Debates of Sept. 25th, 2023

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

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

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

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

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

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

I just addressed the issue.

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We will do without the references.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The hon. minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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