Debates of Oct. 3rd, 2023

Foreign Affairs

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you.

Congratulations, my dear friend. It is nice to see you in the chair.

To answer my colleague's question, of course we will always abide by a strong arms-export treaty where we respect human rights. We will always make sure that is the case and that end users are also taken into account. I look forward to working with her on this very issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The new broom sweeps clean, so it is said. I am wondering whether now is the time that we sweep clean some of the misinformation coming from that side of the House. We hear references to “Liberal-NDP government” and “Liberal-NDP coalition”, on top of “eight years”, which does not exist. This is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Order. I would like to let the hon. member know that this is sounding very close to debate, unless the hon. member would like to raise a specific standing order.

Businesses in Lytton

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to table a petition on behalf of British Columbians who are calling for more support and better governance in the village of Lytton.

On June 30, 2021, wildfires engulfed the village of Lytton and surrounding areas, destroying the town and displacing hundreds of residents. With rebuilding yet to begin, two years later, the business owners in Lytton who accepted CEBA loans have no means of reopening their businesses and repaying those loans. British Columbians in Lytton are calling upon the Government of Canada to recognize their extraordinary circumstances and forgive any amounts owed by Lytton area business owners on Canada emergency business account loans.

Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents of my riding in York Region regarding PFAS, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They are considered forever chemicals. They are extremely persistent and mobile in the environment, and they last many thousands of years. They have been proven to be a health problem in many different ways.

Petitioners are calling on the government to adopt a class-based approach to address all PFAS, listing them in schedule I of CEPA for complete prohibition; to consider exemptions for prohibition only if time limited and fully substantiated; to adopt stringent drinking-water standards for PFAS as a class; and to require research to identify contaminated sites, expedite the remediation and provide public release of research data. They are also asking for further research into PFAS.

I am presenting this on behalf of the petitioners, who are very concerned about the impacts of PFAS on the health and well-being of Canadians.

Medical Assistance in Dying

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present six petitions signed by 204 residents of the riding of Prince Albert. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to delay its expansion of medical assistance in dying.

Opioids

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to present a petition on behalf of petitioners who, first of all, recognize that the overdose crisis is one that is a public health emergency. The petitioners note that more than 26,690 people have died of opioid-related causes since 2016. They also note that organizations including the Canadian Public Health Association, the Global Commission on Drug Policy, the World Health Organization and the United Nations have all recommended drug decriminalization.

The petitioners then call on the Government of Canada to, first of all, declare a public health emergency as it relates to overdose deaths from poisoned drugs. They call on the government to reframe this crisis as one that is a public health issue and not a criminal one. The petitioners go on to list the need for a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach, such as one that has already been recommended by the expert panel to Health Canada, and they call for the decriminalization of poisoned drugs in Canada.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

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

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk today about Bill C-56, which is the Liberal-NDP government's attempt at dealing with the affordability issue.

To talk about the legislation itself, we first need to look at where we are in this country, and it is not a very pretty picture. If we look at where we are right now, mortgage payments over the last eight years have virtually doubled in this country from coast to coast to coast. We have a similar issue now with rent all across the country. If we look at the average rents being paid now, that amount has also virtually doubled. This is the track record of the Liberal government, which now suddenly seems to be concerned about affordability for Canadians.

However, the bad news for Canadians does not stop there. It used to take 25 years to pay off one's mortgage. Now it takes the average Canadian 25 years to save for their mortgage. Think about what the difference between those is. Some people might say that is not their problem and that this is a young person's problem when they are trying to get into the market. It is bad enough if it is a young person's problem, but it is also affecting average Canadians right here and right now.

I was recently informed about a person whose mortgage has come up for renewal. Their mortgage was coming from that nice, low fixed interest rate. People will remember those low interest rates the Prime Minister said were going to be there for a very long time, the interest rates the Governor of the Bank of Canada said were going to stay low for a very long time. Based on that, many people took mortgages with a very low interest rate because it allowed them to have a mortgage payment they could afford. However, as mortgage rates have continued to go up, as the Bank of Canada has continued to raise interest rates in order to fight inflation, average Canadians now have to pay the bill as a result of this.

In this particular circumstance, this family has said that it can hold on for about another six months with this increased mortgage payment. They can dig into savings and they can further borrow for about six months, and then they are not going to be able to make the mortgage payments on their home. That is the consequence of eight years of the Liberal government.

Inflation is out of control. I hear it all the time in my riding of Dufferin—Caledon. People come up to me in the grocery store and say to me that they now have to only go to the grocery store to shop bargains. They do not actually have a grocery list, because they can buy only what is on sale. This is all they can afford. After eight years of the Liberal government, this is what people are saying to me in the grocery store. It is a shocking turnaround for Canadians. They are having trouble paying their mortgages. They are having trouble buying groceries. They are having trouble heating their homes as a result of the carbon tax. All of these things are making life more expensive for Canadians.

There is a simple solution. There are actually two very simple solutions the government could implement right away. Number one is that it could cut the carbon tax. We know that would have an immediate impact, because, as has been said by Conservatives in the House of Commons over and over again, the farmers are taxed on farm produce. As they produce it, they are taxed with the carbon tax. Whether that is for drying the grain, driving the combines or whatever, they are paying a carbon tax. When that crop is harvested, the driver of the truck that comes to pick it up is going to pay the carbon tax. When it goes to be processed, there is a carbon tax. When a truck picks it up to take it to the grocery store, there is a carbon tax. At the grocery store, the carbon tax is heating the grocery store; therefore, the store owner is paying a carbon tax as well.

At the end of the day, Canadians cannot afford to pay for food, and they end up saying that they do not even have a grocery list and just go to the grocery store and buy whatever is on sale. If we would have said this to Canadians eight years ago, they would have said that this was not possible. In a country like Canada, food is abundant. We feed the world because we have the best farmers in the world, who are great stewards of the land. If we had said eight years ago that Canadians would only be able to go to the grocery store and shop bargains, that would have been an inconceivable thought, but here we are.

After eight years of the Liberal government, that is the sad situation that Canadians find themselves in. It is very difficult to pay the mortgage, very difficult to buy groceries, very difficult to pay rent and very difficult to buy a house. That is the Liberals' record. That is the context that we look at when they bring in this bill.

This is not a new problem. Conservatives have been talking about this problem for the last number of years. In fact, the Conservative leader, many years ago, said that the inflationary spending caused by the government was going to drive up inflation, which would then drive up interest rates. He is looking more and more like Nostradamus with that prediction. As for me, 18 months ago, I rose to speak about the impact of the carbon tax on food production. I said that it was going to cause a massive increase in the cost of food, and here we are. The Liberal government cannot therefore claim that somehow this is a new problem, that it was unaware of the problem. It was well aware. It was well forewarned and did absolutely nothing about it.

When we look at this particular bill, what is amazing to me is that Liberal members will get up in this House during debate and during question period and talk about how, as a result of tabling this legislation, one developer has said it is now going to build 5,000 rental units. They puff out their chests and say to look at them, look at the amazing things they have accomplished. Well, let us put that into context.

According to the CMHC, we will need to build three million more homes between now and 2030 than are planned or scheduled to be built. The plan is that we will build two million homes. We will have to build three million more than that in order to get back some affordability.

As I have said a few times in this chamber, I went to law school because I was not good at math. However, what I did before I prepared for this speech is decided to get out my calculator and look at this. I saw that 5,000 units out of the three million we need is 0.0016%. If I had a child come home with a bad grade, and the teacher not only put an F on there but said that my son got 0.0016% on the test, I would not be a proud father. However, somehow these members walk around like they have discovered fire with this plan to build such a small number of houses.

It is even worse. To even come up with some of their plan, they had to take from the Conservative leader's plan. With grocery affordability, again, the best thing they could do is cut the carbon tax, which they repeatedly vote against. We know that this would bring the most relief. They also decided they are going to bring in some Competition Act changes, which they also stole from a Conservative member of Parliament's private member's bill. When a government is completely out of ideas, affordability has gone off the scale and Canadians are deeply hurting, what does the government, the brain trust and all of the political advisers they have come up with? Well, they just take what the Conservatives said they were going to do.

They have only taken some of it. What we have here is a plan that is not going to do anything to address the affordability crisis that is going on across the country, and there is a real consequence. I spoke about this in question period. For example, there is Paula in B.C., 71, who is retired. She is now saying that she might have to move out of her house because the landlord is going to sell it. She is also facing a 75% increase in rent as a result of that. That is their record. They have not provided solutions quickly or ones that are going to address the concerns of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very fascinated when I hear Conservatives talk about affordability. I think of Doug Ford, Mr. X, the $8-billion scheme and the trip they took down to Vegas. They do not remember it, but they were all at the spa at the same time.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague about a meeting that was held on June 25, when four Conservatives were flown over to London, apparently paid for by my cousin Dan McTeague, which I find kind of surprising. The total cost of the meal was $4,690 Canadian. They drank one bottle of wine for $818, a second bottle for $265 and a third bottle for $719, and they topped it off with a bottle of champagne for $1,791.

I do not know a single Canadian who has ever drank that wealthily, yet the Conservatives were guzzling it back. Who paid for this trip and why were they there?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, when members cannot debate the ideas that are put forward, members go to where that member went.

I know the member is new, but there is a difference between the provincial government, which he referenced, and the federal government and federal Parliament, which we are actually sitting in right now. The member might want to take some time to read up on the functions of a member of Parliament.

However, I am glad he brought up sponsored travel, because the member took a trip to Germany, and his total expenses were $10,489.60. This was in 2022, and it does not stop there. In 2020, at the height of the pandemic, he spent 4,300 dollars' worth of sponsored travel to Washington, D.C.

Let us get out the dictionary and look up “hypocrisy”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that when they ask questions or give answers, they need to make sure they do not interrupt others.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Red Deer—Lacombe.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to my colleague's speech. He talked about the Nostradamus prediction that would equate to what the leader of the Conservative Party said. I am wondering if he would like to reflect more on comments we have made.

As Conservatives, we have known all the time that living within our means is the responsible way to do government. The previous prime minister, Stephen Harper, said that the deficits this current administration would run would not be small but would in fact be out of control. I think the words were “He has no idea what he is talking about”, in reference to the current Prime Minister.

I wonder if my colleague could reflect on those comments and how true they are.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing that all of this was predicted. The affordability crisis we find ourselves in, runaway inflation and high interest rates were all predicted by the Conservative leader.

It is actually a shocking amount of spending. The federal government, under this NDP-Liberal coalition, now spends $176 billion per year every year more than in 2015. I hear from constituents when they raise that issue, and I ask, “What in your life is better?” No one can answer that. All of this spending has really driven the affordability crisis and has not helped the vast majority of Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, does my colleague think any meaningful measures for social housing could be introduced?

The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly proposed investing 1% of the budget in social housing on an ongoing basis, so that crises like the one we are currently experiencing will be less frequent. Obviously, this measure is less popular because there is nothing spectacular about it. The government could do that instead of introducing half-measures like the one it has presented to us.

I would like to know if this is something my colleague finds interesting and if he would be willing to discuss it.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am in agreement that we have to do more to get more houses built, but I think our plan is better. There is a great number of federal buildings that are underutilized. We should convert those units. I think our plan says we are going to allow 15% to be converted into housing, which is better than coming up with some random number and having the government build it.

Let us remove the gatekeepers, unleash the private sector, turn those buildings over and get them built into all kinds of units, like affordable rental units and other units. That is the path forward.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Democratic Institutions; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, Electoral Reform; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, today I rise in this chamber to debate Bill C-56, which would make several important and timely amendments to the Competition Act. A stronger competition framework is good for all Canadians, ensuring that companies are playing fairly, preserving opportunities for new firms to enter the market and ensuring that consumers benefit from more and better choices in the marketplace.

The bill includes three significant changes to the Competition Act: one, the ability for the Competition Bureau to compel information during a market study; two, the abolition of the efficiencies defence from merger review; and finally, the enabling of the review of agreements between any two parties when the agreement is designed to limit competition. These three important amendments stem from the government's extensive consultations, which took place over the last several months. These measures and others like them have widespread support, particularly from Canadians and small businesses. They reflect the concerns raised and respond to the pleas of many stakeholders from a wide variety of backgrounds.

The Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development has released a report on what it heard during its consultations. I strongly recommend that all my colleagues review it to gain an understanding of the stakes involved and learn about some of the issues under consideration as the government takes the next steps.

With that in mind, I would like to share some of what stakeholders had to say in support of the measures that ended up in this bill.

Regarding market studies, the consultation drew a significant number of comments on the importance of knowing how our markets function. The majority of stakeholders felt that the Competition Bureau needed access to the best information and that this was the norm in most other countries. The Canadian Anti-Monopoly Project, a think tank dedicated to Canadian competition policy, stated that the lack of formal bureau powers in this area cripples its ability to understand new and emerging markets. It makes the bureau less able to assess if its enforcement decisions have had the desired impact.

OpenMedia, a consumer organization dedicated to an open and free Internet, stressed the need for the bureau to have the power to proactively study new and emerging markets. In markets especially fraught with high levels of concentration, serious and persistent problems need to be detected in order to be tackled.

The importance of a competitive freight transport sector to bring goods to Canadians was driven home during the COVID-19 pandemic and the supply chain difficulties that it brought. A joint submission by the Freight Management Association of Canada and numerous producers and shippers who rely on our transportation infrastructure also came out in favour of a framework for market studies. They highlighted that the international nature of ocean shipping means national authorities need to be even more vigilant in monitoring the behaviour of the companies at their ports. Data collection systems are integral to assessing the impact on Canadian trade and business, and the bureau needs to be able to collect information outside of an enforcement context to properly detect problems.

The Macdonald-Laurier Institute, a national public policy think tank, probably familiar to many members of Parliament, explains how an expanded information-collection power should be supported by traditionalists and reformers alike and serves to fill other information gaps that hinder government.

There was also a wide call for appropriate safeguards attached to market studies. The Canadian Bar Association asked that information requests be subject to judicial authorization and open to challenge by the parties, while the Business Council of Canada insisted that if studies were to be introduced, there must be time limits on their duration and that the responsible minister should provide approval to launch such a study. These guardrails are all provided for in the proposed approach outlined in Bill C-56.

Now I would like to turn to another amendment to the Competition Act, which relates to the efficiencies defence. Long before the public consultation, the Competition Act's efficiencies exception has been a focus of commentary. This provision allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenge if they generate corporate efficiencies that are said to outweigh competitive harm, even if consumers pay the price.

There was no shortage of submissions to the consultation on this particular topic. It is the area of concern that received the most engagement, with a strong majority supporting its abolition. The Public Interest Advocacy Centre, a national not-for-profit organization that promotes inclusive decision-making and protection of consumer interests, explained how the original policy intent of creating internationally competitive companies had not been met. It felt that the efficiencies defence has, in fact, served to protect domestic companies from competition, at consumers' expense. The Centre for International Governance Innovation has also come out against the efficiencies defence, which it sees as a mistaken attempt to bring more predictability to the law.

Abolishing the defence is the right thing to do in recognition of the increasing concentration of multiple industries across Canada, as well as the corresponding decrease in competition. These factors create a significant drag on the real efficiency of our marketplaces, and the productivity and international competitiveness of our economy.

Unifor, Canada's largest private sector union, explains how the efficiencies generated are often only passed on to the shareholders at the direct expense of laid-off workers. The cost savings of efficiencies come from a decrease in personnel, resulting in a less competitive industry that can more easily capture value for those at the top.

Moreover, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the National Farmers Union and L'Union des producteurs agricoles, all key players in Canada's food procurement and supply chain, have come out in favour of the abolition of the efficiencies defence as well. Their reasons include a skepticism of the ability for efficiencies to overcome anti-competitive effects and their significant contribution to the ease of unfavourable acquisitions in Canada.

Lastly, I wanted to talk about collaborations as another topic this bill addresses. The consultations also raised the question of whether the bureau should be able to review collaborations between non-competing entities when they harm competition. Currently, the law addresses only agreements or arrangements formed between real or potential competitors, and Bill C-56 would expand that in some circumstances. A majority of those who commented on the matter supported broadening the law.

The Consumers Council of Canada felt that the exclusion of certain agreements from reviewability renders the bureau unable to deal with real competition issues. They explain how commercial relationships established with good intentions by both sides can still lead to unanticipated and unintended consequences, and the bureau should not leave it up to businesses to decide—

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would respectfully ask you to confirm whether we have the quorum required for the business of the House to proceed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will check for quorum.

And the count having been taken:

I thank the hon. member for raising this matter. Right now we do have quorum in the House.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.