Bill C-356

Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act

An Act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other Acts

This enactment enacts the Building Homes Not Bureaucracy Act in order to
(a) establish a target for the completion of new homes in high-cost cities that increases 15% every year and ties federal infrastructure funding allocated to high-cost cities to that target;
(b) provide for the reallocation of $100 million from the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities that greatly exceed housing targets;
(c) require that federal transit funding provided to certain cities be held in trust until high-density residential housing is substantially occupied on available land around federally funded transit projects’ stations; and
(d) make it a condition for certain cities to receive federal infrastructure and transit funding that they not unduly restrict or delay the approval of building permits for housing.
It also amends the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act , the National Housing Act and the Excise Tax Act in order to
(a) eliminate executive bonuses unless housing targets are met and to reduce executive compensation if applications for funding for new housing construction are not treated within an average of 60 days; and
(b) provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate.
In addition, this enactment requires the Minister of Public Works to table a 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 all land that would be appropriate for housing construction, subject to certain exceptions. Finally, it requires the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report.

Public Accounts

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, the House has been seized with debate over another scandal in the NDP-Liberal government for a number of days now. It has been seized with a question of privilege because the government is refusing to hand over documents that the House has ordered it to hand over.

Tonight, we are proceeding with concurrence debate; this is debate on whether the House should agree with the 31st report of the public accounts committee. This is a very important report that deals with the issue of homelessness.

Before getting into the particulars of the report, I think it is important to reflect on where we are as a country. For a long time in Canada, we had a deal, we had an understanding that if we worked hard, played by the rules and worked to serve our community to advance the common good, we would be able to live a healthy, happy and comfortable life. Sadly, as a result of policies pursued by the NDP-Liberal government over the last nine years, that deal is now broken.

As we turn to the issue of homelessness tonight, and to the issues of poverty that surround homelessness, more and more Canadians are struggling who never would have expected to be in this position before. People who spent their lives giving to food banks are now receiving from food banks as a result of changes in their situation because of decisions, actions and policies by the NDP-Liberal government.

The public accounts committee has a mandate to study and review reports of the Auditor General. The Auditor General analyzes various programs and policies of the government to see if they are meeting their stated objectives. It is not the Auditor General's role to make a priori determinations of the good, of what a particular policy should be. Rather, the Auditor General's role is to determine whether particular programs are lining up with the stated objectives, doing the things they are supposed to do and measuring the things they are supposed to measure, as well as whether actions of government accord with policies and objectives that have been put in place.

I have had the opportunity to serve on the public accounts committee. I am not currently a regular member, but I am there often nonetheless, and I was a member of it previously. Reviewing reports of the Auditor General, we found her consistent disappointment with the government failing to measure up to its stated objectives in its actions. The members talk a good game about a lot of things, but they fail to follow through and to deliver results. We see this time and time again with reports that come before the public accounts committee, in the fact that the government is not meeting its stated objectives, and it is not measuring or following appropriate policies in the process.

If we take a macro look at what the government is all about, what the problem has been over the last nine years, it is that we have a government that fundamentally believes it is the thought that counts. They want to express that they care. They want to put in place policies and frameworks with names that sound good, that exude a sentiment of solidarity. However, they are uninterested in whether these programs actually deliver results. They believe that it is the thought that counts. We believe that it is the results that count. We can have a policy that sounds good, but if it does not actually deliver positive outcomes, then what is the point? It is not the thought that counts.

Moreover, we often hear from the government members that we can read whether they care about an issue from how much money they spent on an item. They will tell us they are spending more on this and more on that. I think that is supposed to be a demonstration of their concern for a particular issue. They are spending a bunch of money on something under a particular policy heading, and we are supposed to read into this that they care about those kinds of issues.

What Canadians are really interested in are the results. If the government is spending more on something but the results are worse, then quite obviously people are worse off than they were before. I think what Canadians care about, particularly now when so many people are struggling, are not the good thoughts or the good intentions, or even the amount of money that is spent. They care about the concrete results and how they impact their lives.

As Canadians are struggling, they are reflecting on the fact that one cannot eat a good thought and cannot live in an announcement. A good intention will not keep them warm at night. This is the problem with the situation presided over by the NDP-Liberal government. Despite its desire for Canadians to conclude that it is the thought that counts, Canadians are realizing that they cannot eat a good thought and cannot live in an announcement, and that good intentions will not keep them warm at night.

That brings me to the particulars of the 31st report of the public accounts committee, which is extremely damning in its assessment of the government's performance when it comes to the issue of homelessness. I will just read, from the beginning of the report, the key findings of the Auditor General. The first is that “Infrastructure Canada and Employment and Social Development Canada did not know whether their efforts to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness were leading to improved outcomes”. They did not know whether what they were trying to do was actually leading to better outcomes. That is incredible.

The next finding is, “Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation did not know who was benefiting from its initiatives.” The third key finding was “minimal federal accountability for reaching the National Housing Strategy target to reduce chronic homelessness by 50% by the 2027–28 fiscal year”. That is incredible.

That is the government's much-vaunted housing strategy, and we find that the government literally does not know whether its efforts to prevent and reduce chronic homelessness are leading to results. It has no idea. It cannot claim that it is producing good results because, according to the Auditor General, it simply does not have that information. It is not tracking it. CMHC did not know who benefited from the initiatives, and there was minimal accountability for reaching the targets in the national housing strategy. That is extremely damning.

The government loves to talk about the fact that it has a national housing strategy. It says it has a great announcement, a great statement and a great framework, but it is not even assessing or measuring the results. It does not have basic information. It is not tracking whether its efforts actually produce good outcomes.

We can only conclude, from hearing the way the Liberals talk and then looking at the Auditor General's report, that they really believe that it is only the good thoughts that matter. They think it is the thought that counts instead of the results that count. It is time we have a government in this country that is authentically concerned about the well-being of Canadians; is concerned about the results of policies; is focused on virtue, not virtue signalling; and is focused on what happens to Canadians, not on wrapping itself in the aura of showing it cares through announcements and through expenditures, yet not tracking the results.

There is a damning report from the Auditor General after nine years of failure on housing. Of course, Canadians did not need to hear the report to know that the government is failing on housing. Canadians know that the deal that has defined our country, the deal that hard work leads to opportunity, has been broken under the government. Canadians know that the price of rent, the price of housing and the price of food are way up, and that life is becoming less affordable as a result of policies pursued by the government.

There is a failure to support the construction of new housing. The carbon tax has made food less affordable. Inflationary government spending far outstrips anything we have seen in this country before, more than doubling the national debt. These are concrete policies that are having concrete negative impacts on our national life.

It is time we have a government that is focused on virtue, not virtue signalling, and that cares about good results over good thoughts. In that spirit, Conservatives have not only begun to plan for an alternative government but have also concretely put before the House, in this Parliament, proposals to address the housing crisis right now. A more wise and more humble government would have adopted these proposals, but sadly the government has not.

Conservatives put forward Bill C-356, a comprehensive plan to address the housing challenges facing our country. It was put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. Bill C-356 is the proposed building homes, not bureaucracy act. People following at home can actually find the key recommendations in Bill C-356 and in the Conservative supplementary report at the back of the 31st report of the public accounts committee.

They are common-sense recommendations that I think any reasonable person would find worthy of support, yet all other parties in the House voted against the bill. It does not make any sense to me that members of the NDP-Liberal coalition would reject this common-sense plan. Of course, if there were particular details that they wanted to adjust slightly, they could have supported it at second reading and proposed those amendments at committee.

However, they did not just vote against particular provisions at a later stage; even if they thought the bill was imperfect, they were willing to throw it out wholesale. I do not think the bill is imperfect; I think it is an excellent bill that could have been adopted in its present form. NDP-Liberal members who are quibbling about details could have supported it to go to committee at least, but they did not; they rejected the principle of the bill.

What is in Bill C-356? First, it calls for the establishment of “a target for the completion of new homes in high-cost cities that increases 15% every year and ties federal infrastructure funding allocated to high-cost cities to that target”. Essentially, municipalities would have a target for new home construction, and if they exceed that target, they would get a bonus, but if they fail to meet that target, they would lose out on some federal funding. It would use federal funds to stimulate municipalities to take action to allow the construction of more homes in their community.

It would create an incentive for municipalities at the local level to remove red tape that prevents new home construction. It would not be prescriptive on how they do it. It would respect the principle of subsidiarity, allowing local decision-making around development, but it would set vitally necessary targets in order to move us forward in the direction we need, which is building more homes in this country.

The bill would “provide for the reallocation of $100 million from the Housing Accelerator Fund to municipalities that greatly exceed housing targets”. That is about rewarding municipalities that exceed their target.

Next is requiring “that federal transit funding provided to certain cities be held in trust until high-density residential housing is substantially occupied on available land around federally funded transit projects' stations”. In other words, if the federal government is putting money into a big transit project, it is common sense that we would expect that there be substantial new housing built around those transit stations.

That is a reasonable thing for the federal government to expect in the process of providing the funding. We would not want to see big new transit projects that were not associated with people's ability to actually live at and around where the transit stations are. The bill would also “make it a condition for certain cities to receive federal infrastructure transit funding that they not unduly restrict or delay the approval of building permits for housing”.

The bill would:

[amend] the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act, the National Housing Act and the Excise Tax Act in order to

eliminate executive bonuses unless housing targets are met, and reduce executive compensation if applications for funding new housing construction are not treated within an average of 60 days....

Bonuses should be based on results, something that, again, the government does not seem to believe. It thinks that it is the thought that counts. Conservatives believe it is the results that count, which is why we would tie any bonuses to the achievement of real outcomes.

The bill would provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential property for which the average rent payable is below the market rate. This is a specific incentive around average rent being below the market rate. I think there was some confusion about that earlier in the debate, so it is important to clarify. Finally, there is the point that the NDP apparently took issue with, which is this:

Require the Minister of Public Works to table a 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 all land that would be appropriate for housing construction, subject to certain exceptions. In addition, require the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report.

This is what the NDP objected to. Conservatives are proposing that we sell public land and public buildings for housing; the NDP said we cannot do that because wealthy people and corporations would then buy these lands, and we cannot have that. The point is not that we would give these lands away but that we would sell them and, in the process, promote the construction of new homes people could live in.

As part of the plan, we have to make more space available. We have the problem in this country that we are not building nearly as many homes as we did back in the 1970s, when we had far fewer people. We are not building homes in general to keep up with demand. Obviously, if we have supply not growing to keep up with demand, that is going to lead to higher prices, so we need to increase the supply overall.

The bill, as I read, contains provisions specifically around below-market rent, but part of the solution has to be increasing the housing supply in general. That is just basic economics, but other parties do not appear to appreciate or understand it.

If we had passed the bill, we could have begun the work of substantially increasing the supply of housing in this country right away. This would have led to more housing affordability. We did not wait for an election; we put Bill C-356 before the House, yet the NDP and the Liberals voted against the building homes not bureaucracy act.

As such, it is not the thought that counts; it is the results that count. Let us look not at the announcements or the spending figures; let us look at the results. Canadians are struggling. Housing costs and rent are way up. The price of food is way up, and crime is up as well. These changes are the result of policy decisions made by these governments.

Fundamentally, the Liberals are not working. Their agenda is not working. They are not attentive to the impacts that their agenda has had on Canadians, and this is why we need a new government in this country that will rigorously hold itself and the entire apparatus of the federal government to the achievement of results. It will focus not on good thoughts and good intentions, but on good results and on the common good.

We will replace the NDP-Liberal government, which has failed to deliver in so many areas, with a common-sense Conservative government that will axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime. We will do this through such measures as Bill C-356, measures that make housing more affordable in reality; we can simply contrast the clarity of our common-sense legislation with the damning assessment by the independent Auditor General of the government's performance. They did not know whether their efforts prevented and reduced chronic homelessness; they did not know who benefited from their initiatives. There was minimal accountability for reaching the national housing strategy targets.

The government has failed. The Liberals have failed to even assess or measure the results. They have failed to show that they have any real concern about the outcomes for Canadians who are struggling. We need a new government that is concerned about outcomes. Since they insist on voting against the constructive proposals we put forward, the only choice now is to have a carbon tax election where we will bring about the change we need and give Canadians the homes they need. Let us bring it home.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, even in opposition, Conservatives have put solutions before the House to address the housing crisis. One of them is Bill C-356, the building homes, not bureaucracy act. I am perplexed by the fact that all other parties voted against this common-sense piece of legislation. I asked the New Democrats tonight why they had opposed this bill and they said they had certain objections to the section about selling off federal lands.

However, notably, the section on selling off federal lands in this report would not prescribe particulars around what kind of housing would be constructed there. It does not contain limitations on additional policies that might be put in place around that. It simply says that a report would need to be tabled on an inventory of public buildings and land, identifying land suitable for construction and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings; and that all land would be appropriate for housing construction subject to certain exceptions, and would require the Minister of Public Works to place these properties on the market within 12 months of tabling the report. The report does not contain any of the sort of strictures or necessary implications that the NDP has applied. It simply talks about making buildings and land more available.

On that basis, I do not see any credible reason why the other parties would have rejected the common-sense proposal that Conservatives have already put forward to the House. Does the member have any insight into why the other parties would have voted against this common-sense piece of legislation?

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-356.

My biggest problem with Bill C-356, which, as I mentioned in my speech, is an accelerator to the housing crisis that the bill codifies, is using public land that taxpayers have owned collectively for generations and that we have all benefited from given the public good it has provided. Those pieces of land should be used to build non-market homes that people can live in if they cannot afford a market home.

When it comes to housing, the free market has access to almost a majority of the land in municipalities across the country. We are saying that it is important to have a social safety net that provides housing for those who cannot afford it, whether it is because they have lost a job, are a single parent or have suffered tough economic times that have resulted in lower income. They should not have to be homeless just because they lost their job. They should not have to be homeless just because certain things outside of their control were made a reality.

That is why it is so important to have have social housing, co-op housing and non-market homes on that land. Then those who cannot afford it can get a roof over their head and have an opportunity to get back on their feet and continue to contribute to our society and economy.

I voted against this bill because it would have given access to that land to rich developers, real estate investment trusts and billionaires, and they would have turned it into mansions to sell for profit.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, with respect to homelessness, I want to ask the NDP member about Conservative Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act. I suspect that the NDP would propose other measures that are not in this bill, but it is odd to me that the NDP voted against it because it contains some very obvious common-sense measures, such as requiring municipalities to set targets for the construction of new homes. They would benefit from exceeding those targets and be penalized if they do not.

What exactly in Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act, from the Leader of the Opposition, led the member and his NDP colleagues to oppose it?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent comment. I apologize. I can be quite intense, and I get fired up with tough subjects like this. I am now seeing homelessness in Lévis, which was never the case. I had never seen it before, but it is there now. We see homeless people. There are young people sleeping in shelters, under bridges or in their cars. That is not normal. It is unacceptable. Our leader introduced Bill C-356, which was defeated. I do not understand how anyone could have possibly thought it was not a good idea. How could they think it was a bad idea? The bill died at second reading.

I only have 10 seconds left, so I will end on this note: When we are sitting on the other side of the House, we will get this done.

Housing

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, when I was the minister responsible, the cost of housing was half of what it is today.

The Prime Minister has not only doubled the cost of housing, he is spending money on growing the very bureaucracy that is blocking construction. I have a common-sense plan in Bill C‑356, which we will be voting on this afternoon. We are going to cut construction taxes, sell federal land and buildings to build housing, and offer big bonuses to municipalities that allow more and faster housing construction.

Will he vote for more housing?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government tabled a plan to free up 250,000 new housing units by 2031 on federal, provincial, territorial and municipal public lands.

The Conservative leader has debated his housing plan, Bill C‑356, which will sell federal buildings to the highest bidder with no guarantee of affordable housing.

Can the public works minister explain to Canadians how our federal land conservation plan will create affordable housing across the country?

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, today, the House is debating Bill C-356, the Conservative leader's housing proposal. In the Conservative leader's bill, there is no mention of students, seniors, workers or the most vulnerable in the country.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister please tell Canadians what our plan focuses on, how we are working to create more affordable homes faster across Canada and how the Conservative leader's plan would slow down builders?

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

Mr. Speaker, our government presented Canadians with a housing plan that will increase the housing supply across the country. A core measure of the plan is the removal of GST from new apartments, student housing and co-operatives.

Earlier today, the House debated the Conservative leader's housing plan, Bill C-356. The bill would actually put the tax back on the construction of middle-class apartments.

Can the Minister of Housing tell Canadians where the government stands on the Conservative leader's plan to reimpose a rent tax on middle-class apartments?

Requirement of Royal Recommendation for Bill C-356—Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The Chair is also ready to rule on the point of order raised on October 24, 2023, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning Bill C-356, An Act respecting payments by Canada and requirements in respect of housing and to amend certain other Acts, standing in the name of the member for Carleton.

On October 19, 2023, the Chair had also raised issues with this bill and invited members to make arguments on its need for it to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In raising his point of order, the parliamentary secretary argued that the bill would infringe on the Crown’s financial prerogative by repurposing $100 million from the housing accelerator fund and by implementing a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below the market rate. Page 838 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

Following a careful review of Bill C‑356, the Chair is preoccupied with some elements that would cause a withdrawal from the public treasury for new and distinct purposes.

The bill seeks, among other considerations, to authorize a minister to disburse up to $100 million to municipalities that surpass identified housing targets. This amount would be withdrawn directly from the consolidated revenue fund, although the bill requires a minister to table a plan to reallocate funds from the housing accelerator fund program to offset that amount. Moreover, the bill also proposes certain circumstances for which a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property may be paid out.

The aforementioned elements would cause new and distinct charges against the consolidated revenue fund, thus constituting an infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown.

Accordingly, Bill C-356 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, and without one, the Chair will not put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form.

When this item is next before the House, the debate will continue on the motion for second reading of the bill and the question will be put to the House at the end of the debate.

I thank all members for their attention.

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, “We who live in free market societies believe that growth, prosperity and, ultimately, human fulfilment, are created from the bottom up, not the government down.” That is a quote by the great Ronald Reagan.

After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, it is abundantly clear that it is not worth the cost. Its economic mismanagement, malpractice and neglect on the economy has led to some of the most miserable outcomes for Canadians today. We have a Prime Minister who says that budgets will balance themselves and who does not think about monetary policy and the misery of Canadians. However, that same monetary policy has a cause and effect relationship to the misery of Canadians. It truly shows that the government has absolutely no idea what it is doing today. As a result of the cause and effect, Canadians today are more reliant on the government. Whether or not that is the intention of the NDP-Liberal government, at the end of the day, it is the pain and misery that Canadians are facing that is making what we used to think of as the Canadian dream fade away.

Whether someone's family has been here for generations or someone is working hard to become a Canadian citizen, more and more, it is clear that the same Canadian dream is gone. We see that the government has spent more than every government before it, combined, did, which has led to 40-year highs in inflation and the most rapid interest rate hikes ever seen in Canadian history, while putting Canadians most at risk in the G7 of a mortgage default crisis. The Canadian dream is gone. Everything is up in this country: rents, mortgages, food prices, the debt and taxes. It is sad that the only thing that is truly down right now is the economy. That goes back to the cause and effect of the Liberal-NDP government, which does not think about monetary policy but is the cause of that monetary policy.

Everything feels like it is broken. Canadians who open their fridges and look at their bank accounts are seeing that the government is not only taking more but also leaving them with less and with worse outcomes than ever before. The misery is real. We travel across this country and hear that pain from everybody. When the government is taking more, it means it is taking more from somebody, from Canadians. Their paycheques are shrinking. Throw a job-killing carbon tax scam on top of that. It is not only making food prices go up; it is also taking more away from Canadians, with higher utility bills and higher costs when they fill up their gas tanks and just take care of everyday basic necessities. After eight years of the Liberal-NDP government, the most basic things have become a luxury: heating one's home, filling up with gas and even buying groceries these days. People are cutting back after eight years of the government.

There is a phenomenon that has begun in the middle class. A middle-class family with two income earners is now going to the food bank because they cannot afford to eat, to heat their home and to house themselves. That is the cause and effect of a Prime Minister who does not think about monetary policy.

Housing has doubled; there is double trouble everywhere. The government has doubled the cost of rent and mortgages because of all of its deficit spending and the debt of more than half a trillion dollars, which led to the interest rate hikes to tackle the inflation that was caused by the government. The other side of the equation is housing supply, which has also been affected by mismanagement and all of the government spending. Not only are people not able to get into homes because of low supply, but because of the high interest rates caused by the spending, homebuyers also cannot get into new homes they would like to buy. As well, builders are affected by not being able to build because of the high interest rates. That is why it is double trouble by the double-trouble Liberal-NDP government.

The cost of everything is up; it has exploded. The issue of housing is not being tackled. We are seeing a lot of photo ops. There is a huge fund that the government has put aside for photo ops, but there is nothing concrete to get things built. In fact, the CMHC warns that Canada will see a decline in the number of new homes being built this year. At a time when the government says we have a housing accelerator, it is too bad that everything it is doing is decelerating homes being built in this country. It is decelerating the economy as well. America's productivity, its GDP per capita and its economy itself, is booming. It grew 5.2%. Canada's contracted, and it will stay that way for a very long time. That means investment will not come in to help get homes built. Investment will not come in to create good jobs and more powerful paycheques for our Canadian people. It means that less and less productivity will be happening, which ultimately means that Canadians are getting poorer as the government is getting richer by taxing them more and more.

Anyone renewing their mortgage today knows the pain. It was just a few years ago that the Prime Minister and the finance minister said that Canadians should go out and borrow as much they want because rates would stay low for a very long time. That could have been true, but what people did not expect was for the Liberal-NDP government to dump billions and billions of dollars of fuel on the inflationary fire that the government started, which made interest rates go up because it increased inflation. All that inflationary spending is the misery that mortgage borrowers are seeing today. Rates are up, and now when they go to renew their mortgages, they are renewing at a minimum of double, and sometimes triple, the rate. There is a huge crisis looming if the government does not get its act together and balance the budget.

The dream of home ownership is dead. Nine out of 10 young people are saying the dream is gone and they will never be able to afford a home. Unless someone's parents are rich, or they owned a home, it is impossible for anyone else to own a home today, all because of the government's economic mismanagement. Rents are up, and more people are relying on renting, not being able to afford homes. The rental market is booming but also suffering. Anyone who is renting today has seen their rent doubled. That is after just eight years of the Prime Minister. It took just eight years for all of this misery to come to fruition.

What are the Liberals doing on housing? They have created billions of dollars of photo op funds that they keep re-announcing and recycling, and that is all they have. What they are not doing is taking any meaningful action on it. They have put billions of dollars toward programs, some that have 13 projects. It seems that there are members on the Liberal benches who have probably flipped more homes than they what they have gotten built under some of these programs.

It is time for a common-sense Conservative government. I encourage everyone watching today, and members on the other side, to watch our common-sense leader's common-sense documentary on the housing hell that Canadians are seeing today, and actual solutions for how to get it fixed. There is a common-sense Conservative bill tabled in the House, under our leader, called the “Building homes not bureaucracy” bill. On top of that, I would encourage everyone to take a look at our common-sense Conservative plan that would bring home more powerful paycheques by lowering costs by axing the tax on gas, groceries and home heating. We are going to bring home more powerful paycheques by balancing the budget so we can bring down inflation. That would bring down interest rates and let people stay in their homes. We are going to bring more homes people can afford. Again, I would encourage everyone to watch the documentary. It deserves awards, and it might even get some. Maybe the Liberals could actually learn something and take something away from it.

We are going to bring home safer streets by making sure we focus on jail and not bail for repeat offenders. Instead of taking guns away from lawful gun owners such as hunters, sport shooters and our indigenous communities, we are going to use that money at the border to stop the flow of drugs, illegal guns and crime that are coming in. Most importantly, we are going to bring home freedom once again. Many people who came to this country, like myself, might have left countries where there was not much in the way of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. When they come here, they are asking why they left the country they came from. Under our common-sense Conservative leader, we are going to bring home freedom and make sure we bring home powerful paycheques.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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 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 Sobeys, 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about his leader's bill, Bill C‑356. With that bill, Ottawa would require all municipalities with high housing costs—the list is getting longer and longer—to increase housing starts by 15% over the previous year.

If a municipality's housing starts do not increase as required by Ottawa, the Conservative leader is proposing to cut its gas tax transfer and public transit transfer by 1% for every percentage shortfall from the target he has unilaterally set. For example, in Quebec, housing starts are down 60% this year, mainly due to interest rates, rather than up 15%. That is a difference of 75%, so transfers would be reduced by 75% for cities and towns in Quebec.

In the economic statement, the Minister of Finance said that she wants to do something similar. Could my colleague comment on that?

[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.

National Security Review of Investments Modernization Act

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-34, otherwise known as the national security review of investments modernization act.

With it being so close to Remembrance Day, I too would like to offer my appreciation for all those who have served and continue to serve, and all the families that support them. I would encourage everybody to make sure they attend a ceremony this Saturday to honour and respect veterans for all of the work they have done.

Speaking of our security, the NDP-Liberal coalition has, for far too long, not taken our national security seriously, so it is good to see some efforts being made through the legislation before us. Unfortunately, our reputation on the world stage has taken a beating over the past eight years. We have seen numerous diplomatic debacles over those years, and a Prime Minister who regularly embarrasses Canada on the world stage. It seems that every time I go on social media, another country's news broadcast is mocking the Prime Minister. It is one thing to embarrass oneself with a tickle trunk of outfits to wear to another country or by wearing blackface more times than one can remember, but the Prime Minister has forced our allied nations to lose confidence in us as a partner.

Just this past July, Dan Sullivan, a United States senator from Alaska, called out the Liberal government for consistently failing to meet NATO’s 2% GDP target for defence spending. What is worse is that the Liberals are cutting $1 billion from our defence budget this year. While the American ambassador played it nice a few weeks ago and said he is not yet worried about our failure to meet our NATO targets, we all know and can recognize how our allies feel about Canada these days. If we had been taking our national security seriously, perhaps Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States would not have separated off from the Five Eyes alliance and created their own strategic defence partnership without Canada.

With regular disruptions to our ports and railways, we are losing the perception of us as a reliable trading partner that can deliver the goods we produce here in Canada to market. With a changing climate, our adversaries see the north as an opportunity. They see a wealth of resources and future transportation routes, and we are increasingly unable to protect our own sovereignty in the north. The sad reality is that under the Liberal government, we have become a bit of a laughingstock on the world stage, and it is disappointing to admit that. However, I cannot think of a single nation around the world with which our relationship has improved over the past eight years.

Given all of the failures internationally, one would assume that perhaps we would want to take care of our domestic economic needs here at home, but we have not done that. Although we are taking a good step with this legislation, after eight years, foreign state-owned enterprises, particularly those connected with the Communist regime in China, have heightened their influence in Canada. I will provide a few examples. In 2017, the government allowed Hytera Communications, a firm with ties to China, to acquire B.C.-based satellite communications company Norsat International. In 2020, Nuctech, a company owned by the Chinese government and founded by the son of a former Chinese Communist Party secretary general, won a bid to, get this, provide security equipment to over 170 Canadian embassies around the world. Imagine that. The government was going to entrust the security of Canadians stationed abroad to technologies linked to the Chinese Communist Party.

I know there are a lot of examples like this, but I will end with one more. Just last year, the CBC revealed that in 2017, the CBSA began using radio equipment and technology from Hytera, the company I just referenced. It was quite literally using the technology at our borders while our main ally, the United States, was indicting the company for 21 espionage charges. It banned the company from operating and doing business because it posed an unnecessary risk to national security. At the same time as our border guards were using the equipment, our American counterparts and friends were kicking the company out of their country.

It seems as though often the current government is focused on political interests and not our national interests. We should not be surprised. We all remember when the Prime Minister alluded to his level of admiration for China's basic dictatorship. It is perhaps why the Liberals have given China so many passes and why they have allowed Chinese-linked companies and agencies to infiltrate our university campuses, co-opt our research and take our technologies that innovative Canadians, innovative students and innovative companies in Canada have been spearheading.

We could talk about all these failures all day, but I want to address specifically some pieces of Bill C-34. I was pleasantly surprised that the Liberals brought the legislation forward, because it is an important idea to try to always enhance our national security, particularly as things evolve and our competitors become our allies and our allies become our enemies in the global world.

The goal in the legislation of amending the Investment Canada Act to protect our national security is not a bad one at all, but I really thought that for once, the Liberals had come up with their own idea. However, looking back to our 2021 platform, I noticed we had pledged to do the same thing: “Canada's Conservatives will: Protect Canadian intellectual property with a strengthened Investment Canada Act”. As the old proverb goes, imitation is the highest form of flattery, and there has been a lot of mimicking going on lately. My first speech in the House was just last month, about the affordable housing and groceries act, which was plagiarism, effectively, of two Conservative bills, Bill C-356 and Bill C-339. Of course we also saw, just last week, a climb-down on the carbon tax for home heating for some Canadians in some parts of the country.

Not all mimicking is bad, but at the end of the day, as my fellow Manitoban colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman said, “The Liberals are tired, they are weary and they do not have anything else to bring forward”. This seems to be the case. While I would prefer an election so we can put forward a strong platform that will include enhancements to the Investment Canada Act, among many other things, I do hope the current Liberal-NDP coalition keeps copying a few of our ideas. It can start with axing the carbon tax in its entirety, but I am not going to hold out a lot of hope.

Overall, Bill C-34 needs to go further. It does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians. By and large, the largest threat we have to investments here in critical services is by state-owned or state-connected enterprises from authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. Canadians are rightly concerned about this problem. Foreign direct investment is a good thing. We should want to draw investment dollars into our communities. However, we should also want to maintain our sovereignty and our national interests. The reality is that we have become a place where people do not want to do business. Investments in our natural resource sectors, among many others, are flooding out. Our counterpart, the United States, which does not have a carbon tax, is more appealing to do business with. Companies would rather go just south of the border, south of my riding, and set up business there.

The bill does not include the ability for the government to create a list of authoritarian countries that are prohibited from owning Canadian companies or assets, which I think it should do. The Conservative team, at the committee stage, did a great job of bringing forward common-sense recommendations for changes to the legislation. Not as many were adopted as should have been, but Conservatives did work hard to fix some of the flaws.

One last issue that is becoming increasingly important and visible, particularly in my area in the Prairies, is the increased buying of farmland by Chinese-linked companies and organizations. Not only does this threaten our long-term food security but it also significantly increases prices for young farmers who are trying to enter an already very difficult industry to get into. It is important that we enable the Investment Canada Act to be broad enough and flexible enough to have cabinet be able to make important decisions on whether a takeover or change in ownership is in the best interest of Canadians. This seems like common sense to me. We know it is something only Conservatives can provide.