogans on the bumper stickers.

Does the member not believe she is misleading Canadians when she tries to give this false impression? Yes, inflation is hurting. That is the reason we bring forward good legislation, such as Bill C-56, which is legislation the Conservatives is filibustering. Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by being critical of the amount of debt that the Government of Canada has acquired. They understand very clearly that most of the debt that was accrued was during the pandemic. Billions and billions of dollars were spent to support small businesses, individual Canadians, seniors, people with disabilities and so forth; the Conservative Party supported a lot of that. With hindsight, the Conservatives are saying we should not have spent the billions of dollars that they supported at the time. That is one issue.

Actions speak louder than words. The member says he is concerned about inflation. The government is also concerned about inflation; that is the reason we brought forward Bill C-56, which would provide literally hundreds of thousands of new homes in the years ahead for rental properties. The Conservatives' response is to filibuster the legislation. They will not even let the legislation pass. Why is the Conservative Party so out of touch with the reality of what Canadians are facing today?

Grocery Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that there was nothing nice about my meeting with the five grocery CEOs in Canada. I expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table, and I asked them, on behalf of all Canadians, to do their part to stabilize prices in Canada.

If all the members of Parliament want to do something to help Canadians, they can vote for Bill C-56. It is that simple: more competition, lower consolidation and more food on the table for Canadians.

Housing

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis, as we know, is underpinned ultimately by a crisis in supply or the lack thereof. What the government is doing is partnering with municipalities across the country. For federal dollars, municipalities have the chance to build more. In London, for example, 2,000 more units of housing will be built in exchange for a $74-million investment.

What we have also done is to put forward Bill C-56, which, if members look at it, is a serious bill that would remove the cost of taxes, of GST specifically, for rental construction. The Conservatives have nothing to say on that.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservatives once again failed to look at what we presented. We presented an action plan to stabilize prices in Canada. The first thing the plan will do is ensure that Canada's grocers are accountable to Canadians, something that the Conservatives would never have considered. We also helped consumer groups, another thing that the Conservatives would never have considered.

Will the do-nothing Conservatives at least vote for Bill C-56 to help Canadians for once?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

I am thankful for this opportunity to take part in today's conversation and debate.

To say Canadians are living in a turbulent world would be an understatement. Right now, it is clear the rising cost of living is one of Canada's most significant economic challenges, and the last three years have been hard. Canadians, like most people around the world, have been unable to avoid the financial pain caused by the last few years, but despite all these challenges, the Canadian economy represents resilience and stability amid the tumult.

In so many ways, we are faring much better than our international peers. Our government is tireless in its drive to build an economy with stable prices, consistent growth and abundant good-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians, and we have impressive results to show for it.

There are currently more than a million additional Canadians employed today than before the pandemic. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that Canada will see the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year. Despite the global economic headwinds and slowing growth across the world's economies, Canadian growth in July was 3.3% above its pandemic levels. DBRS Morningstar also recently confirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

Our excellent credit rating proves how responsible our plan is. Through a number of measures that I will describe in detail in a few moments, we have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians rely on. We have implemented these measures while ensuring that Canada maintains the lowest deficit and lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Looking ahead, we will continue to focus on fiscal restraint. The government is strongly committed to reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to ensure that the country's finances remain viable.

It is my pleasure to walk members through some of the powerful steps our government has taken since 2015 to support Canadians and address the cost of living concerns. These actions are having a real impact in terms of putting more money into the pockets of Canadians across the country. Our government has given Canadians a boost through the Canada child benefit, tax cuts for the middle class, a commitment to implement a new dental care plan and affordable early learning and child care right across the country, with six provinces and territories already providing regulated child care for an average of just $10 a day or less, significantly ahead of schedule.

Our affordable Canada-wide early learning and child care system has a record labour force participation rate; earlier this year, this was 85.7% for working-age women. It is also helping to grow the economy and to make life more affordable for families from coast to coast to coast.

The result is that in 2020-21, the most recent years for which we have data from Statistics Canada, close to 2.3 million fewer Canadians were living in poverty compared to 2015. In other words, in 2021, 7.4% of Canadians were living in poverty, a 14.5% decrease compared to 2015. Our government remains committed to reaching its goal of a 50% reduction in poverty by 2030 based on 2015 levels.

I would remind the official opposition that even the central plank of our climate plan, the federal carbon pricing system, is giving Canadian households more money back in climate action incentive payments than they pay in. Since 2019, there has been a price on carbon pollution, a measure that survived two federal elections and that was upheld by the Supreme Court. In April 2023, the price increased to $65 per tonne. The money collected goes straight back into Canadians' pockets, as 90% of fuel charges are returned directly to households through climate action incentive payments. In the provinces where the federal system applies, a family of four can now receive up to $1,500 per year under our plan.

The global economic environment has driven up the cost of far too many necessities, everything from housing to groceries. We know the urgency around affordability is even greater now, and we are responding to it.

In budget 2023, we announced targeted relief for Canadians that was carefully designed to avoid exacerbating inflation. These measures included a one-time grocery rebate for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families; it provided, for example, up to $467 for eligible couples with two children. We also increased the Canada student grants and raised the interest-free Canada student loan limit for the current school year to help post-secondary students pay for their education and pursue their dreams. Budget 2023 also announced a crackdown on predatory lending and hidden junk fees.

Our actions have made an impact. In budget 2023, our government has continued to tackle affordability issues for Canadians. Just last month, we introduced Bill C-56, which would implement powerful measures to foster more competition in the economy, including the grocery sector. The government met with the leaders of Canada's largest grocery chains after calling on the industry to take immediate action to stabilize food prices. Each of the top five major grocery chains have since committed to an initial series of price-stabilizing steps that will be implemented in the coming days and weeks.

We know that we have to boost Canada's housing supply to address the cost of living challenges that Canadians are facing, and we have been doing that. New commitments in Bill C-56 would remove the GST on new purpose-built rental housing. This is one of the many steps that the government is advancing to help get more homes built in a fast way. I hope that all hon. members here today will support the swift passage of Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, to help us improve the financial footing of all Canadians.

We have recently announced several agreements under the government's ambitious $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which my community has already benefited from. The cuts in red tape fix outdated local policies, such as zoning policies, and ensures that more homes are built in our cities in a fast way. Our agreements include one with the City of London, Ontario, which is my city; the fund will provide $74 million to increase the city's housing supply.

Last month, the Prime Minister also announced the government's housing accelerator fund agreement with the City of Vaughan, to fast-track over 1,700 new housing units and incentivize thousands of additional homes over the next three years. This work in Vaughan, for example, will help spur the construction of more than 40,000 homes over the next decade and help meet the demand in one of Canada's fastest-growing cities. We expect many more agreements to come soon.

In conclusion, we have been dogged in our quest for real, concrete solutions to Canada's affordability challenges, and we will not let up. We have made much progress, while maintaining a robust economy and fiscal responsibility. We have had Canadians' backs all along, and we will continue to do more for them. We also know that more work is needed, and Canadians can stay tuned for more from our government.

Canadians can rest assured that our government has the strong plan to help navigate the stormy economic world, and we will continue to have their backs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to inform the member, but it was Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who brought in the GST. I am okay with that. Today, I look at the GST as a progressive tax that can make a positive difference. When we think of Bill C-56, that is one of the ways to ensure that literally hundreds of thousands of additional purpose-built rentals are constructed. It is as a result of GST rebate. It is a tool.

Where I really disagree with the member is with regard to inflation. This government does not look at inflation, in any form, as a positive thing. Inflation is hurting people in a very real and tangible way. That is why we brought in the grocery rebate. That is why we continue to take actions to try to minimize the impact of inflation.

I am happy to say that since June 2022, when inflation was just over 8%, today, it is at 3.8%. Hopefully we will continue to bring it down to make life easier for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by providing a comment reflecting on what is happening in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

We do not necessarily need to be lectured by Conservatives on the issues of inflation and interest rates. We understand, as we are often told by the Prime Minister and others, that when we look at what is happening in our constituencies, it is important that we bring those concerns to Ottawa, as opposed to trying to tell our constituents what Ottawa is doing for them.

If we look at the most recent budget that was passed by the House, we will find that it is very much a reflection of what is happening in communities from coast to coast to coast. People need to understand that, yes, we are very much concerned about the interest rates and the impact they are having on Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

Last weekend, the President of the Treasury Board came to Winnipeg to meet with some of my constituents who are primarily entrepreneurs. We talked about the impact of interest rates. We talked about homeowners, and so forth. We also talked about the rates of inflation. We are all concerned about that. That is one of the reasons why we brought forward legislation, such as Bill C-56. That is one of the reasons we brought in the inflation or grocery rebate, affecting 11 million Canadians, last spring, which came into effect in the summertime.

The budget and the type of legislation we are bringing forward are a reflection of what we are hearing from our communities. Therefore, one needs not lecture us on what is happening in and outside of the Ottawa bubble. We are very much aware of it.

At the end of the day, we look at not only what is happening around us, but what the Conservative Party is saying, particularly in the motion it presented today. Today, it wants to give the impression that there is this huge debt that has been acquired over the last number of years, and there is a huge debt. It is a huge debt that, in good part, was supported by the Conservative Party when we were borrowing money to help Canadians through the worldwide pandemic, and I underline the word “worldwide”.

Yes, we borrowed extensively, billions of dollars, in order to have the backs of Canadians. We spent that money, most of it supported by the Conservative Party, on things such as small businesses.

Yesterday, I heard a Conservative member talk about small businesses being so important to Canadians and Canada as a nation. I have talked about small businesses as the backbone of our country when it comes to economic development. During the pandemic, this government spent billions of dollars supporting small businesses, preventing them from going bankrupt in many ways.

We supported Canadians, who were no longer in a position to work, through programs such as CERB. Millions of Canadians were supported by billions of dollars, which did increase the debt. However, the Prime Minister, this government and many members of this chamber supported spending that money. It is like the leader of the Conservative Party giving a child a chocolate bar and then condemning the child for eating it.

However, at the end of the day, it was important for the government to spend that money to support Canadians and small businesses, not to mention the billions of dollars that were there to support our seniors through one-time payments for those on GIS and OAS or individuals with disabilities.

The Conservatives talk about this huge debt. In part, they supported us at the time and now they criticize us for it. They need to be more transparent and honest with Canadians about that when they criticize the government for spending money. Are they now saying, retroactively, that we should not have supported Canadians, that we should not have supported small businesses and others? That is what it sure sounds like. Today, in a question that I put forward to the leader of the Conservative Party, I challenged him on that point.

It is interesting when we look at the waffling of the Conservative Party. The best example is the previous speaker, the seconder on the motion. After I posed a very straightforward question for him, the member spent so much time, as many members of the Conservative Party have, criticizing the price on pollution, or as they call it “the carbon tax”. Like their apparent flip-flop on the need to support Canadians during the pandemic, the member failed to acknowledge that he supported a price on pollution, or the carbon tax, and he was not alone. Every member of the Conservative Party who ran in the last federal election supported it. When I pointed that out, he replied that he personally did not support it. It would appear that the first thing we need to ask every Conservative candidate is whether he or she personally supports this.

Imagine how many statements are made in an election platform and somehow the Conservative caucus believes that it is not responsible for that platform, that it can just opt out, much like it is opting out of the price on pollution. It makes one wonder about the Conservatives.

The Conservatives like to talk as if they know things about finances. Today it is about budgets and deficits, even though, compared to the G7 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well.

I still remember when the leader of the Conservative Party was telling Canadians to invest in cryptocurrency, which is incredible. He still has not apologized for that. If people had followed his advice, they would have lost thousands, depending on how much they invested, 60%-plus of their investment.

We need to ensure that we put things into proper perspective. Yes, let us be concerned about inflation and interest rates. Let us take actions like bringing in Bill C-56.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party get behind legislation such as Bill C-56 and vote for it. It will ensure that more homes are built. It will ensure more stability in grocery prices. Actions speak louder than words.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the members opposite raising important issues local to their own communities. I have to say that I am hearing very similar things in my community. I know that the banks are working very hard to find solutions for their customers.

The news this morning that inflation is falling is certainly welcomed by our government not only in that we need to stabilize inflation to ensure that we stabilize prices, but also that we need to make sure that the Bank of Canada continues to work on interest rates and ensure that Canadians are well served by our institutions.

I think the elements of BillC-56, as I pointed out in my speech, are important to help Canadians who are struggling to find homes and to help Canadians who are facing higher prices at the grocery store. I certainly hope the member opposite will support that bill.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

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

We learned just this morning from Statistics Canada that inflation fell to 3.8% in this country. That is well below market expectations and good news for Canadians as our economy continues to stabilize.

We know that many Canadians are still having trouble making ends meet.

Our government understands that many Canadians are having a tough time these days. That is why our government is working hard to build an economy that works for everyone, with stable prices, strong and sustained growth and high-paying jobs. That is what matters most to Canadians.

There are over 1 million more Canadians in the labour force today than before the pandemic. The OECD and the IMF predict that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year. Moreover, rating agencies, including DBRS Morningstar, confirmed our AAA credit rating last month. That is the foundation for more investments in Canada. Our plan is working.

I want to highlight certain measures that our government introduced recently to continue to support Canadians. We know that for too many of them, including youth and new Canadians, the dream of being homeowners is increasingly unattainable, and the cost of rent keeps rising. I see it back home, especially in Côte-des-Neiges. People are struggling to pay their rent because it keeps rising all the time.

The housing crisis is also affecting our economy. Because of the shortage of housing 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 they are spending less money in our communities and on necessities.

That is why we began this fall parliamentary session by introducing Bill C-56 in the very first few days. This bill would enhance the GST rental rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more and more rental homes throughout the country, including apartment buildings, student housing and seniors residences right across Canada. For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, this GST rebate for residential rental buildings could mean a tax break of $25,000. This is just one more tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that Canadians need and families want to live in. This measure would also remove the restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as hospitals and charities, as well as qualifying non-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, are permitted to claim that 100% enhanced GST rebate.

The government is also calling on provinces that currently apply the provincial sales tax or the provincial portion of the HST to rental housing to join us by matching our enhanced rebate for new rental housing. In fact, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island have already announced that they intend to follow our lead by eliminating the provincial component of the HST on those new purpose-built rentals.

Since we moved to remove GST on new rental housing, home builders from coast to coast to coast have announced they will be moving ahead with new or stalled projects. This means more housing for Canadians. I would certainly hope that Conservatives will stop playing procedural games with this bill so that we can deliver this important measure to Canadians because I do fundamentally believe that the Conservatives are supportive of creating more supply in the housing market.

In addition to the enhanced GST rebate, our government recently announced the next step in our plan to address the lack of housing in this country.

To ensure builders have the low-cost financing required to build more rental projects, the government is increasing the Canada Mortgage Bond issuance limit by $20 billion per year and designating the increased amount for funding mortgage loans on multi-unit rental projects insured by CMHC. Eligible rental projects must have at least five rental units and can include apartment buildings, student housing, and senior residences.

There is no fiscal impact for the Government of Canada as a result of this particular measure, and I would like to make that very clear. This is fiscally responsible policy, using policy tools at the government's disposal. This new measure alone would help build up to 30,000 additional rental units every single year. The increase to Canada mortgage bonds builds on the federal government's recent actions to make housing more affordable for Canadians, including the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which was launched earlier this year, as members know. That fund helps to cut red tape to address outdated local policies, such as zoning issues that are preventing construction. It allows us to build more homes faster.

The government also introduced the new tax-free first home savings account, which is helping Canadians to contribute up to $40,000 tax-free toward their first down payment.

Since we implemented this new tax-free first home savings account in April, most of Canada's large financial institutions have started offering it. Today, 150,000 Canadians have already opened a tax-free first home savings account and many new accounts are being opened every day.

Our government also understands that inflation is, of course, challenging when it comes to the essentials Canadians must purchase every single day, such as food. Earlier this year, we addressed the rising cost of food by delivering targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, those who needed it the most. That was through our one-time grocery rebate, which meant up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and over $200 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors.

I know that this support was welcomed by Canadians, but I also know that more work needs to be done. That is why Bill C-56 proposes to take immediate steps to help make groceries more affordable.

This crucial legislation would introduce a series of amendments to the Competition Act to strengthen competition, especially in the grocery industry. These amendments would give the Competition Bureau more power to investigate and take action when industries engage in unfair competition, such as price-fixing or unreasonable price hikes. They would eliminate the efficiencies argument to stop anti-competitive mergers that end up driving up prices and limiting consumer choice here, in Canada. These amendments would also allow the bureau to block collaboration efforts that undermine competition and consumer choice, for example, when major grocery chains prevent SMEs, their smallest competitors, from opening stores nearby.

The government continues to work with leaders of Canada's five largest grocery chains and, of course, domestic and international food processors, to take this action to stabilize food prices. Price stabilization requires the full engagement of everyone, of the entire supply chain. We are encouraged that grocers and manufacturers have agreed to work with us to find solutions that are in the best interests of Canadians.

In closing, these are real, concrete actions that will make life more affordable for Canadians. More competition will ease the sticker shock at the grocery store checkout line, and that is important. Eliminating the GST on the construction of new homes will get more homes built faster. That, too, is critically important.

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a practice of the House that, when a member realizes that he or she has a matter affecting the privileges of the House, the matter ought to be drawn to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, it is my obligation to inform the House that a letter from the Ethics Commissioner confirming the existence of such a matter arrived in my email inbox just after 2:00 p.m. on the most recent sitting day before the present day, that is to say, on Friday, October 6.

The House rose less than half an hour after I received this email and today, therefore, represents the first reasonably available opportunity.

The matter in question relates to subsection 12(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Subsection 12(1) states:

A member who has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before the House of Commons...shall, if present during consideration of the matter, disclose orally or in writing the general nature of the private interest at the first opportunity. The general nature of the private interest shall be disclosed forthwith in writing to the Clerk of the House.

On September 19, I wrote to seek the commissioner's advice as I am the chairman of the board of a family business, Giant Tiger stores. Although my family business is a small player in the great scheme of things, having a sales volume that is only about 5% that of Loblaws, it is nevertheless a significant player in the discount side of the grocery industry. Therefore, it seemed advisable to me to ask the commissioner whether, in order to remain compliant with the code, I might have to recuse myself from certain debates in the House and elsewhere.

As noted earlier, the commissioner responded to me just after 2:00 p.m. on October 6, advising me that, in his view, I would have an obligation, pursuant to subsection 12(1), to report to the House if I am present in the House during any debate or a vote on Bill C-56 and also that the same restrictions apply to Bill C-352, a private member's bill covering much of the same subject matter.

I can advise the House that in anticipation of precisely such a response from the commissioner, I have been at pains to avoid being present during any such debates. However, a strict reading of subsection 12(1) would suggest that the reporting obligation is triggered by the mere fact of being present during a question period when questions on the subject are raised by any party and that, as well, if I were to participate electronically in any vote on the subject, even if my intention is simply to electronically vote to register a formal abstention, I would trigger subsection 12(1).

Therefore, pursuant to subsection 12(1), I am tabling the following four documents.

The first is the letter that I wrote to the commissioner on September 19, in which I laid out the general nature of my private interest in my family's business.

The second is an email thread containing subsequent correspondence with the commissioner and his staff, leading up to his response email on October 6, in which he advised me that I should not merely recuse myself from debates in the House of Commons but also that I should exclude myself from any discussion, debate or vote on these two bills that might take place during the Conservative caucus meetings.

The third is a further letter that I sent this morning to comply with the commissioner's further instruction that I will need to formally inform the Conservative caucus vice-chair, or the individual who would chair the meeting in their absence, of my private interest regarding Bill C-56 and Bill C-352 and provide a copy of the correspondence to his office. I was told it will then be made public in accordance with the code.

Finally, the fourth is the cover letter to the commissioner delivered to his office earlier this day in which I confirmed to him that I have complied with this further instruction.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, let me share some facts. Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit in the G7. That is a fact. Canada has an AAA rating. That is also a fact. Do members know what else is a fact? The opposition, which claims to care about the housing challenges Canadians face, is blocking Bill C-56, which experts across the country say is essential to getting more rental homes built. That is sheer, utter hypocrisy.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I assure members that I am not making this up. The member is talking about a lack of affordable housing in her community. We are literally discussing an affordable housing project funded by our government in Peterborough, and she voted against that particular policy.

She says she is going to continue to vote against these kinds of policies, which are literally putting a roof over the heads of some of the most vulnerable constituents in her community. The hon. member has an opportunity to get more homes built in her community. She can support Bill C-56, remove the tax on new-home construction and invite some of her colleagues to do it with her.

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

Mr. Speaker, all we are doing is increasing partisan bickering. Now I will give the facts.

The facts are that Canada is fiscally responsible. Our AAA credit rating has been reconfirmed by the agencies, and we have the lowest debt and deficit in the G7.

If the Conservatives want to help us with the housing crisis, they need to support our Bill C‑56. That is the reality.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with my hon. colleague that I recently had a chance to sit down with the mayor of the township of Langley to discuss their application to the housing accelerator fund, which that member and her party are promising to get rid of.

We want to be there for the cities to help the very kind of people she is asking about in her question, who she promises to cut the support out from under should the Conservatives form government.

If the hon. member is serious about building houses, I would invite her to support Bill C-56, which would remove the tax on the construction of new homes. I cannot understand why those members oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap, but actions speak louder than words. If the Conservatives actually believed in supporting Canadians during the housing crisis, they would be supporting Bill C-56. It includes the critical measure of lifting the GST on all new rental construction, which would get more homes built faster.

The Conservatives should actually act in the interests of Canadians and not continue to parrot their talking points.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

I also can't highlight enough that it is a social determinant of health to have access to healthy foods, so there are downstream benefits as well.

I'll move quickly, with the time I have left, to the issue of housing.

MP Duncan, you mentioned the housing accelerator fund and perhaps the lack of success, to your mind. I'd really like to highlight again this difference between rural and urban, because here in Fredericton we have absolutely been able to benefit. We have record development here in the city of Fredericton: 938 new units were approved in 2022. There are 425 and counting here for 2023. We have the 12 Neighbours Community program, which has been this incredible success with tiny homes. It's just revolutionized the supports and wraparounds and peer support that we're seeing, as well as the continuum of care. There are success stories out there.

Mayor Black, I'd like to get your opinion and your thoughts on Bill C-56, which puts in place the idea of removing the GST on purpose-built rentals. Would that help support your community in any way in kind of incentivizing that new development?

Copyright Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in this chamber on the right to repair. I thank the member for introducing Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, diagnosis, maintenance and repair, also known as the right to repair act. I congratulate the member for Richmond Centre for bringing it forward.

One of the things that is interesting about this is that an evolution is taking place. I originally had legislation in this chamber that passed. It was related to the right to repair, specific to the auto industry, because that was the first time we tackled this.

A common theme within Canada is that we are often treated as a colony when it comes to consumer rights. What I mean by that is the European Union and the United States often enjoy better auto recall, consumer rights, returns and other policies than we do here because we are lax, and our Competition Bureau needs reformation. We see some bills coming forth in this chamber, including from my leader, who also has a bill reforming the Competition Act, Bill C-56, and others that would improve things. Until that time, we still need to work on issues like this.

The right to repair became interesting for me because of the auto town I am in. Even representing auto companies, we still found that we were not getting treated fairly at that time. In Windsor, Ontario, we are across from Detroit, Michigan, and that is only a 2.5-kilometre distance across the border.

In Windsor, I could not get my minivan fixed aftermarket at the time, but I could drive it over the border and get it fixed in the aftermarket in Detroit, Michigan. That is because its environmental protection act and other right to repair legislation protected them much better than our Canadian system protected us.

I went across the country, back and forth a few times, and worked with a number of people. A good example is Scott Smith, who is now with the Chamber of Commerce, and others in the AIA. I worked with them for a legislative change for the automotive aftermarket. We knew that it was deficient in the overall issue, but just touching on that first point was really important because a lot of Canadians did not realize they were getting ripped off and getting treated as secondary citizens. It was unacceptable.

I remember having meetings with the auto companies. One of the executives was testing the waters about this issue, and it was really important. It was in the chamber of the other House before it closed down for renovations. I remember the CEO, after I told him what was going on, asked if it was happening in the United States. They said no, and he told his team to fix it. From that time, we got better players in the automotive aftermarket from some of the large automotive dealers.

Tony Clement was the minister at that time. The bill was going to go to the Senate. We had enough votes. It was a real fight, as is usual in this place, but that is okay. Then there was a decision made by all those involved that they would rather try a voluntary system, which we now have today and was put in place to provide the information for the aftermarket.

Why is that important? The aftermarket provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and is worth billions of dollars. It is also an issue of public safety because vehicles were being driven on the road for longer than they should not have been. Vehicles were emitting things, so it was an environmental issue because they were not tuned the way that they should have been. It was a competition issue because we had people who could not get the service they needed from the garages they wanted to use.

It was also a fairness issue because there were people working in those establishments who were trained. In those places, often some of the more marginalized workers in the industry were going to lose their jobs, not because they were not qualified or did not do all the things that were necessary, but because the industry and greed spoke louder than the people did at that time.

To credit most of those in the industry, they got their act together and created the voluntary agreement. There have been ups and downs all along the way. Even Tesla finally came onto that agreement, I am told. However, until that time, it was voluntary, so we had ebbs and flows all the time about what was taking place. That is why we are seeing legislation come back.

It is not just New Democrats this time. We see Liberals and Conservatives with aftermarket legislation, and that is because it has become habitual. I know the Bloc has also talked about this quite extensively. My colleague who spoke before me has been very effective at committee on this.

We have all grappled with this. We have seen the really stupid stuff with regard to how many plug-in cords we have to have with access to different devices for no technological reason whatsoever, and it is junk that is piling up in our landfills. Aside from the environmental part, there is a cost, and it has nothing to do with innovation whatsoever. It is about dependancy, and those are some of the things taking place.

The aftermarket to fix the different problems we are talking about here is not about taking shortcuts. There is information that needs to be provided to those people, and it would be done with terms and conditions that would be legislated and followed through on.

When my bill went through, we were not asking for shortcuts or interventions; we were asking for the proper training to be made available. What was happening was unbelievable. When there was an update on software, which could literally be a simple and minor thing, it would cripple a vehicle, and it could not be fixed in the aftermarket. Sometimes, after the physical repairs, the vehicle was being towed to another garage just to get a download of a program. It makes no sense.

It does not make sense for the environment, public safety or competition, and it hurts some of the men and women who work in those shops. Again, they are not asking for this information for free. They want a system in place so they can buy the equipment, get the necessary downloads, pay for them and service their customers in a reasonable way.

There are many different ways the voluntary agreement has basically fallen on the edge of a precipice of being ineffective. There can be intentional issues, where some companies do not want to provide information in a reasonable time, or they play games if they want. It might not even be that. It could just be that it is not their priority, because they want to do something else.

This is dangerous. If we look at the auto sector, particularly in rural and other areas, we could not service all our vehicles with dealerships. We would cripple our economy. If we lose the aftermarket for the auto sector, then we are going to lose our capabilities to be effectively moving in transportation, which is changing with the electrification of vehicles.

The problem with my bill is that it did not involve heavy equipment, farm equipment or other things like that. We knew it was a problem in the bill, but we had to at least touch on this and bring an awareness that had not been there. It is why I went across the country on this, because people were just accepting it.

We always hear fake arguments that it is about safety, that people are going to wreck their stuff and other people's stuff. We hear all these different things. Imagine if we had the same attitude when we let the screwdriver go to the public sector and people were able to use a screwdriver at home. What if we could never use a wrench or a hammer at home because it was too dangerous? It is outrageous.

We have been fixing vehicles, electronic equipment and a number of different things, as we have moved from manual to electric and to all the different technologies with computers and so forth. It has been the normal process for consumers with the devices they own, but what is happening and changing is the building in of obstacles.

There is an obstacle when a device is created where one needs a special tool for it. An obstacle is when one puts a type of system in place where one cannot fix a device because there is a technological impediment, such as to performing a simple update on the software.

Bill C-244 is married, in many respects, to my bill, Bill C-231, an act to amend the Competition Act for vehicle repair. There are some problems with the bill, such as that it does not go far enough in terms of the tribunal, as well as a few other elements. However, it sets us in the right direction. I would like to see it amended. I hope the Senate takes a look at more of the possibilities.

We are just simply not keeping up with the rest of the world when it comes to aftermarket connections. There is mounting pressure. We have just seen with Apple that it is finally to make a more standardized version of its cord, which it did not even have in its own products. This is outrageous. Now it is going to move to that. Why is it doing so? It is because the European Union is moving toward forcing these things.

These are the reasons I will be supporting this bill. New Democrats have been supporting the right to repair. As much as it is a consumer issue and an environmental issue, it is also a social justice issue, because many people have spent their time and money to be educated to have careers in the aftermarket in order to provide resources for their families. That opportunity is being denied, not by choice or by their deficiency of skills, but by the greed of large corporations that want to protect it for pure profit at the expense of everyone else. That balance has to be restored, and that is why this is a good bill.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the folks from Kitchener Centre with respect to Bill C-56, the signature measure of which would involve removing the GST from rental home construction.

I will start by saying very clearly that I certainly support this bill, as does my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. It is an important and good measure. However, it is not nearly the kind of ambition we need to meet the moment we are in, and that is a very deep and protracted housing crisis.

Specifically, in my community, in the last three years alone, the number of people living unsheltered has more than tripled to over 1,000 people. Let us compare home prices. In our community, back in 2005, the average house price was around three times the average person's income. Today, it is over eight times. House prices have gone up 275% and wages have gone up 42%. It is pretty clear that wages are not keeping up.

We are also losing 15 units of affordable housing to rent evictions and the financialization of our housing for every one new affordable unit getting built. What that looks like, day to day, is that the shelter system in my community is overflowing. The week before we returned here, I showed up to a community meeting at an apartment building in downtown Kitchener. More than 40 people showed up on that night, invited by their councillor. I was there, as was bylaw enforcement.

We heard from folks there about the living conditions in their building, everything from cockroaches to bedbugs. The residents of that building were clear in telling us that they knew they did not have any other options. There was no recourse. There are insufficient recourses. We could talk about the Landlord and Tenant Board and the backlog there. However, the fact is that, because we have not building the kind of social housing we need in this country, people are left with no other options.

As I have heard from other colleagues here, I could talk about what I heard when I was knocking on doors this past summer. I spoke with a young man who is engaged. He is working in the trades, living at his parents' house. His fiancé is a teacher, and she is doing the same. They do not know when they will ever be able to afford a place of their own.

To help restore affordability, CMHC is telling us that we need to build 3.5 million more units than planned by 2030. If we are going to do that, we need to be looking at two sides of this. The first is significant transformational investments in housing. This has been done in this country before. Back in the 1970s, 40% of all building starts across the country had federal assistance. That went down to 8% by the 1980s, and today, no surprise, if we look at the total stock of social housing across the country, we are way at the back of the G7 at 3.5%.

Even a call as bold as saying, “Let us double the social housing stock” would only get us to 7%, which is only the middle of the peer average amongst G7 countries. To do that, though, we need to get serious about having CMHC get back into building housing the way that it used to. Many colleagues have been talking about an acquisition fund, which non-profits across the country have been calling for, a fund that would allow non-profits across the country to preserve what are currently affordable units to avoid losing them to the financialization of housing, and in so doing ensure that those might remain affordable over the long term.

In my community, for example, I spoke with a leader from a local non-profit organization. She was able to share with me, and sent me afterwards, 12 different properties that they have already identified. Should an acquisition fund, such as the one being called for by ACORN Canada and many others, be made available, they would be so keen to jump in and preserve those units. This is an organization that has operated in my community for decades, focused on ensuring that we preserve affordable housing, and it is ready to go. However, they are going to need the federal government to step in and ensure that the funds are there to help them preserve those units.

We could also talk about, for example, investments in the rapid housing initiative. It is a fantastic program. It is not that the government is not doing anything. The issue is that it was in budget 2022, and we have not heard anything since about the next round of rapid housing. We need to see sustained, permanent, ongoing funds that organizations across the country can count on.

It is the same when it comes to co-op housing. I was one of the first to cheer when we saw $1.5 billion of new money invested in co-op housing in budget 2022. Unfortunately, none of those dollars have actually rolled out yet to build co-op housing. We need to see that money get spent, but we also need to see ongoing, year-over-year investments so that we can get back to where we used to be before the early 1990s, when we saw federal and provincial governments pull out of the really critical role they have to play in building affordable housing.

This crisis did not happen overnight. It is decades in the making. I appreciate how clearly the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities has articulated that. He said very clearly multiple times that multiple parties at the federal level have led to this housing crisis. If that is his admission, we are going to need to see investments today reflect the reality of the crisis we are in.

The second thing we need is to be honest that homes should be places for people to live. They should not be commodities for investors to trade. That is what is different between folks who are looking to rent and buy homes today versus my parents in the 1980s. When they were looking to buy a home, they were competing with other people. Today, people in my community are competing with massive corporations, and that has been incentivized.

As members may know, I have spoken many times in this place about one example that I see as a bit of a litmus test. If we were honest about addressing the financialization of housing, we would not have tax exemptions for the largest corporate landlords in the country, but that is exactly what we have. Real estate investment trusts have almost exclusively been buying existing units, the reason being that it is more profitable for them to do so. One of the CEOs of these real estate investment trusts was in the news this past summer for saying exactly that, that it primarily buys existing units to get the best return possible. Why are they are tax exempt? What is the social value of that exemption?

If the government were serious about addressing the financialization of housing, why not take what the PBO has now told us and spend $300 million over the next five years? It is not going to solve the housing crisis, but it is pretty clear that, if we are going to address financialization, we would start by removing the incentives that corporate landlords are currently benefiting from, which only accelerate the financialization of housing. We would obviously move into things like ending the blind bidding process and increasing vacancy taxes. Right now, it is a 1% vacancy tax, which likely is not going to really influence the behaviour of a large corporate investor in the housing market. If we were to increase that, it might change. We also need to move towards more meaningful protections for tenants. If we are going to build this volume of housing, we need to also be doing it with the climate in mind.

We will continue to advocate for the federal government, when it is looking at the new building code in 2025, as I know it is, to accelerate that building code to ensure that provinces and territories can follow the federal government's lead in bringing more resiliency into the code and ensure we are building the kind of housing that is resilient to the climate crisis we are already in the midst of.

As I shared earlier, I am happy to support Bill C-56. I am glad to see this measure moving ahead, and I am looking forward to seeing the federal government step up far more quickly when it comes to addressing the housing crisis we are in.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is an incredible honour to rise for the first time in debate in the House of Commons since being elected this summer.

While I will certainly get to the substance of Bill C-56, I would first like to take a few moments to express my appreciation to the residents of Portage—Lisgar for placing their trust in me to be their representative in Ottawa. It is a great responsibility to be their voice and I am humbled by the support they have shown me. I, of course, have some very big shoes to fill in succeeding the Hon. Candice Bergen. I appreciate her friendship and her mentorship over the years, and I will do my best to follow in her footsteps in fighting for our riding and our rural way of life.

I need to thank my wife, Cailey, for her unwavering support, her patience and her love. The life we have entered together is not an easy one, as all my colleagues know, but I am lucky to have her by my side. I would also like to thank my parents, Jim and Shauna-Lei Leslie, for their guidance, their encouragement and their unconditional love.

I need to thank many friends and neighbours who supported me in the nomination and in the by-election. I wish I could name them all, but I have only 10 minutes here today. To all those who played a role, big or small, in helping me over the past six months and throughout my entire life, I want them to please know how much I appreciated their help in becoming their member of Parliament. Together we have proven that when individuals come together with a shared vision, unwavering determination and a commitment to change, we can achieve the seemingly impossible.

The chamber is made up of people from diverse regions, experiences and backgrounds, each working to represent their community and our country. As I said many times during the campaign, I am just a farm kid from Portage. I say “just” because far too often, that is what I would hear folks say, folks like my dad and many others who, when asked what they do, say, “I'm just a farmer.” Farmers are so much more than that and should give themselves credit, as should all Canadians. Farmers produce the high-quality, nutritious food that feeds Canadians and people all around the world. They quite literally bet the farm, every single year, while facing countless factors outside of their control and, currently, a government that is making their job harder. They provide for their families. They help their neighbours and they support their communities.

It is not just farmers who fall into this “just” trap. It is not “just a plumber”. I am not “just a construction worker”, “just a welder” or “just a teacher”. People are more than just that. People are the foundation of our country and are our future. People work hard. People play by the rules, give back to their communities and support their families. They should be proud of it.

In the case of my riding, families choose to live a rural way of life. We live with and appreciate nature. We hunt, fish, sled and quad. We know our neighbours because, during a Manitoba blizzard, even a truck can get stuck in the middle of a gravel road on a windy night, and we might need a helping hand. It is also because we want to know our neighbours. We support our churches, our local businesses, our sports teams and our charities. I am proud of my family, my community and my country. I will be a steadfast advocate for our riding, our province and our way of life.

Today, that starts with speaking to Bill C-56. This bill claims to address two very pressing issues: affordable housing and access to affordable groceries. I can tell members, after knocking on thousands of doors throughout the campaign this summer, that these are two issues that were front and centre at the doorsteps.

In the first six years of the Liberal government, housing prices went up 43% in Manitoba, and it has only gotten worse in the last two years. I cannot tell members how heartbreaking it is to walk up to knock on a door and see a family loading up their half-ton truck with a couch in the back, or they open the door and there are some boxes behind them. These people are moving out of their homes because they can no longer afford their mortgage. Worse, they are moving and paying almost as much in rent for much smaller accommodations elsewhere. Countless people, moms and dads, told me they were being forced to stop buying healthy food for their kids because they just cannot afford it and because Kraft Dinner is cheaper. That is not the Canada that I want to be fighting for. People expect government to improve their life, or at least just stay out of it. Instead, after eight years of the Liberal government, they can barely afford to live any more. It is hard to express just how fed up and frustrated people are at the doorsteps.

I found it funny that yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister confidently stated that he had been speaking with rural Canadians this past summer and that they supported his carbon tax. It was such an absurd statement that I could only shake my head in disbelief, because I can confidently say that my constituents want to scrap the carbon tax. If the Prime Minister had spent time talking to any everyday people in my riding during the by-election, he would have heard that message loud and clear. The common sense of the common people recognizes a tax when it sees it. They know that this costly Liberal-NDP coalition is driving up the cost of everything. It is time to axe the tax.

Recently, the Liberals did begin recognizing that reducing taxes does spur economic growth, and Bill C-56 seeks to remove the GST on new rental housing construction across the country. I am glad to see the Liberals are starting to come around to Conservative ideas. Just a day before the Minister of Finance announced the legislation, our leader introduced Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act. Its goal is simple: to make life more affordable for Canadians. Bill C-356 would provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental properties for which the average rent payable is below market rate. We can talk about actually trying to accomplish affordable housing, but I do suppose that imitation is the highest form of flattery.

However, our leader's legislation would do much more. It would eliminate CMHC executive bonuses if housing targets are not met, and reduce their compensation if funding for new construction is not completed within 60 days. It would create a home completion target and give bonuses to cities that increase the number of new builds completed. It would utilize incentives to build things again in this country and not build bureaucracy. It has to be about results. It is about putting forward policies that get homes built in this country, and it is high time we had a government that focused on outcomes, not process.

Speaking of that, the second component of Bill C-56 is a prime example of process. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would somehow magically lower grocery prices by Thanksgiving, and I guess we can chalk that up as another broken promise on the long tally. Canadians are not holding out hope that, by allowing his bloated bureaucracy to conduct another lengthy study, their grocery bills will start to go down any time soon. When we tax the farmer who produces the food, the manufacturer who processes the food, the trucker who ships the food and the grocer who sells the food, how on earth can we honestly expect prices not to go up?

However, there is an easy solution. We can axe the tax. Instead, we have a tired Liberal government touting the legislation before us as a saving grace for Canadians who cannot afford to live anymore. Copying ideas from our Conservative leader is a good start, but the reality is that there is still much more to do.

The Liberal government's inflationary spending has driven up prices, inflation and interest rates, and it has worsened the lives of so many families, seniors and small business owners. While the Liberals will blame international factors for the current mess we find ourselves in, they cannot bring themselves to take any responsibility for their inflationary deficits that have only poured more fuel on the fire. Even Bill Morneau, the former Liberal finance minister, has admitted that fact, and the government has dramatically grown the bureaucracy and created more red tape. It is abundantly clear that more process does not deliver better outcomes. Instead, the Liberals have frustrated businesses, added costs and headaches for municipalities and not-for-profits that are applying for funding, ignored the priorities of stakeholder groups and provided worse service to Canadians.

After eight long years, the Liberal government has run out of ideas. Everything in Canada feels broken, and we know exactly how we got here. It is time for a new Conservative government to come in and fix it. It is time to bring homes that people can afford. It is time to bring home powerful paycheques and lower prices for food, fuel and home heating. It is time to bring home prosperity for Canadians. Let us bring it home.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑56, but, as it has said, we need to go much further than the bill does.

Currently, when the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, manages a parcel of land, it must sell it at the going market price. To my understanding, the minister has the power to authorize the CMHC to give away the land or sell it at a lower price. Can the minister confirm that he has that power? Currently, there is a situation in Joliette for a social housing project on an enclosed parcel of land. The municipal assessment is not so bad, but the market value is $1 million and the project is blocked because of that.

Does the minister have the power to authorize the CMHC to sell the land at a lower price or give it away? Ultimately, that would free up social housing projects in Quebec.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House to debate Bill C-56. Perhaps I will start with my conclusion: I intend to support the bill, and I encourage all members in this House to do the same.

Bill C-56 is about making life more affordable. It is the affordable housing and groceries act, and of course, given the nature of my position as the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, I will focus more on the aspect that will lead to more home construction across Canada to help address the supply gap that is contributing to the relative lack of affordability that we are dealing with.

I think it is important to acknowledge that Canada is experiencing a housing crisis. In order to restore affordability, we need to build homes and we need to build them by the millions. This is going to require us to pull every lever at our disposal to get Canada building at a rate that it has never built before. However, if we are going to succeed, we have to understand the nature of the obstacles that stand in our way and introduce specific policies that are designed to overcome those challenges.

Over the course of my remarks, I hope to identify the scale of the challenge we are facing, highlight the problems that we need to overcome and demonstrate some of the solutions that are starting to have a positive impact today. I do not mean to suggest that the job is done; we have a long way to go. However, I am very optimistic in light of the response from the home building sector to some of the policies we have put forward indicating that they are having the desired impact.

There are currently about 16.5 million homes in this country. We are on pace to building a few million more over the next number of years, but we have to increase the pace of building significantly if we are going to restore the level of affordability that existed in Canada just 20 years ago.

The reality is that the impact can be felt not only in the statistics outlined in CMHC's reporting, but in the lives of ordinary people who are struggling with the cost of living. The experiences that I hear about include too many young people who are trying to get ahead in life and trying to get their first job in a community they want to live in, but nevertheless find themselves in a position where they simply cannot afford a place to live. Too many people do not have that option. Even young professionals in a two-income household are sometimes unable to find a place to live in the community where they found meaningful work, one they can afford given their rate of pay.

When I talk to students from across the country, they tell me that it is very difficult to find a place to live in a college town that is safe, affordable and near the place they go to school. I have had too many conversations with young people studying on college and university campuses across this country who have told me that they are now sometimes living an hour commute away from their studies. At a time in their lives when they should be focusing on learning and developing skills that will contribute to their well-being, knowledge base and employability, they are focused on figuring out how they can get to class.

There is an opportunity for us, if we continue to engage with the people who are feeling the brunt of the housing crisis, to learn from them the solutions that will allow them to find the kind of place they want to live in.

When I talk to seniors who live in our communities, they want nothing more, as they downsize from the family home where they raised their kids, to find a place that is more manageable for them in the same community where their grandkids are being raised. I do not think that is too much to ask, and we need to realize that the importance to a person's life cannot be overstated when we are dealing with the place they call home.

I have talked to people who have a job that helps them get by in this country, and they tell me that, despite having a respectable income, they cannot find a place to live anywhere close to the place where they work. We need to make sure that we address the needs of workers in this country by working to ensure not only that their wages go a little further and they have a home they can afford, but that they have the kind of home they can raise their family in, with access to the services their family relies on and employment opportunities in their community.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not also draw attention to the serious challenges facing Canadians who do not have a place to live at all, people who do not have housing security and people who are sleeping rough. We need to continue to do more to support some of Canada's most vulnerable people.

There are a number of challenges that we need to overcome. Primarily, I want to focus today on the need to change the financial equation that home builders are dealing with as they make an assessment as to whether they should green-light a project or let it sit on the shelf. As a result of the recent increases in the cost of supplies and materials, the cost of labour and the cost of land, and of course as a result of rising interest rates from global inflation, too many builders have projects sitting on the shelf that have been approved and could go ahead if the economics of the projects worked.

This is where the GST measure we have advanced through Bill C-56 comes in, and we are seeking support for it from members of Parliament. If we remove the tax on constructing new apartments in this country, we are going to see more apartments go up.

When we made the announcement that we would reduce the GST on new home construction among rentals across Canada, we saw certain provincial governments step up and say they would do the same. I want to thank in particular British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador and my home province of Nova Scotia. We are starting to see movement to different degrees in other provinces as well. In some instances, this has reduced costs by 15% overnight when looking at the combined impact of the federal and provincial measures.

What we have seen as a result is that developers are publicly stating they are moving forward with projects that will provide homes for thousands of Canadians that otherwise would not have gone ahead. In particular, I point to Dream Unlimited Corporation's plans to advance several different projects in Ottawa, Saskatoon and Toronto that are going to lead to 5,000 homes being built. I look at Fitzrovia, which announced that it would be moving forward with developments totalling 3,000 homes. I look at Tricon's announcement after the GST measures were revealed. It announced it would move forward with 1,000 new homes.

The reality is that there are many examples of projects, as I have heard from different colleagues and from the home building sector, in every part of this country that are now going ahead that otherwise would have just stayed on the shelf. This policy is having the desired impact, and I am looking forward to seeing many, many thousands of homes be constructed as a result. That is why I am supporting Bill C-56. It would allow the private sector to justify going ahead with the construction of thousands of homes.

However, we know there are many other areas where we need to continue to advance policies if we are going to overcome the challenges facing home builders, communities and people who have housing needs. We need to fundamentally change the way that cities allow homes to be built or sometimes do not allow homes to be built in this country. We need to encourage cities to legalize housing. In too many communities across this country, it is literally illegal, as a result of municipal bylaws, to build the kinds of homes that people need if they are going to live and thrive in our communities.

Members may have seen that over the course of the last few months, I have been engaging directly with municipal councils and mayors, encouraging them to change their laws so they can permit more housing to be built, can speed up the process of permitting those homes and can make the kinds of investments that will lead to more density in downtown cores, more homes near transit stations so people can access the services or employment opportunities they need and more homes near college and university campuses so students have a place to live as they undertake their studies.

I cannot say how excited I am about the early signs of success with the housing accelerator fund. We have seen a positive announcement by the City of London, which is going to be increasing its ambition as a result of its access to the fund. We saw today the City of Vaughan announce that as a result of a $59-million investment, it will be able to add, over the next 10 years, 44,000 homes to that city.

We are going to continue to do more to get low-cost financing on the table by increasing the valuation of the Canada mortgage bond program, which is going to add 30,000 homes a year. There are a number of other measures we need to address, but if we change the equation for builders, change the way that cities build homes and continue to make the kinds of investments we have been making since 2017 under the national housing strategy, we have an opportunity to make massive progress in the attempt to address Canada's national housing crisis.

I would be happy to address any further issues, if members in this House wish.

Let me conclude with a final thought. It is not enough for different parties in this House to throw ideas at the wall, as some have done. We need to address the very specific problems that have given rise to Canada's national housing crisis. By having a thoughtful policy approach and by advancing measures like the removal of GST on new rental construction across Canada, we can change the way that homes are built in this country, increase the pace at which they are built and put an end to Canada's national housing crisis. We can do this by having the private sector and governments co-operate to build homes that Canadians can actually afford.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a reform of the Competition Bureau system for 20 years or so. For years, we have been asking that the Competition Bureau have the authority to prevent mergers and acquisitions regardless of any efficiency gains they might generate if, at the end of the day, it means higher prices for consumers. That is what happened in the case of grocery stores. Mergers and acquisitions took place. This made them more efficient, but it also enabled them to drive up prices. This measure is specifically covered in in Bill C-56.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this Competition Bureau reform is a good thing for consumers.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

Carbon Pricing

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, what the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame will not say is that next week, climate action incentive payments will be arriving in the bank accounts of his constituents. He should make sure they know those are coming.

If the member really believes in affordability, then he ought to vote for Bill C-56 and the Atlantic accord, which he is standing against.

This is not the Conservative Party of our parents. The Progressive Conservatives stood up against things like acid rain, and they created solutions. The present Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, does not believe in climate change. He has spun his heels. The Conservatives have ditched progressive values and do not care about fighting climate change or fighting for lower grocery prices.

The Economy

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that my hon. colleague is standing up only now to defend the interests of low-income families that might need the services that food banks provide, when his party, over the course of my time in the chamber, has consistently voted against the measures that would make life more affordable for them.

I look back to when we first formed government. We raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% and cut them for the middle class, and the Conservatives voted against it. When we changed the Canada child benefit and stopped sending cheques to millionaires so we could put more money into the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, the member voted against it. Every step of the way, including support for food banks during the pandemic, the Conservatives could not get behind it.

Will the member now vote for the measures that could have a direct impact on the price of groceries, and support Bill C-56?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think today's debate calls for a little more gravitas from the Conservatives.

We are talking about the challenges facing Quebeckers and Canadians. The cost of living has been rising. Today, we presented measures to help Canadians, stabilize grocery costs and fight climate change at the same time. The Conservatives are still voting against these measures.

If they really want to help Canadians, they should vote in favour of Bill C-56 so that we can move forward and stabilize the cost of groceries.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative member wants to see grocery prices lowered, I hope that she asks her leader why it is that the Conservatives continue to delay the legislation that is before the House.

Just this morning, I was so pleased to see the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon say that he supports Bill C-56. I wonder if other Conservatives can convince their leader to support this bill because Canadians are counting on all of us in the House to help stabilize grocery prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition. He is coming to his senses. He realizes that the best way to help Canadians is to support the government.

This is a time when all parliamentarians need to come together. That is why we presented a plan that is going to help stabilize prices in Canada, that is going to increase competition in this country and that is going to take measures to help Canadians.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to give a gift to Canadians for Thanksgiving, why does he not support Bill C-56 and show Canadians that he can do something for them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope they have this much energy to support our bill to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, because this is not a joke.

Canadians expect action. That is what we took this morning with a five-item action plan to help stabilize prices in Canada. If the Conservatives want to keep laughing and making jokes, they should tell them to Canadians, who expect them to approve Bill C-56, reform competition, lower prices in Canada and make sure that Canadians can have what they deserve in this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was shopping for the Leader of the Opposition to help him.

If the Conservatives want to do something for Canadians, not just ask questions but do something, they should vote for Bill C-56. It is going to help Canadians. It is going to stabilize prices in Canada. It is going to bring competition to this country. What we need is for them to act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

Canadians know not to take advice from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to the economy. The last time he advised Canadians, he told them to buy cryptocurrency. Now he is suggesting that Canadians buy $120 turkeys. I have news for him. I found a Butterball turkey for $30, and I think I can deliver it to his official residence.

If the Conservatives want to do something for Canadians, they should vote in favour of Bill C-56 to help Canadians now and bring down prices in Canada.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you.

Welcome to all the witnesses.

I'm going to begin with the Council of Canadian Innovators.

I'll ask you what your thoughts are on the competition aspects of Bill C-56 and the amendment.

Both of you, please feel free to speak.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Dehejia, I want to ask you a question about Bill C-56 in the context of the comments you made about loose money, the money supply and the effect that this could have on inflation. This bill is the so-called affordable housing and groceries act.

It might be reasonable for Canadians who are reading the title of this act to conclude that this bill is designed to make housing more affordable and groceries more affordable, but the reality is that it doesn't do either of those things.

I want to draw your attention to the comments of Michael Osborne, the chair of Cozen O'Connor's Canadian competition law practice. On this point, he says that “competition law...is not designed to solve macroeconomic problems like inflation.”

What he's referring to is an amendment to the Competition Act that would.... There are a number of amendments, but the main amendment would be to get rid of something called the efficiencies defence, which is an argument that large corporations will make to support the idea that government should permit a merger.

Mr. Osborne goes on to say, “By design, competition law cannot limit increases in the money supply; that’s the job of central banks.” He also says, “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.”

Can you give me your view of those comments?

[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.

[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.

[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 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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

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.

The Economy

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, we introduced the affordable housing and groceries bill, which will incentivize the construction of more rental housing and increase competition, particularly among grocery stores. Instead of working with us to move this forward before Thanksgiving, the Conservative Party chose to obstruct debate because it has no plan for supporting Canadians. Actions speak louder than words. I am therefore asking all members of the House to work together to pass Bill C-56 as soon as possible.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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, 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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

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.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, in my first answer, let me just congratulate you in this historic role. It is historic for Canada.

While the Conservatives recite trite and misleading talking points, our government is acting for Canadians. With Bill C-56, we would be getting more homes built by lifting the GST on purpose-built rental, and we would be acting to stabilize grocery prices with historic changes to competition law that would bring competition to the grocery sector.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's argument is, in fact, doomed to fail. Quebec has had a cap-and-trade program for over a decade. Perhaps that is because, unlike the Conservatives here, Premier Legault's government genuinely believes in fighting climate change.

Quebec's food inflation is equivalent to Ontario's, and we are looking to implement real solutions for affordability. The Conservatives have no credibility when it comes to issues of affordability or climate change.

If the members opposite would like to support affordability, they should vote for Bill C-56, the affordable groceries and housing act, but they are playing games on the other side for bumper stickers and T-shirts. This is not serious policy. They need to talk to at least one expert about what they are talking about.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, even though it is temporary, but I would also like to thank you, on behalf of the government, for agreeing to serve as interim Speaker to ensure an smooth transition while we await the next Speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you for taking on this role as dean of the House.

Tomorrow, we will begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. On Monday, the House will stand adjourned to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. When we return on Tuesday, the first order of business will be the election of a new Speaker. When we resume our work that day, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C‑56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill S‑12, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. If the debate on Bill C‑56 is not completed, we will resume second reading debate on Thursday. On Friday, we will proceed to second reading of Bill C‑49, an Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Carbon Pricing

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the question to the opposition as to whether those members will actually support Bill C-56, which is before the House.

Instead of voting against every measure that goes to support Canadians, whether it is senior citizens, workers or small businesses, the Conservatives have a choice. We urge them to vote in favour of Bill C-56.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say hello to the hon. member from Calgary who just shouted something out. He is a gentleman and an avid golfer. I wish him the best.

Making sure Canadians have access to affordable child care is important, but we also know that far too many Canadians are struggling with the increasing cost of essentials, such as housing and groceries.

Such initiatives as putting a price on carbon, an effective and affordable way to combat climate change, has been putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians. Eight out of 10 households get more money back than they pay, with low- and middle-income households benefiting the most.

We know that more needs to be done to address affordability. That is why we began this fall parliamentary session by introducing Bill C-56.

I just came from subbing in on the finance committee with CMHC officials, and it was great to talk about the removal of the goods and services tax on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, across Canada.

I come from an area of the country where builders build houses and the associations are located. Since 2015, I will put on record, I have argued that we remove the GST on purpose-built rental housing in combination with the provinces. The GST combined with the HST would allow, encourage and incentivize more purpose-built rental housing to be built across the country and here in Ontario even more so. All the associations are applauding it. I encourage this measure and that Bill C-56 be passed as quickly as possible by all sides of the House.

For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rental rebate could deliver $25,000 in tax relief.

This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need, that Canadians need and that families want to live in. This measure would also remove the restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, are permitted to claim the 100% enhanced GST rental rebate. The government is also calling on the provinces that currently apply provincial sales taxes or the provincial portion of the HST on rental housing to join us by matching our rebate for new rental housing.

In fact, the finance minister of Ontario, an old colleague of mine whom I worked with for a number of years in Toronto at DBRS, came out that same day and said that the Province of Ontario would be joining the federal government in removing the tax on purpose-built rental housing, the HST portion on the federal side. We encourage all provinces and territories to join in, follow the lead of some of the provinces and territories and eliminate the provincial component.

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. Earlier this month, the government announced that London, Ontario, will be the first city to benefit from this fund, and it will certainly not be the last. It represents one of the ways we are encouraging initiatives aimed at increasing housing supply. It also supports the development of complete, low-carbon, 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 know that there are more cranes currently in the city of Toronto than in any other city in North America. We could combine cities in North America, and we would not reach the same number of cranes. I want to salute all the builders and workers out there from the carpenters union, IBEW, the pipefitters, everyone working on the condos and high-rises in downtown Toronto, in the GTA, across Ontario and Canada who get up every morning and build the housing we need. We need to applaud them. We are going to give them more work, not just today but in the years to come.

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. We are taking immediate steps to enhance competition in the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, to help stabilize costs for middle-class Canadians.

Through Bill C‑56, the government is introducing the first series of legislative changes to the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau to investigate when industries are behaving unfairly, for example where price fixing or price gouging is occurring, and take enforcement action; remove the efficiencies defence, to end anti-competitive mergers that raise prices and limit choices for Canadian consumers; and empower the Competition Bureau to block collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

By making these changes, we will empower the Competition Bureau to investigate price gouging and price-fixing. I have been calling for this for a very long time. More competition and less consolidation, more innovation and lower prices mean more choice for consumers across Canada.

In conclusion, our government understands that many Canadians still need to get through these difficult times. Canadians are being pressured, and we understand that. The focus of our government is investing in Canadians, restoring middle-class prosperity and building a country where everyone has a real chance to succeed. We will continue to do that day after day.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank Ms. Bendayan for letting Mr. Morrice speak. Actually, I think that Parliament should review its procedures and fully recognize parties with fewer than 12 members. That would be a great help to democracy.

I have a question for the Department of Finance on the GST portion of Bill C-56. We've talked about this at length. The bill contains no specifics on the type of buildings or housing that will be covered, nor any affordability requirements to qualify for the GST rebate, but it does give the government the authority to clarify these matters through regulations.

Why aren't the eligibility criteria for the rebate in the bill? It's unusual in terms of taxation.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I really appreciate the testimony from our witnesses already today.

I want to pick up on a line of questioning from Mr. Baker. This is a question for Mr. Dugan from CMHC.

I was hoping you could share with this committee your estimates on the impact on new purpose-built rental projects that will be built if Bill C-56 passes and GST is eliminated on purpose-built rentals.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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—

[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 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?

[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.

[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, 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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

Government Priorities

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer, I had the pleasure of connecting with the hard-working residents of Brampton, whether through round tables, community events, my annual barbeque attended by hundreds of residents, or simply knocking on doors and listening to their concerns. They told me that we need to take strong action to address affordability and build more housing, which is exactly what we would be doing with Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

Tangible measures like these, with respectful debate, are exactly what Canadians expect from their parliamentarians, not daily shouting and heckling, and not polarization. As we start the fall session, I encourage all members to work collaboratively and set aside the partisan games.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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.

[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.

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

Let me just say, to the point from the member—just briefly, Chair—I want to be clear with every member and with Canadians who are watching that Bill C-56 deals with a number of things on competition that are focused on groceries. However, I want people to be clear that this is not the end of the road. We're still looking at competition and bringing reforms to competition.

Whether it's going to be included in Bill C-56 or not, I think it's probably part of the general thing we're looking at with competition. Bill C-56 is really to deal with things that matter to Canadians immediately, which are around affordability and groceries.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

I hope there's openness to making sure that doesn't happen here, because I will have no business with this tribunal process if it's the case that they can do that.

Second of all, if we have a fix, I'd like to see if we can do it in Bill C-56 to have consistency, because it's an affront to the offices and it detracts from the whole point.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

It's the cost allocation that is the issue.

I have only a brief time here. I want to know—and you can take this away—whether they can do the same thing in terms of the financial penalty on this tribunal process.

Second to that, if we have a fix in this bill for that, are you agreeable to doing the same thing for Bill C-56 right now in order to protect the Competition Bureau and make them consistent, so that we don't have the Competition Bureau having to pay a financial penalty in the courts while the Privacy Commissioner doesn't?

[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.

[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.

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Grocery Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am glad to see that he knows that inaction is not an option. That is exactly why we convened the country's food executives with a very clear objective: to stabilize prices in Canada. I expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians, saying that the number one issue for Canadians is affordability and the price of groceries.

We have introduced Bill C-56 which, for one, will tackle competition, because we want more of it in this country. I expect my colleague to support this bill so that we can move forward for the—

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot say how surprised I am, to say the least, that we are addressing this issue today—not that I do not consider it important, on the contrary. My office and the office of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan held discussions prior to the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development so that we could again bring up the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, given the events of recent days and weeks. There was then an agreement.

Yesterday, during the very first meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I did say that we wanted to revisit this issue, since we have an open study, so to speak, on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and recent events require us to look at this issue again. We therefore had discussions with our Conservative colleagues about this.

Suddenly, this morning, without warning, the Conservatives moved this motion to adopt the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Not that I do not think this report should be adopted or that this is an important issue. It is a matter of the utmost urgency, and I will come back to this in a moment.

There was, however, a distinct lack of co-operation on the part of our Conservative colleagues, a lack of consultation and communication, even though our offices had been in contact for several weeks about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result, I can only conclude that this is a delaying tactic that has nothing to do with the substance of the issue. This is a parliamentary guerrilla tactic to prevent the government from passing its inflation bill.

At the same, I must say that I disagree with the Liberal Party’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader when he says that the inflation issue is more important in the calculations or in the ranking of important matters. I know that our constituents are living with the daily consequences of inflation and the housing shortage and that it is vitally important that we address this issue. Moreover, we were scheduled to discuss this, as part of the study of Bill C-56.

However, right now, there are people losing their lives in Nagorno-Karabakh and the international community is showing little or no concern. There are only a few countries, including France, in particular, that really seem to care about what is happening in that region.

Azerbaijan claims that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of its territory. International law seems to confirm the Azerbaijani claim. However, if it is true that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are part of Azerbaijan, how can we tolerate, under the principle of the duty and responsibility to protect—a concept that was adopted by the United Nations at Canada’s instigation—a government literally starving and attacking a population in its territory? That, however, is what is happening.

For several months, after the 2020 conflict, the government claimed that it wanted to adopt a balanced position, stating that it did not know what was really happening on the ground. It said that it did not really know who the attacker was and who was in the wrong.

However, since then, the facts keep pointing at Azerbaijan.

There was a reluctant statement from Global Affairs Canada, which we actually reiterated in the report, that simply called on Azerbaijan to live up to its commitment under the peace agreement that it reached with Armenia after the 2020 conflict under Russian auspices. This statement called on Azerbaijan to live up to its commitment to keep the Lachin Corridor open and call on it to respect the terms of the ceasefire.

Aside from this half-hearted statement, not much has been done by the Canadian government. Of course, a special rapporteur was sent, and none other than Stéphane Dion, Canada’s ambassador plenipotentiary, who is the right fit for all purposes and missions. He was sent to Armenia to support Armenian democracy. Some recommendations were taken from his report, including the recommendation to open an embassy in Yerevan, a commitment made by the Prime Minister several years ago that is finally being implemented. How can we accept that Azerbaijan has, on several occasions, not only violated the ceasefire agreement reached with Armenia in 2020, but also blatantly crossed into Armenia’s sovereign territory?

In the House, since February 2022, we have stood in solidarity in our determination to denounce Russia’s illegal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. Several countries around the world look at Canada and its claims to defend international law, human rights and the rule of law, and then wonder about how we seem to apply things differently based on the situation. Palestine has been living under occupation since 1967 to near total indifference. Armenia has been subjected to military attacks by Azerbaijan to near total indifference. The Canadian government is determined, and we completely support it, to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. Why then the double standard? Why not be just as firm about Azerbaijan’s aggression against Armenia as we have been and still are about Russia's aggression against Ukraine?

Azerbaijan violated the peace agreements once again by launching a military offensive in the Nagorno-Karabakh region on September 19. People are fleeing by the hundreds, fearing repression. Indeed, there have been disturbing reports about how the Azeri troops are treating the civilian population. There are reports of summary executions and discrimination against Armenian populations. For months now, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have been suffering the effects of the blockade, which Azerbaijan initially tried to deny so as not to be accused of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement signed with Armenia in 2020.

Azerbaijan is a rather authoritarian state that rarely tolerates protests. However, it did tolerate a months-long protest by so-called environmentalists who blocked the Lachin corridor under the pretext of wanting to prevent mining developments in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact of the matter is that Azerbaijan's main fear was that mining resources would flow from Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. Under the pretext of preventing mining development for supposedly environmental reasons, these activists were therefore tolerated in the Lachin corridor for months.

In January of this year, I brought this serious situation before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. In the wake of the blockade of the Lachin corridor, we conducted a study on this specific situation at the request of the Bloc Québécois. That study eventually led to this report, which is quite brief. As I was saying, it essentially repeats the wording of the Canadian declaration. I felt that the Liberals wanted to soft-pedal, that they were not too eager to adopt a report. I told them that it was the Global Affairs Canada statement repeated verbatim and that they could not be against that.

One thing led to another and they ended up accepting. However, I get the impression that as a result of Azerbaijan lobbying certain Liberal MPs, they were reluctant to take a position, much like the government. The report says:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, in accordance with its obligations as a party to the trilateral declaration of November 9, 2020, and following the appeal made by the Government of Canada on December 14, 2022, to reopen the Lachin Corridor and guarantee freedom of movement in order to avoid any deterioration in the humanitarian situation, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

The response came. On June 14, the Minister of Foreign Affairs sent us a two-page response that was interesting but contained many of the same soothing statements that the government has been offering up for months concerning the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. It said that the government was following developments closely, that it was monitoring the situation every day, that it was urging Azerbaijan to open the corridor, and so on. Meanwhile, in violation of the terms of the ceasefire agreement, Azerbaijan repeatedly resumed hostilities, including against Armenia. This development met with, as I have said, near total indifference.

Azerbaijan eventually realized that the truth about the corridor supposedly being blockaded by eco-activists was coming out. Public protests are not permitted in Azerbaijan, except in the Lachin corridor, curiously enough. The Azerbaijan government realized that no one was buying its story, so it decided to just set up a military roadblock, right under the noses of the so-called Russian peacekeepers. The ceasefire agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020 was brokered by Russia, which was supposed to guarantee that the ceasefire stayed in place by having troops on the ground. Who knows why Russia's attention seems to be elsewhere, but the Russian peacekeepers barely fulfilled their role. I would go so far as to say they did not fulfill it at all.

In fact, they were even used by Azerbaijan to carry out attacks not only against Nagorno-Karabakh, but also against Armenia itself. The same aggressor that we are denouncing in the war in Ukraine is abetting Azerbaijan in attacking another independent nation, the only democracy in the Caucasus region, where we have committed to defending democracy, yet we are doing nothing. We are letting it happen.

Canada makes soothing comments that it is monitoring the situation very closely, that it is paying attention to what is going on, that it is urging Azerbaijan to reopen the corridor, but this is no longer about reopening the Lachin corridor. The territory of Nagorno-Karabakh has been occupied by the Azerbaijani military. Its population, which has been starving and deprived of all basic medical supplies for months, is now under military occupation by Azerbaijan, which is committing atrocities against the civilian population. Again, this news has been met with near total indifference.

Words cannot express how disappointed I am with the Liberal government's attitude toward this conflict. For months, it suggested that we could not be sure which nation was the aggressor was in this case. What will it take for the Liberal government to understand that Azerbaijan is the aggressor, that the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan under international law cannot justify military aggression against innocent civilians and cannot justify a nation literally starving its population? In another context, that would be called genocide. This is a very serious issue.

I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of the debate we are having on the adoption of the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. However, I cannot help but wonder once again if this is the time to discuss it. I know our Conservative colleagues are genuinely and deeply concerned about the situation because, as I stated earlier, we have had discussions. Our offices have had discussions about the fact that we wanted to raise this issue again in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Since our offices have been in contact, why are we being surprised this morning by this motion to adopt the report? Why were we not consulted? Why were we not even informed?

This morning, I was coming out of another committee when I was told I had to speak. Why proceed this way on such an important issue that should see us all working together?

What we are seeing, unfortunately, is a political move by our Conservative friends to derail and delay debate on the inflation bill. I come back to the comments by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I am not saying that the issue is more important than what is happening in Nagorno‑Karabakh, because people are dying right now in Nagorno‑Karabakh, but our fellow Canadians in every riding are dealing with the problem of inflation. Our fellow Canadians in every riding are dealing with the problem of a housing shortage.

Our Conservative colleagues rise every day in the House and say that the current inflation is unacceptable, but they come here today with this delaying tactic. Someone would have called them whited sepulchres.

We saw yesterday how hypocritical our colleagues can be, and I use that word carefully. When it was proposed that the passages in which the veteran of the Waffen-SS was in our gallery, and even the related video excerpts, be removed from the record of the debates, they refused. My Conservative colleagues need to show some honesty. If they are as interested in the issue of Nagorno‑Karabakh as they claim, they should not proceed as they did this morning.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan never complains about doing it. Is it a coincidence that concurrence motions on reports are never moved during Conservative opposition days, but always when dealing with government legislation?

When the Conservatives use this tactic, and they have done it many times before, it is always meant to prevent debate on the government agenda, because there are other opportunities to debate these types of important issues. If the Conservatives were very serious about the issue of the concurrence motion that they are moving, there are other ways of doing it. They know that, but they like to use the concurrence motion in order to frustrate government legislation.

Bill C-56 is too important for Canadians. We will get it through, no matter what kinds of games they play, because it is important to Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I sense frustration from the Bloc member. I too join him in the frustration, because I too recognize these issues that are having such an impact on Canadians. No matter where one lives in Canada, the issues we were supposed to be debating today are having an impact. There is legislation to address this. We need to pass that legislation, Bill C-56, which is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what we were supposed to be debating.

For people who maybe do not necessarily follow all the details of the proceedings of the House, this motion brought forward by the Conservative Party has very little to do with the issue within the motion and has everything to do with trying to frustrate the debate on these very important issues. This legislation is important. We should be passing Bill C-56. There are other opportunities for the Conservatives to debate this issue. It is an important issue.

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

Madam Speaker, usually I would indicate that it is a pleasure to be able to rise to address a particular issue in the chamber. I would like to break my speech into a couple of parts related to the issue at hand.

First, I would like to provide a bit of background as to why we are debating this issue before us. Suffice it to say that all issues are ultimately important, particularly in the minds of many different people. When we have a finite amount of time to debate issues on the floor of the House of Commons, we have to try to place them, whether they are opposition agenda items or government agenda items, in some sense of an order of priority. War and things taking place internationally have always played an important role in debates of the chamber.

Members will recall last Monday, for example, we had the very serious issue of foreign interference being debated. I would have thought it to be universally accepted by most members of this chamber, but it was not by the Conservatives because I believe they had one person come in to speak once and that was it. Then they were absolutely quite. They did not get engaged, yet that was on the issue of foreign interference.

I can assure members across the way that the level of interest on that issue is actually quite high, yet the Conservative Party, with the exception of its very first speaker, was absolutely silent. I suspect it was because its members wanted to have their fingers in the air to figure out what they could or should be saying. That was an important international issue.

When we think of foreign affairs, we often have take-note debates and emergency debates. These are opportunities not only for opposition members but also for government members to stand and express concerns by reflecting on what their constituents are saying about that particular issue, and they can raise it in great detail. That is one of the advantages of the rules we have to accommodate issues of this nature.

I think people need to be aware of the background of these reports. For example, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who did not participate in the international interference debate last Monday, and who often likes to talk about his concerns about what is happening around the world, has brought forward a concurrence motion. I want us to put this into the proper perspective of when the report was actually tabled, which was back on February 17 of this year. Allow me to read the entire report. I can assure members it will not take long, but so I do not misquote, I will put on my glasses.

The report, which was tabled on February 17, states:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, in accordance with its obligations as a party to the trilateral declaration of November 9, 2020, and following the appeal made by the Government of Canada on December 14, 2022, to reopen the Lachin Corridor and guarantee freedom of movement in order to avoid any deterioration in the humanitarian situation, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

It is one paragraph that was brought into the chamber on February 17. Do members know there was actually a response to that report? An official response was given. Did the member refer to, cite or quote the response? I am not convinced the member is aware that there was a response given to the report on June 14 of this year. If so, he could have read first-hand how the government responded to that report.

Did the standing committee meet to discuss the response to the report and give an indication as to whether it wanted to have further debate on the issue? I do not know. I am not on the foreign affairs committee, nor have I asked any of its members. However, if I were to speculate, given the track record of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I would suggest that it likely did not.

Why do we have it today? I was supposed to be the first one to speak today. Do members know what the topic was? It was to be on Bill C-56, which is a wake-up call for the Conservative Party of Canada. People are hurting. Interest rates, inflation, what the grocery store giants are doing, and housing are the important issues that Canadians are facing today. This is not to take away from the importance of the issue described in that one-paragraph report from the standing committee months ago. After all, the government gave a formal response to it.

All issues are important. The reason for this motion is not to say we want to have a debate on this issue here on the floor of the House of Commons, but that this is being used as a tool to prevent the debate the was supposed to be taking place to deal with the Canadian economy and how Canadians are hurting. The members of the Conservative Party want to play games and filibuster. Shame on them for that sort of behaviour as an official opposition.

There are mechanisms from which the Conservatives can choose, such as opposition days, where they have a number of days every year to choose to debate important issues. For instance, they can add additional substance to the one paragraph that was provided by the standing committee. They could express other concerns. They could draw in the comparison, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did, with what is happening in Ukraine today.

As one of my colleagues said, the Conservatives are putting politics above people. That is shameful. If the member or the Conservative Party, because I think this is its agenda, did not want to use one of their opposition days and were keen to have this debate in a forum that would allow people to really get engaged on the issue, why would they not approach the government and ask for a take-note debate? To the very best of my knowledge, and I sit on the House leadership team, that was not done.

There is no member who brings forward more petitions than the member across the way. How many petitions has he tabled with respect to this connection for humanitarian aid, the Lachin corridor? I will get more into that shortly. To what degree has that taken place? Better yet, I am having a difficult time trying to recall when the member rose with a request for an emergency debate on this issue. The reason we cannot remember a date is that he did not request one.

The only reason this concurrence motion has been brought forward for us today is because the Conservative Party has, once again, fallen into two principles. The first is character assassination. Every opportunity the Conservative members get, they try to make the Prime Minister of Canada look bad, even if it spreads false information. They are very good at this. The other thing they want to do is frustrate the House and what is taking place on the floor. Today is a very good example of that.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in particular, and all Conservative members, needs to realize that the people they are hurting—

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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, 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.

[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?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, for subbing in for me while I participated in debate on Bill C-56 in the chamber.

I have a question for the Green Budget Coalition. Often in Canada, when we talk about major energy infrastructure projects, more often than not it's a conversation about pipelines. We know that the current federal government has invested over $30 billion in one particular pipeline.

In your proposal for the next budget, you talked about a zero-emissions electricity grid based on renewables. I wonder if you could speak to the potential for generating employment and wealth out of that kind of grid in addition to lowering Canada's emissions.

[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.

[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?

[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, 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.

[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.

[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, 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.

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.

The Economy

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the MP for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his hard work for his constituents and all Canadians.

Canadians need more homes built faster and they need affordable groceries. Bill C-56, which the government tabled last week, would help to provide both.

With this bill, we would remove the GST from the construction of rental housing to build more homes faster. We would empower Canada's Competition Bureau to help small grocers compete. We are demanding CEOs of Canada's largest grocers to present a plan to stabilize prices.

We are going to continue to move forward with a serious plan to help Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge are feeling the pressure of increased housing costs and grocery prices. This summer, I heard them loud and clear, from the skilled trades workers who are building our homes and critical infrastructure to the workers creating made-in-Canada products in the manufacturing sector and the seniors who helped build our country. That is why I was pleased to see our government introduce Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, as the next phase of our government's plan to bring down the cost of living for Canadians.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tell my residents what this bill would do?

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)