Bill C-56

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act

Part 1 amends the Excise Tax Act in order to implement a temporary enhancement to the GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing.
Part 2 amends the Competition Act to, among other things,
(a) establish a framework for an inquiry to be conducted into the state of competition in a market or industry;
(b) permit the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders even if none of the parties to an agreement or arrangement — a significant purpose of which is to prevent or lessen competition in any market — are competitors; and
(c) repeal the exceptions in sections 90.1 and 96 of the Act involving efficiency gains.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will let the member from the Calgary area know I do support our leader on this, because, and I will just repeat it again, it is the building homes not bureaucracy act. It is about getting houses built, not more red tape. It is about making sure we are able to provide more opportunity for young Canadians to actually get into a house of their own, and if they cannot, then let us make sure there is more housing stock out there.

My daughter lives in Calgary, by the way, and luckily they are homeowners, but it is getting more and more expensive for them as well. The question becomes whether the City of Calgary will be willing to work with our federal Conservative Party, when we become government, to make sure we are taking away all of the restrictions and all of the NIMBYs blocking the development of land in Calgary and we are creating more homes and more opportunities for people in Calgary to own their own homes.

If the City of Calgary has some great ideas, we are more than happy to work with it and provide it more infrastructure dollars to ensure that there is that opportunity to build more homes, to build more developments, and at the end of the day everyone is better off.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been calling for a reform of the Competition Bureau system for 20 years or so. For years, we have been asking that the Competition Bureau have the authority to prevent mergers and acquisitions regardless of any efficiency gains they might generate if, at the end of the day, it means higher prices for consumers. That is what happened in the case of grocery stores. Mergers and acquisitions took place. This made them more efficient, but it also enabled them to drive up prices. This measure is specifically covered in in Bill C-56.

I would like to know whether my colleague thinks that this Competition Bureau reform is a good thing for consumers.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, every time we can give more power to the Competition Bureau to actually do its job and create more competition in the marketplace, consumers win. The rules around the efficiencies defence have to be addressed. Efficiencies usually mean fewer jobs, and we know efficiencies that have been applied in the past have meant we have had more concentration of the market and fewer and fewer players, and that has not helped the consumer.

Although there is all this talk about the affordable housing and groceries act, the change that is suggested here, as it was by the member for Bay of Quinte, addresses the entire Competition Act. It goes beyond food production as well as grocers and it talks about every part of the industry so we can have this opportunity to apply a new lens when we are looking at acquisitions and mergers.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, in the member's intervention today, he spoke a lot about how seniors are impacted. I 100% agree with him. I spoke to one of my constituents, Laura, who is really struggling to make ends meet.

Would the member not agree that increasing OAS for seniors across the country, making sure that seniors 65 to 75 get the same amount as seniors over 75 and making sure that, particularly in Alberta, the CPP is protected for seniors are very important things? Would he support our calls for an increase to OAS so that 65-year-old seniors get the same treatment as those who are older, and for CPP to remain in seniors' hands?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I too hear from my constituents all the time, from seniors, that a disparity has been created by the Liberals between those who are 65 to 75 and those 75 and over in the amount of money they receive through their pensions. That does need to be rectified.

I forgot to mention that one of the seniors from my riding, Bill from Beausejour, wrote to me that the big bonuses given out by the Liberals to Bank of Canada executives and CMHC executives appear to be very plainly a slap in the face to Canadians struggling to house their families.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this House to debate Bill C-56. Perhaps I will start with my conclusion: I intend to support the bill, and I encourage all members in this House to do the same.

Bill C-56 is about making life more affordable. It is the affordable housing and groceries act, and of course, given the nature of my position as the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, I will focus more on the aspect that will lead to more home construction across Canada to help address the supply gap that is contributing to the relative lack of affordability that we are dealing with.

I think it is important to acknowledge that Canada is experiencing a housing crisis. In order to restore affordability, we need to build homes and we need to build them by the millions. This is going to require us to pull every lever at our disposal to get Canada building at a rate that it has never built before. However, if we are going to succeed, we have to understand the nature of the obstacles that stand in our way and introduce specific policies that are designed to overcome those challenges.

Over the course of my remarks, I hope to identify the scale of the challenge we are facing, highlight the problems that we need to overcome and demonstrate some of the solutions that are starting to have a positive impact today. I do not mean to suggest that the job is done; we have a long way to go. However, I am very optimistic in light of the response from the home building sector to some of the policies we have put forward indicating that they are having the desired impact.

There are currently about 16.5 million homes in this country. We are on pace to building a few million more over the next number of years, but we have to increase the pace of building significantly if we are going to restore the level of affordability that existed in Canada just 20 years ago.

The reality is that the impact can be felt not only in the statistics outlined in CMHC's reporting, but in the lives of ordinary people who are struggling with the cost of living. The experiences that I hear about include too many young people who are trying to get ahead in life and trying to get their first job in a community they want to live in, but nevertheless find themselves in a position where they simply cannot afford a place to live. Too many people do not have that option. Even young professionals in a two-income household are sometimes unable to find a place to live in the community where they found meaningful work, one they can afford given their rate of pay.

When I talk to students from across the country, they tell me that it is very difficult to find a place to live in a college town that is safe, affordable and near the place they go to school. I have had too many conversations with young people studying on college and university campuses across this country who have told me that they are now sometimes living an hour commute away from their studies. At a time in their lives when they should be focusing on learning and developing skills that will contribute to their well-being, knowledge base and employability, they are focused on figuring out how they can get to class.

There is an opportunity for us, if we continue to engage with the people who are feeling the brunt of the housing crisis, to learn from them the solutions that will allow them to find the kind of place they want to live in.

When I talk to seniors who live in our communities, they want nothing more, as they downsize from the family home where they raised their kids, to find a place that is more manageable for them in the same community where their grandkids are being raised. I do not think that is too much to ask, and we need to realize that the importance to a person's life cannot be overstated when we are dealing with the place they call home.

I have talked to people who have a job that helps them get by in this country, and they tell me that, despite having a respectable income, they cannot find a place to live anywhere close to the place where they work. We need to make sure that we address the needs of workers in this country by working to ensure not only that their wages go a little further and they have a home they can afford, but that they have the kind of home they can raise their family in, with access to the services their family relies on and employment opportunities in their community.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not also draw attention to the serious challenges facing Canadians who do not have a place to live at all, people who do not have housing security and people who are sleeping rough. We need to continue to do more to support some of Canada's most vulnerable people.

There are a number of challenges that we need to overcome. Primarily, I want to focus today on the need to change the financial equation that home builders are dealing with as they make an assessment as to whether they should green-light a project or let it sit on the shelf. As a result of the recent increases in the cost of supplies and materials, the cost of labour and the cost of land, and of course as a result of rising interest rates from global inflation, too many builders have projects sitting on the shelf that have been approved and could go ahead if the economics of the projects worked.

This is where the GST measure we have advanced through Bill C-56 comes in, and we are seeking support for it from members of Parliament. If we remove the tax on constructing new apartments in this country, we are going to see more apartments go up.

When we made the announcement that we would reduce the GST on new home construction among rentals across Canada, we saw certain provincial governments step up and say they would do the same. I want to thank in particular British Columbia, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador and my home province of Nova Scotia. We are starting to see movement to different degrees in other provinces as well. In some instances, this has reduced costs by 15% overnight when looking at the combined impact of the federal and provincial measures.

What we have seen as a result is that developers are publicly stating they are moving forward with projects that will provide homes for thousands of Canadians that otherwise would not have gone ahead. In particular, I point to Dream Unlimited Corporation's plans to advance several different projects in Ottawa, Saskatoon and Toronto that are going to lead to 5,000 homes being built. I look at Fitzrovia, which announced that it would be moving forward with developments totalling 3,000 homes. I look at Tricon's announcement after the GST measures were revealed. It announced it would move forward with 1,000 new homes.

The reality is that there are many examples of projects, as I have heard from different colleagues and from the home building sector, in every part of this country that are now going ahead that otherwise would have just stayed on the shelf. This policy is having the desired impact, and I am looking forward to seeing many, many thousands of homes be constructed as a result. That is why I am supporting Bill C-56. It would allow the private sector to justify going ahead with the construction of thousands of homes.

However, we know there are many other areas where we need to continue to advance policies if we are going to overcome the challenges facing home builders, communities and people who have housing needs. We need to fundamentally change the way that cities allow homes to be built or sometimes do not allow homes to be built in this country. We need to encourage cities to legalize housing. In too many communities across this country, it is literally illegal, as a result of municipal bylaws, to build the kinds of homes that people need if they are going to live and thrive in our communities.

Members may have seen that over the course of the last few months, I have been engaging directly with municipal councils and mayors, encouraging them to change their laws so they can permit more housing to be built, can speed up the process of permitting those homes and can make the kinds of investments that will lead to more density in downtown cores, more homes near transit stations so people can access the services or employment opportunities they need and more homes near college and university campuses so students have a place to live as they undertake their studies.

I cannot say how excited I am about the early signs of success with the housing accelerator fund. We have seen a positive announcement by the City of London, which is going to be increasing its ambition as a result of its access to the fund. We saw today the City of Vaughan announce that as a result of a $59-million investment, it will be able to add, over the next 10 years, 44,000 homes to that city.

We are going to continue to do more to get low-cost financing on the table by increasing the valuation of the Canada mortgage bond program, which is going to add 30,000 homes a year. There are a number of other measures we need to address, but if we change the equation for builders, change the way that cities build homes and continue to make the kinds of investments we have been making since 2017 under the national housing strategy, we have an opportunity to make massive progress in the attempt to address Canada's national housing crisis.

I would be happy to address any further issues, if members in this House wish.

Let me conclude with a final thought. It is not enough for different parties in this House to throw ideas at the wall, as some have done. We need to address the very specific problems that have given rise to Canada's national housing crisis. By having a thoughtful policy approach and by advancing measures like the removal of GST on new rental construction across Canada, we can change the way that homes are built in this country, increase the pace at which they are built and put an end to Canada's national housing crisis. We can do this by having the private sector and governments co-operate to build homes that Canadians can actually afford.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister gave a great speech.

You touched on a lot of important subjects, after being been in power for the last eight years. I just want to go over these different subjects. You talked about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address questions and comments through the Chair.

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

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about a lot of subjects that are near and dear to my heart as well.

He talked about students. They do not have anywhere to go when they go to school, and now they have to take transport for over an hour. I heard, at the science committee, that some science students are sleeping in bus shelters just to be able to go to school during the week, and then they go back home and try to get some sleep. That is one thing. The Liberals have had eight years to fix that.

I have heard that many seniors are not able to afford a place to move into. Sure, they can go ahead and sell their home, but they cannot even downsize because there is absolutely no supply. It is good the minister is talking about seniors and does recognize there is a problem. It is very critical, though. These people are in their senior years. Time is ticking, and the government does not have time to address these things.

With respect to young workers and young families, he is talking about a 10-year horizon. The children will be off to university by then and they will still be sleeping in shelters. The Liberals have had eight years to fix this and they have not done a thing. He is still talking about another eight years.

Of course, my biggest question is about the GST exemption. How are builders going to be passing on the savings from the GST that they are getting? Is it—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member has taken quite a bit of time. I want to remind members to keep their question to a minute.

The hon. minister.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, regarding the concern around students who have inadequate or no housing options, I think we have to recognize that everyone should be advocating for more support for people who have inadequate housing options, students or otherwise. I am very proud that the government has doubled the investments in the Reaching Home program to address homelessness, and that we are going to continue to do more, as I outlined in my remarks, to build more stock that will help address the student housing challenges more broadly.

When it comes to seniors, I think we are aligned in our identification of the problem. Where we differ is that the policies we have advanced would actually yield a higher number of homes than the plan the Conservatives have put forward.

With respect to the GST, the most important point in my remarks is that we have to address very specific problems. The GST measure we put in place is designed not only to pass on savings to renters but also to build more supply, which, over time, will bring the rate down as more stock becomes available. I am happy to elaborate in future answers, given that I have run out of time.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑56, but, as it has said, we need to go much further than the bill does.

Currently, when the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, manages a parcel of land, it must sell it at the going market price. To my understanding, the minister has the power to authorize the CMHC to give away the land or sell it at a lower price. Can the minister confirm that he has that power? Currently, there is a situation in Joliette for a social housing project on an enclosed parcel of land. The municipal assessment is not so bad, but the market value is $1 million and the project is blocked because of that.

Does the minister have the power to authorize the CMHC to sell the land at a lower price or give it away? Ultimately, that would free up social housing projects in Quebec.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Central Nova, NS]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to thank my colleague for giving me the opportunity to discuss this very important issue and to practise my French. When I started my work on the Standing Committee on Finance, I did not speak French, but the member was supportive of my efforts.

I do not know the details of the situation in Joliette, but I will make an effort for my colleague. We can always work to find possible solutions for his community. Generally speaking, CMHC programs can be flexible. I will continue to work with my colleague. I also thank him for the Bloc's support for this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an incredible honour to rise for the first time in debate in the House of Commons since being elected this summer.

While I will certainly get to the substance of Bill C-56, I would first like to take a few moments to express my appreciation to the residents of Portage—Lisgar for placing their trust in me to be their representative in Ottawa. It is a great responsibility to be their voice and I am humbled by the support they have shown me. I, of course, have some very big shoes to fill in succeeding the Hon. Candice Bergen. I appreciate her friendship and her mentorship over the years, and I will do my best to follow in her footsteps in fighting for our riding and our rural way of life.

I need to thank my wife, Cailey, for her unwavering support, her patience and her love. The life we have entered together is not an easy one, as all my colleagues know, but I am lucky to have her by my side. I would also like to thank my parents, Jim and Shauna-Lei Leslie, for their guidance, their encouragement and their unconditional love.

I need to thank many friends and neighbours who supported me in the nomination and in the by-election. I wish I could name them all, but I have only 10 minutes here today. To all those who played a role, big or small, in helping me over the past six months and throughout my entire life, I want them to please know how much I appreciated their help in becoming their member of Parliament. Together we have proven that when individuals come together with a shared vision, unwavering determination and a commitment to change, we can achieve the seemingly impossible.

The chamber is made up of people from diverse regions, experiences and backgrounds, each working to represent their community and our country. As I said many times during the campaign, I am just a farm kid from Portage. I say “just” because far too often, that is what I would hear folks say, folks like my dad and many others who, when asked what they do, say, “I'm just a farmer.” Farmers are so much more than that and should give themselves credit, as should all Canadians. Farmers produce the high-quality, nutritious food that feeds Canadians and people all around the world. They quite literally bet the farm, every single year, while facing countless factors outside of their control and, currently, a government that is making their job harder. They provide for their families. They help their neighbours and they support their communities.

It is not just farmers who fall into this “just” trap. It is not “just a plumber”. I am not “just a construction worker”, “just a welder” or “just a teacher”. People are more than just that. People are the foundation of our country and are our future. People work hard. People play by the rules, give back to their communities and support their families. They should be proud of it.

In the case of my riding, families choose to live a rural way of life. We live with and appreciate nature. We hunt, fish, sled and quad. We know our neighbours because, during a Manitoba blizzard, even a truck can get stuck in the middle of a gravel road on a windy night, and we might need a helping hand. It is also because we want to know our neighbours. We support our churches, our local businesses, our sports teams and our charities. I am proud of my family, my community and my country. I will be a steadfast advocate for our riding, our province and our way of life.

Today, that starts with speaking to Bill C-56. This bill claims to address two very pressing issues: affordable housing and access to affordable groceries. I can tell members, after knocking on thousands of doors throughout the campaign this summer, that these are two issues that were front and centre at the doorsteps.

In the first six years of the Liberal government, housing prices went up 43% in Manitoba, and it has only gotten worse in the last two years. I cannot tell members how heartbreaking it is to walk up to knock on a door and see a family loading up their half-ton truck with a couch in the back, or they open the door and there are some boxes behind them. These people are moving out of their homes because they can no longer afford their mortgage. Worse, they are moving and paying almost as much in rent for much smaller accommodations elsewhere. Countless people, moms and dads, told me they were being forced to stop buying healthy food for their kids because they just cannot afford it and because Kraft Dinner is cheaper. That is not the Canada that I want to be fighting for. People expect government to improve their life, or at least just stay out of it. Instead, after eight years of the Liberal government, they can barely afford to live any more. It is hard to express just how fed up and frustrated people are at the doorsteps.

I found it funny that yesterday, during question period, the Prime Minister confidently stated that he had been speaking with rural Canadians this past summer and that they supported his carbon tax. It was such an absurd statement that I could only shake my head in disbelief, because I can confidently say that my constituents want to scrap the carbon tax. If the Prime Minister had spent time talking to any everyday people in my riding during the by-election, he would have heard that message loud and clear. The common sense of the common people recognizes a tax when it sees it. They know that this costly Liberal-NDP coalition is driving up the cost of everything. It is time to axe the tax.

Recently, the Liberals did begin recognizing that reducing taxes does spur economic growth, and Bill C-56 seeks to remove the GST on new rental housing construction across the country. I am glad to see the Liberals are starting to come around to Conservative ideas. Just a day before the Minister of Finance announced the legislation, our leader introduced Bill C-356, the building homes not bureaucracy act. Its goal is simple: to make life more affordable for Canadians. Bill C-356 would provide a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental properties for which the average rent payable is below market rate. We can talk about actually trying to accomplish affordable housing, but I do suppose that imitation is the highest form of flattery.

However, our leader's legislation would do much more. It would eliminate CMHC executive bonuses if housing targets are not met, and reduce their compensation if funding for new construction is not completed within 60 days. It would create a home completion target and give bonuses to cities that increase the number of new builds completed. It would utilize incentives to build things again in this country and not build bureaucracy. It has to be about results. It is about putting forward policies that get homes built in this country, and it is high time we had a government that focused on outcomes, not process.

Speaking of that, the second component of Bill C-56 is a prime example of process. The Prime Minister promised Canadians that he would somehow magically lower grocery prices by Thanksgiving, and I guess we can chalk that up as another broken promise on the long tally. Canadians are not holding out hope that, by allowing his bloated bureaucracy to conduct another lengthy study, their grocery bills will start to go down any time soon. When we tax the farmer who produces the food, the manufacturer who processes the food, the trucker who ships the food and the grocer who sells the food, how on earth can we honestly expect prices not to go up?

However, there is an easy solution. We can axe the tax. Instead, we have a tired Liberal government touting the legislation before us as a saving grace for Canadians who cannot afford to live anymore. Copying ideas from our Conservative leader is a good start, but the reality is that there is still much more to do.

The Liberal government's inflationary spending has driven up prices, inflation and interest rates, and it has worsened the lives of so many families, seniors and small business owners. While the Liberals will blame international factors for the current mess we find ourselves in, they cannot bring themselves to take any responsibility for their inflationary deficits that have only poured more fuel on the fire. Even Bill Morneau, the former Liberal finance minister, has admitted that fact, and the government has dramatically grown the bureaucracy and created more red tape. It is abundantly clear that more process does not deliver better outcomes. Instead, the Liberals have frustrated businesses, added costs and headaches for municipalities and not-for-profits that are applying for funding, ignored the priorities of stakeholder groups and provided worse service to Canadians.

After eight long years, the Liberal government has run out of ideas. Everything in Canada feels broken, and we know exactly how we got here. It is time for a new Conservative government to come in and fix it. It is time to bring homes that people can afford. It is time to bring home powerful paycheques and lower prices for food, fuel and home heating. It is time to bring home prosperity for Canadians. Let us bring it home.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate sincerely the hon. member on his election to the House.

When I listened to his description of the Conservatives' housing plan, it was clear that he has been reading a different document than I have. When I reviewed their plan, it was the most bizarre series of suggestions. It would literally raise taxes on home builders and cut funding for homebuilding. If the member is concerned about bureaucracy, the Conservatives are proposing a Kafkaesque, Byzantine process to identify which homes would qualify. They would cut out middle-class homes from their GST relief, and they were talking about hiring bureaucrats to run a snitch line on people who have Nimbyist attitudes, which is not defined anywhere in their plan.

My question to the hon. member is this: Why is he supporting a plan that would raise taxes on homebuilding, cut funding for homebuilding and actually, according to finance officials at committee the other day, result in fewer homes being constructed than we were already on pace to build?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague across the way for the kind wishes.

In 1972, we built more homes than we did last year. That is the record. That is what we are dealing with.

We may be reading different documents, but I am very confident with the plan that our leader has put forward. It is a plan you thought was so good that you would snatch parts of it to put in your own announcement. I do not think we need to take any lessons from the option across the way on how to get homes built in this country.

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

While it is great to see new colleagues in the House of Commons, I would ask that they make sure their questions go through the Chair and not directly to members on the opposite side. The word “you” is always used very sparingly in this chamber.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his first speech in the House. I have a very specific question for him. I hope he will be the type of colleague who answers questions in specific detail. That would be helpful.

The government is announcing a housing measure that consists of removing the GST on construction without any guarantee that it will be used for social or affordable housing. We are currently fighting to get the federal government to release the $900 million owed to Quebec, but the federal government stubbornly insists on imposing conditions on that money, even though housing is not within its jurisdiction.

Does my colleague agree with the Bloc Québécois position that the federal government should transfer this money as quickly as possible so that we can finally have social housing back home?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the well wishes.

The challenge with the question is that it is, of course, best aimed at the government, but the reality is that the government has set up such poor relationships with our provincial leaders across the country that it comes as no surprise that there are ongoing battles over these sorts of challenges.

The challenge here is to ask what affordable housing is. I think we need to undertake our very best efforts to make sure we are providing all types of new housing builds to make sure that those who are currently homeless or living in housing poverty are able to upgrade their way of life. The easiest way we could do that is by lowering the cost of living for all them, allowing them to keep more of the money that they earn and take home more powerful paycheques so that they can live the high quality of life that all Canadians deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me welcome the member for Portage—Lisgar to the House. I also offer my sincere congratulations to him on the election of an NDP government in the wonderful province of Manitoba.

The member talked about the carbon tax a lot. We are very familiar with this at the agriculture committee. He knows as well as I do that there are exemptions in the existing act. He also knows that there is room for improvement, which is why I voted for Bill C-234.

However, what I never hear Conservatives talk about is that, over the last three years, we have seen the oil and gas industry increase their profit margin by over 1,000%. Why do Conservatives never talk about the gross profiteering of the oil and gas companies off the backs of working families right across this country from coast to coast to coast?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his sincere words. In a past life, I had the pleasure of working with him, and I look forward to working collaboratively with him here.

The legislation the member mentioned is an important piece. There are currently exemptions, but so many costs are passed on to the farmers, who are at the bottom of the totem pole when it comes to this. I appreciate his support for Bill C-234, and I would encourage my hon. colleagues in the other place to quickly pass that legislation to expand the carbon tax exemption for farmers across Canada.

The last thing I will point out is that profits are not a bad thing. I think wealth creation is a good thing, and given that we are invested heavily in all of our pensions, we should want Canadian companies to succeed.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak on behalf of the folks from Kitchener Centre with respect to Bill C-56, the signature measure of which would involve removing the GST from rental home construction.

I will start by saying very clearly that I certainly support this bill, as does my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands. It is an important and good measure. However, it is not nearly the kind of ambition we need to meet the moment we are in, and that is a very deep and protracted housing crisis.

Specifically, in my community, in the last three years alone, the number of people living unsheltered has more than tripled to over 1,000 people. Let us compare home prices. In our community, back in 2005, the average house price was around three times the average person's income. Today, it is over eight times. House prices have gone up 275% and wages have gone up 42%. It is pretty clear that wages are not keeping up.

We are also losing 15 units of affordable housing to rent evictions and the financialization of our housing for every one new affordable unit getting built. What that looks like, day to day, is that the shelter system in my community is overflowing. The week before we returned here, I showed up to a community meeting at an apartment building in downtown Kitchener. More than 40 people showed up on that night, invited by their councillor. I was there, as was bylaw enforcement.

We heard from folks there about the living conditions in their building, everything from cockroaches to bedbugs. The residents of that building were clear in telling us that they knew they did not have any other options. There was no recourse. There are insufficient recourses. We could talk about the Landlord and Tenant Board and the backlog there. However, the fact is that, because we have not building the kind of social housing we need in this country, people are left with no other options.

As I have heard from other colleagues here, I could talk about what I heard when I was knocking on doors this past summer. I spoke with a young man who is engaged. He is working in the trades, living at his parents' house. His fiancé is a teacher, and she is doing the same. They do not know when they will ever be able to afford a place of their own.

To help restore affordability, CMHC is telling us that we need to build 3.5 million more units than planned by 2030. If we are going to do that, we need to be looking at two sides of this. The first is significant transformational investments in housing. This has been done in this country before. Back in the 1970s, 40% of all building starts across the country had federal assistance. That went down to 8% by the 1980s, and today, no surprise, if we look at the total stock of social housing across the country, we are way at the back of the G7 at 3.5%.

Even a call as bold as saying, “Let us double the social housing stock” would only get us to 7%, which is only the middle of the peer average amongst G7 countries. To do that, though, we need to get serious about having CMHC get back into building housing the way that it used to. Many colleagues have been talking about an acquisition fund, which non-profits across the country have been calling for, a fund that would allow non-profits across the country to preserve what are currently affordable units to avoid losing them to the financialization of housing, and in so doing ensure that those might remain affordable over the long term.

In my community, for example, I spoke with a leader from a local non-profit organization. She was able to share with me, and sent me afterwards, 12 different properties that they have already identified. Should an acquisition fund, such as the one being called for by ACORN Canada and many others, be made available, they would be so keen to jump in and preserve those units. This is an organization that has operated in my community for decades, focused on ensuring that we preserve affordable housing, and it is ready to go. However, they are going to need the federal government to step in and ensure that the funds are there to help them preserve those units.

We could also talk about, for example, investments in the rapid housing initiative. It is a fantastic program. It is not that the government is not doing anything. The issue is that it was in budget 2022, and we have not heard anything since about the next round of rapid housing. We need to see sustained, permanent, ongoing funds that organizations across the country can count on.

It is the same when it comes to co-op housing. I was one of the first to cheer when we saw $1.5 billion of new money invested in co-op housing in budget 2022. Unfortunately, none of those dollars have actually rolled out yet to build co-op housing. We need to see that money get spent, but we also need to see ongoing, year-over-year investments so that we can get back to where we used to be before the early 1990s, when we saw federal and provincial governments pull out of the really critical role they have to play in building affordable housing.

This crisis did not happen overnight. It is decades in the making. I appreciate how clearly the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities has articulated that. He said very clearly multiple times that multiple parties at the federal level have led to this housing crisis. If that is his admission, we are going to need to see investments today reflect the reality of the crisis we are in.

The second thing we need is to be honest that homes should be places for people to live. They should not be commodities for investors to trade. That is what is different between folks who are looking to rent and buy homes today versus my parents in the 1980s. When they were looking to buy a home, they were competing with other people. Today, people in my community are competing with massive corporations, and that has been incentivized.

As members may know, I have spoken many times in this place about one example that I see as a bit of a litmus test. If we were honest about addressing the financialization of housing, we would not have tax exemptions for the largest corporate landlords in the country, but that is exactly what we have. Real estate investment trusts have almost exclusively been buying existing units, the reason being that it is more profitable for them to do so. One of the CEOs of these real estate investment trusts was in the news this past summer for saying exactly that, that it primarily buys existing units to get the best return possible. Why are they are tax exempt? What is the social value of that exemption?

If the government were serious about addressing the financialization of housing, why not take what the PBO has now told us and spend $300 million over the next five years? It is not going to solve the housing crisis, but it is pretty clear that, if we are going to address financialization, we would start by removing the incentives that corporate landlords are currently benefiting from, which only accelerate the financialization of housing. We would obviously move into things like ending the blind bidding process and increasing vacancy taxes. Right now, it is a 1% vacancy tax, which likely is not going to really influence the behaviour of a large corporate investor in the housing market. If we were to increase that, it might change. We also need to move towards more meaningful protections for tenants. If we are going to build this volume of housing, we need to also be doing it with the climate in mind.

We will continue to advocate for the federal government, when it is looking at the new building code in 2025, as I know it is, to accelerate that building code to ensure that provinces and territories can follow the federal government's lead in bringing more resiliency into the code and ensure we are building the kind of housing that is resilient to the climate crisis we are already in the midst of.

As I shared earlier, I am happy to support Bill C-56. I am glad to see this measure moving ahead, and I am looking forward to seeing the federal government step up far more quickly when it comes to addressing the housing crisis we are in.

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

Mr. Speaker, a great deal of emphasis in the member's comments was on housing. This is the first time in generations, since 1993, which was when there were constitutional changes to the Charlottetown accord, and all political parties, with the exception of the Greens, wanted the provinces to play a role and marginalize Ottawa. Since 2016, when we first came to office, this government has invested hundreds of millions to billions of dollars into a housing strategy, support for non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity and the expansion of housing co-ops. Local and provincial governments want to co-operate in investing in non-profit housing.

My question to the member is fairly straightforward. Would he not acknowledge that Ottawa plays a very important role, but it is going to take a lot more than Ottawa alone to resolve the problem? Does he agree that we need municipalities, non-profit groups, many different stakeholders and the provinces to all get on board so we can tackle this issue in Canada today.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will agree with the member for Winnipeg North on this point any day of the week: We need all levels of government to step up.

However, we also need to be honest. With respect to the investment the member mentioned for co-op housing, which is one that I mentioned in my speech, I am really glad. The fact is that there were zero dollars for co-op housing in budget 2023. In fact, it was not just co-op housing; there were zero new dollars for housing at all in budget 2023 if not for one line item on indigenous housing that is not going to be starting for a few years still. No level of government can take a year off from funding housing. If the Region of Waterloo did the same, it would have people lining up outside the doors. The federal government cannot either.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member from the governing party just reminded us that the government has reinvested in housing. However, the federal government prefers the concept of affordable housing over that of social housing, which includes co-operatives. For us, the concept of affordable housing is vague, which means that the money earmarked for it is often not used to build affordable housing.

Would my hon. colleague care to comment?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Joliette for his question, which is so important.

The definition of affordable housing differs from one government program to the next. If one definition of affordable housing applies to just 80% of the market, we are not really talking about affordable housing. We therefore need to push the government to establish a definition of affordable housing that is truly affordable.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard the hon. member speak about the housing crisis. I would like to suggest that what we have is a crisis of capitalism. We have the commodification of people's very existence, identified in the real estate investment trust that the member has highlighted. We have Vanguard, BlackRock and others. In my community, we have nine apartment buildings that are facing renovictions and demovictions.

To the people who are going to be meeting in Hamilton in about an hour, from those nine apartment buildings, what do you have to say about the crisis of capitalism and the impacts it has on housing?

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

I have nothing to say as the Chair occupant.

The hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that housing is a human right and it deserves to be more than a preamble in a bill. It needs to be enshrined in legislation.

The House resumed from October 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to say that I am sharing my time with the hon. member for Don Valley East.

We are here today to talk about Bill C-56. This bill, unfortunately, has been delayed by the Conservatives, time after time. We have seen their obstructionist policies throughout this Parliament, but specifically on this bill, which would bring relief to Canadians.

It is interesting to watch. I have been sitting here for a while, listening to speeches. The argument from the Conservatives is that they did not have enough time to debate this piece of legislation. At the same time, when they have gotten up, none of the members have actually talked about the legislation. They have not talked about what is going on. They talk about the carbon tax or whatever else it is they are interested in, except what is going in the bill. It is fascinating.

It is a sign of a sure filibuster that the Conservatives do not want to talk about this, because they know it is beneficial and it would help Canadians. They know it would get housing built, especially in eliminating the GST on purpose-built rentals. We are already seeing the benefits. We are already seeing developers across Canada switching their construction to purpose-built rentals, because they know this is coming. We need to build more housing in this country.

There is this mythical 45 minutes a day during question period when the Conservatives pretend to care about getting housing built and the concerns of Canadians. They churn out slogans and repeat them, repeat them, repeat them, repeat them. Did I do that four times?

Clearly, as they are shouting at me about the carbon tax again, the only environmental plan the Conservatives have is recycling slogans. They are so obsessed with it that they would vote against Ukraine in a time of war, even though Ukraine already has a price on pollution. The Conservatives would abandon Ukraine during war, when Ukraine asked us to pass that legislation.

The Conservatives are yelling about a price on pollution. They are clearly eager about that. It is getting under their skin, because they are hearing from their constituents, who expected the Conservative Party to stand up for the Ukrainian people. They are yelling. They cannot handle it. They cannot take the heat on this file.

The hon. member from Newfoundland cannot handle it, that his constituents expect him to stand up for—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order, order. We just had a great vote, and everything went really well, I thought. Let us continue that collegiality on this.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since this is time allocated, I am happy to be up here as long as they want me to be, through points of order. I am happy to be here until 11 o'clock or whenever the next series of votes happens.

The hon. member from Newfoundland, from the Conservative Party, was and still is yelling at the top of his lungs. I guess it is his first day here. He does not know that it is not his turn. He is from the island of Newfoundland. He is from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador—

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

When it is time for questions and comments, I will put the hon. member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame up first. I will make sure he gets an opportunity to ask the hon. member a question.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to be clear, I am sure the member for Avalon will back me up on this. It is the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I believe the hon. member is from the Island of Newfoundland proper. I am sure he will yell out something a little later.

Clearly, the embarrassment is real for what the Conservatives have done and how they have betrayed Ukraine. It is absolutely shameful.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

That is a good point from my colleague, Mr. Speaker, that MAGA politics are making their way into the Conservative Party. It is an embarrassment.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to all the comments. I was going to move on, but it is clear that the Conservative Party is getting upset any time we mention Ukraine. We cannot mention Ukraine, because they are going to get—

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

We have a point of order from the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a rule in the House that we address the matter at hand, which is the bill up for debate. I would ask you to bring this member to order. We have had enough of this nonsense. He is spreading misinformation, which is not unlike what we see coming out of the Kremlin. I would like him to bring it back to the matter at hand.

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

We should all try to stick to the bill we are debating. We are later in the day than normal, so maybe people are getting tired.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are not allowed, according to the government's Speaker in the chair, to do something indirectly that we cannot do directly. This has happened over and over today, and now this speaker is challenging my Canadian-Ukrainian heritage on this side of the floor, as though somehow, because I made a choice in the House to vote a different way than he did, he has the right to stand here to challenge—

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Speak through the Speaker and not to me.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

I said “he”.

Mr. Speaker, he is challenging my heritage. My grandfather came to this country just before the Holodomor took place. I would encourage him to get off of his rant—

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

I want to shut this down as soon as I possibly can because I want to get on with the orders of the day.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I listened very attentively, and there was no challenge to the member's heritage. There was a challenge of her vote, and that is something that she—

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

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

I will say that members should be judicious in their discussions here tonight and stick to the debate on Bill C-56 as it is before us. If there were fewer attempts to create a diversion in the House, that would be wonderful.

The hon. member for St. Catharines.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny because I have been sitting here all afternoon and not one Conservative member has actually talked about what is in the bill. Not one of them has, yet any point—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am responding to their heckles, and the hon. member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner is screaming at the top of his lungs because he does not want me to—

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is a common practice of the House to allow members to withdraw a comment when they make misleading or false statements.

The member said that no Conservative had addressed this bill in debate today. That is untrue. The member for Prince Albert addressed it quite well in his speech not that long ago. I invite the member to withdraw his comment and apologize for misleading the House.

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

I will say that the hon. member for Prince Albert did speak to it. The hon. member for St. Catharines could maybe withdraw just that piece and get back to the bill at hand.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was the member who said that the government had no business in the place of housing. The speeches I have heard have not been relevant to the—

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

I did ask the member to withdraw that piece in which he said that no one has spoken to it because the member for Prince Albert has spoken to it.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that with respect to the hon. member for Prince Albert. Wow, the skin is thin.

Back to the point—

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

The hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that point of order, I would be happy to provide my notes, as I spoke to the issue as well.

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

We are starting to get into further debate, and I will be happy to call on members to ask questions when the hon. member is done. I am sure the hon. member for St. Catharines has a point to make in his speech.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been making a clear point throughout the entirety of my speech and the Conservatives have been trying to shout me down, which they also tried to do to the member for New Westminster—Burnaby because they are embarrassed of their record.

What they should be embarrassed of is their record on housing. I was talking about, before I was interrupted, this mythical 45 minutes during the day which is question period when they pretend to care about Canadians who are struggling with housing, but they come up with a plan that would raise taxes on construction of housing. It would actually cut funding to municipalities. This is their plan.

The member who got up and said that there were Conservatives talking about the bill said that the government has no business in housing. It is shameful, but it shows where the Conservatives are at with respect to this. They talk a big game in question period and deliver nothing. They talk about Mike Harris' common-sense revolution, but we saw what happened during that time. We saw cuts. We saw hospital closures. We saw horrific things that communities are still dealing with to this day in Ontario, and the Conservatives seek to mimic it.

As I said, question period for them is about recycling slogans. There is no seriousness about their effort to fight homelessness and to build more housing. It is absolutely shocking that the Leader of the Opposition would go across the country to say that he is going to get housing built and not have a serious plan to deliver on it.

We have shown, in the fall economic statement, that we have a serious plan through the housing accelerator fund. We have seen announcements across the country, and we are seeing growth in housing starts through Stats Canada. We are seeing the results of this government's plan of action, and we are serious about this issue. The Conservatives are not. They have delayed and obstructed and they are continuing to do it. I do not know how many points of order the Conservatives have risen on during my speech.

The Leader of the Opposition even called co-op housing “Soviet-style” housing. It is absolutely shameful. I have constituents in my riding, and I think they would have constituents in their ridings, who rely on co-op housing as an effective means to get housing built. It is an effective means for affordable housing and a good way to build housing, and the Leader of the Opposition dismisses it. Again, he does not have a plan at all. He does not have a plan on climate change, and he does not have a plan on housing. They get up to talk about a big gain, but offer nothing except obstruction, yelling and heckling, and they are continuing the heckling. It is absolutely shocking.

They talk about food prices, and I genuinely believe them. We hear from our constituents, but the Conservatives have no plan. They talk about the price on pollution, but do not talk about the cost of food with respect to the costs of climate change. They do not talk about Bill C-56, which would enact competition law that would bring forward better regulations on competition and would have impacts. Again, it is just delay and deny. If only the rhetoric of question period, that 45 minutes of the day when the Conservatives pretend to care, could match the reality of the crisis. I wish that were the case. Sadly, it is not.

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

I will remind the hon. member that question period is more than 45 minutes these days because it does go on long. It would be lovely if we could get it back to 45 minutes.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for North Okanagan—Shuswap.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for St. Catharines seems to have forgotten to fit into his speech, which is supposed to be about the affordable housing and groceries act, that his Prime Minister had this big meeting with officers from all of the major grocery chains, and he promised to bring down the price of groceries by Thanksgiving. How much did that meeting bring down the cost of groceries by Thanksgiving?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives talk a big game, but this legislation was tabled well before Thanksgiving. All we have seen is delay, obstruction and no action by the Conservatives. There is no care of Canadian food pricing. Again, the Conservatives talk a big game. They heckle, shout and yell, but their voting record speaks for itself, and it is not for Canadians.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is going to be a long night.

I thank my colleague for his speech because it went in all directions, especially at first. If we truly come back to Bill C‑56, the Minister of Finance said that there were studies that prove that Bill C‑56 would lower the cost of rent. My question is on the housing crisis, which has become a national emergency.

After the Bloc Québécois asked officials the question during the briefing for members, the officials said that there were no studies and that they may contact us later. That was on September 21. November 21 just passed and we are still waiting for the studies.

Does the member have any studies on hand proving that Bill C‑56 will lower the cost of rent?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis is about getting more housing supply built. Reducing GST on purpose-built rentals will get more rentals built. We are already seeing the results with developers announcing thousands of units of housing being built. The member can wait for studies; I am going to listen to experts. We are seeing the results on the street and on construction sites. It is going to get the job done.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked a lot about housing. The government, of course, purports that it wants to see more housing built faster, yet in the fall economic statement, it has slow-walked the rollout of money that would actually build housing Canadians could afford. That does not make any sense.

Now, on this particular bill, another thing that does not make sense is that the government is not making the GST exemption available to existing co-op and social housing projects. If they do not get access to that funding, some of these projects may actually become unviable.

If the member truly supports housing and seeing social and co-op housing being developed in this country, will he call on his own government to allow the exemption for existing projects?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud of the government's record on housing. I was proud to cut the ribbon for the first affordable and subsidized housing units in the city of St. Catharines in my lifetime.

More work needs to be done, which is why I am excited by the announcements in the fall economic statement. Let us see more purpose-built rentals getting built under Bill C-56. The hon. member can keep yelling, but we are focused on Canadians, and we are going to get more housing built.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, when an individual is elected to this place, he should know a little bit about geography and that the name of the province that I come from is not Newfoundland but Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am not going to ask a question. I am going to call for this member to apologize to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador for calling our province simply “Newfoundland”. Will he do so?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think I was specific in my comments. I specifically said that the province was named Newfoundland and Labrador and that the member is from the Island of Newfoundland. The province is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which I acknowledged in my speech.

That is if the member was listening. Clearly, he was yelling too loudly during the heckling portion of his time over there, unfortunately. I did say that, and he can go back to Hansard or he can keep heckling all night long. I am sure that is what he is going to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand in the House of Commons on behalf of the good people of Don Valley East and speak to this important bill that really looks at housing. It looks at providing a GST rebate, and it really does speak to making life more affordable for Canadians.

I am proud to be a Liberal. I have always been proud of being a Liberal. I am proud to be a Liberal because I believe that the government can help to make life easier for people, to put in place programs and services that are designed to help people.

There is something I remember when I was back at Carleton University learning about the social contract. It is really the relationship between the state and the citizen. I remember learning a bit about Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke, and the development of the social contract. I believe that there is an obligation of government to put in place different types of services, programs, understandings and agreements that look for ways to better position people. I think that Bill C-56 does exactly this.

This bill will look at ways to build more capacity in the system to build more homes. We know that during the Conservatives' time in power under former prime minister Harper from, I believe, 2009 to 2015, a lot of changes took place in this country when it came to housing. For example, there were 800,000 fewer units of affordable housing. The price of homes from 2009 to 2015 doubled in this country. According to TRREB, the Toronto real estate board in my area, homes went from about $300,000 to $600,000. That was under the Conservative government.

The big question is: What did the Conservative government do to actually look at maintaining affordable prices in the city I represent, Toronto? The answer is simple. The Conservatives did absolutely nothing. On top of that, they ran massive deficits. The Harper government, back in 2009-10, ran a $55-billion deficit that year. In 2011, it was $33 billion. In 2013, it was $18 billion. That amounts to over $100 billion in a six-year period by the Conservative government when it was in power. At the same time, it made massive cuts. It did not invest in affordable housing or housing in general. What it did was to actually make cuts in the system and hurt people.

There is an ideological difference between being a Conservative and being a Liberal in this House. On one side, the Conservatives will make massive cuts and reward the richest and big businesses by giving out subsidies and, at the same time, run massive deficits. The largest deficit to date, during those time periods, was under the government of Stephen Harper.

When we run deficits, it is to invest in people. When we invest in public education, infrastructure, health care, dental care and child care, we are investing in the people of this country, unlike the Conservatives when they are in power. They actually wanted to take things like the retirement age and move it from 65 to 67. They made life harder for people. Under the previous Conservative government, 800,000 affordable units were gone and now Conservatives have the audacity to stand up in this House and say they believe in making these types of investments.

The member for Prince Albert was very clear. I wrote this down as I was here listening. He said that “it is not up to government to build houses.”

On one side we have a government that is making the types of investments that are put back into investing in people, and on the other side we have an opposition that has a track record. Conservatives do have a track record in this House. One just has to look a few years back to see their track record. It is about making cuts to the system.

I have been in this House for two years, and in two years I have seen the Conservatives opposite vote against some really good pieces of legislation that invest in people. Removing the GST from homes is about building more capacity in the system. Investing in dental care for young people is about investing in our future. Investing in child care in this country, which Conservatives for months spoke against, is the best investment. I have always said that, from day one.

The best investment a country can make is to invest in the young people of tomorrow, but the Conservatives have an ideological difference compared to the Liberals on this side. They believe in making cuts to these types of programs. They believe in providing more resources to those who have the most. They do not believe in taking those resources Canadians bring together through that social contract, though that belief system that we can all work together to build a better country. They do not believe in making those types of investments in people.

We provided a grocery rebate. They voted against it. On the $10-a-day child care, they voted against it. Maybe a few of them changed their mind near the end, but throughout the entire discourse, they were ideologically against it. With dental care—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to offer my colleague a chance to do the honourable thing.

While he was speaking, he realized that he had said something that was untrue. He said that we voted against the grocery rebates, when that is completely false.

I am asking him to withdraw his remarks.

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

I will continue, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for the advice.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Before you continue, the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable raised an issue, and I hope it will be reflected so that the record will stand.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe tomorrow the member opposite can go through Hansard to look at exactly what I said, and he will find the answer in Hansard because it is recorded. I will continue. I do not appreciate the interruptions. Sometimes the truth hurts.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Again, in another case, the member indicated we did not support with our vote the child care bill, which is not true. I would appreciate it if he would correct his record.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

In consultation, it is clear the voting record is a voting record, but it is not a point of order that can be raised here. However, I would encourage all members to please make sure they do reflect accurately what has gone on and what is a matter of record in the House of Commons in order to make sure members do not introduce comments that could be disorderly to the House if they are inaccurate.

The hon. member for Don Valley East has the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, sometimes the truth hurts. When Conservatives stand in this House and vote against a free trade agreement with Ukraine, it hurts members on the other side because sometimes they do not have the power to stand up and actually do what they believe and they just follow the direction, through party discipline, of their leader. I understand it can hurt sometimes. Then they look for other ways to compensate by standing up and using procedural processes, or—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville is rising on another point of order.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, you have made it clear that we cannot say indirectly what we cannot say directly. This individual, like all others across the floor who spoke to our vote on Ukraine, has misled this House. I am a Canadian Ukrainian and I chose my vote. No one told me on this side of the floor how to vote. This is inappropriate and misleading.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That is ranging into debate at this point.

I will turn the floor back to the member for Don Valley East.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been interrupted several times by members opposite, because it does hurt Conservatives. Half of them probably believe in climate change and maybe the other half do not. I am making that assumption based on previous statements and voting records. It must really hurt to be part of a party that does not believe in climate change or a free trade agreement with Ukraine to help support the folks who need the help in Ukraine.

My main point at the end of day is that there is an ideological difference between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to how we invest in people. Conservatives have a track record of always putting in place the same plan no matter where they are. They could be in a provincial legislature, a school board, a council or in the federal chamber, but it is the exact same formula. They say they are going to cut taxes and then they invest in those who have the most. They place the burden on the people who need the most help and cut programs and services.

We can look at their track record. This is a proven fact. The Harper government is a perfect example. It had a $55-billion deficit in 2010-11, and what did Canadian citizens get? They got nothing, except cuts. This is the track record of the Conservative government and that is why it is important for us, as Liberals on this side of the House, to make sure we continue to support Canadians by making sure bills like Bill C-56 go forward, continue to invest in people and build this country up.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague concerns the parliamentary secretary's response to my colleague from Repentigny.

My colleague asked him about the goods and services tax rebate on rental buildings. What is its impact? How many more housing units are we expecting to be built as a result of this measure? How much can we expect rents to drop?

We want to base our decisions on science and scientific knowledge, but the parliamentary secretary practically told my colleague to take a hike by saying it was not important, that she could wait for studies, and that it was a question of ideology.

Does the hon. member agree with his parliamentary secretary?

I was very disappointed in his response.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for recognizing this important program that is essentially going to build thousands and thousands of units across this country. I am proud to be part of a government that is investing in a GST rebate that will not only be for apartments. We are going to be investing in co-ops, in first-time buyers and building the next generation of homes across this country.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberal times are always tough times. All we have to do is look at their record. When we look at the misery index, which is the combination of inflation rates, unemployment rates and mortgage rates that usually lead to the highest suicide rates, they happened 40 years ago under Pierre Elliott Trudeau and they are happening today under the Liberals. Housing costs have doubled, violent crime is up 39% and two million people are standing in lines at food banks because these guys have mismanaged the economy.

We have a situation where the Liberals continue to talk the game, but, in reality, have made things worse. The member wants to talk about deficits. They have not balanced the books yet. Under the Prime Minister, they have doubled the national debt that is more than all previous prime ministers in the history of Canada combined. The member has nothing to brag about. Liberals are making things worse and they are going to be punishing our kids, our grandkids and our great-grandchildren with these huge deficits, high interest rates and high mortgages.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about hard times. As he was asking the question, I reflected on the fact that I had the opportunity to meet three young people from Ukraine in the back today. I was thinking about their hard times. In Canada, we have some pretty rough times. There is an affordability challenge. Ukraine right now is going through a war, and the Conservative Party, the opposition, voted against a free trade agreement to help stabilize that region. To me, that is unacceptable, and I think it should reconsider how it can support the free trade agreement in the future.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP got the government to include co-ops in the GST exemption. We are also calling on it to apply the GST exemption to existing co-operatives and social housing projects that may otherwise become unviable, in which case we would lose those units. Will the member support the NDP's call to apply the GST exemption to existing social housing and co-ops?

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

Mr. Speaker, it takes many of us in this room to build good strategies and good plans to put in place to really help Canadians.

The government believes in what the member just said with respect to co-operatives. We believe in co-operatives, and we believe that they are a pathway for the future to build more affordability. We will continue to work with the NDP and any member of the House, even Conservatives, if they would like to support co-ops. However, I think it was the leader of the Conservatives who called co-ops Soviet-style housing. I was a bit offended, because my mother lived in a co-op. I just want to make sure that, at the end of the day, we can all work together to do what is best for every citizen in this country.

[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.

[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, the Conservative leader said that he would compensate municipalities that meet the new housing start targets. There is a need for 860,000 more housing units in Quebec, and something needs to be done. We cannot stand back and do nothing. The municipalities are in charge.

Since we talked about that and introduced that bill, what have we heard from the Government of Quebec? All of a sudden, it is saying that it will eliminate the red tape so that projects can be approved in just one month. Just talking about it got things moving.

I think that, when we take office, people will understand that it pays to build housing. There will be many more advantages than disadvantages for them, as my colleague was trying to suggest.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that was a bit hard to listen to, because I was a municipal councillor at the time the member for Carleton was the housing minister. Municipalities begged and pleaded with the minister of the day for housing resources and none came.

When we talk about support for municipalities, the leader continues to play the blame game. He is not helping municipal councils. He is blaming municipalities today, the small-town mayors and councillors who are trying to get housing supply out the door. He had his chance as part of a government to support municipalities for many years. In fact, we came individually and then went through FCM, and all of those efforts were rejected by the member and his government.

It is hard to listen to the speech today by the member opposite when he talks about supporting municipalities. The Conservatives have no intention of doing that. If they did, they would have done it when their leader was in government prior.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here are a few numbers that show just how empty the Liberal rhetoric is.

When the member for Carleton was minister, the average cost of rent in Canada was $950 a month. It is now over $2,000. The average mortgage payment on a new home was just $1,400. Now it is $3,500. When he was housing minister, housing was not just affordable, it was cheap. Canadians could still afford to buy a home. Young people could still dream of owning a home.

The Liberals have completely killed the dream of young Canadians who had one day hoped to be homeowners. That is the sad reality after eight years of this Liberal government.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives always sound a bit off when they talk about human misery. They talk about food banks being at capacity. They talk about people struggling.

A month ago, the mayor of Quebec City, the only place where the Conservatives are able to get their people elected, held a summit on homelessness. Oddly enough, I did not see a single Conservative MP there. A lot of provincial elected representatives were there. I was there too. We talked about homelessness and tried to come up with solutions. Not a single Conservative MP was there.

I have one very specific question for my colleague. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities held a press conference in Ottawa today. Its spokespeople said that municipalities would need $600 billion to support the construction of the millions of housing units the country needs. That money is needed to pay for roads, public transit and sewers.

How much would a Conservative government—which nobody here wants—be prepared to give municipalities to address those needs?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find it rather ironic to hear a member question my good faith about food banks and my willingness to help people. I think it is totally unacceptable and inappropriate of him.

What I gather is that this member in particular wants to make life even more difficult for all Canadians. It is this member who supports a drastic increase in the carbon taxes to the detriment of all Canadians. A drastic increase in the carbon taxes would mean groceries will cost more, shipping goods will cost more. It means a higher cost of living for all Canadians. That creates poverty.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to note that it is the Parliamentary Budget Officer who said that and my colleague simply repeated what he said.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The member for Joliette knows that is not a point of order and more a matter of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of my constituents in the food-producing riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Normally, Canadians would have to first elect a Conservative government before they could receive Conservative legislation. After eight years, it is possible that the gravity of the financial hold the Liberal-NDP government has plunged us into is warping space and time. The other possibility is that a desperate Prime Minister, down in the polls, will steal any idea he can to save his tired, worn-out, socialist coalition. It might be a tired cliché, but if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, Bill C-56 might just be a Liberal love letter to the Conservative Party. The Liberals think that if they can walk like Conservatives and talk like Conservatives, maybe they will poll like Conservatives.

The bill is what the Internet likes to call “copypasta”, which refers to any text-based meme copied and shared on the Internet, what people born in the last century used to call “quotes”. The bill copies and pastes text from the member for Bay of Quinte's private member's bill on competition reform into the legislation before us. The bill also copies and pastes the policy of the leader of His Majesty's official opposition to eliminate GST on purpose-built rental housing.

Nonetheless, even when the NDP-Liberal government takes a break from bankrupting the country to pass Conservative legislation, it does so in the most deceptive way possible. It is calling the legislation the “affordable housing and groceries act”. Back in the days when Canada had a strong, stable economy and a strong, stable Conservative prime minister, the Liberals used to complain constantly about our approach to naming legislation with obvious political messaging. The Liberal member for Winnipeg North rose 22 times to complain about the presence of a single word in a short title. Since we are debating copypasta legislation, I am just going to borrow four sentences from the member for Winnipeg North when he sat on this side of the House. He said:

One of the biggest issues I have with the [Liberal] government is the type of propaganda and political spin it puts on the legislation it brings to the House of Commons. We see this yet again with Bill [C-56]. The Government of Canada and the Prime Minister are trying to give the impression that if we pass this legislation there will be [affordable groceries]. If the [Liberals] were honest with Canadians, which is a rarity with the government, they would acknowledge that achieving [affordable groceries] is not as easy as just saying it in the title of a bill and then having [338] members of Parliament voting in favour of the legislation.

The actual bill the member for Winnipeg North was referring to was the Drug-Free Prisons Act. The bill specifically addressed the issue of drugs in our prisons. He said that the Conservative government was trying to give the impression that passing this would mean prisons were drug-free. Any reasonable Canadian could look at the bill and say, “Yes, the Conservative government wants prisons to be drug-free.” It was not called the “100% drug-free prisons act”. It was not called the “totally drug-free prisons act”. It was just the Drug-Free Prisons Act, yet that was enough for the Liberals to accuse us of misleading Canadians.

The hypocrisy of the Liberal Party truly knows no limits. For Liberals to call the legislation before us the “affordable housing and groceries act” is a slap in the face to every single Canadian struggling with the cost of living. Canadians are struggling to afford food, and the Liberal government is trying to gaslight them into thinking the legislation would somehow undo the grocery cartels, but the bill would address only threats to competition from mergers going forward. That would be an important change to make in a country that suffers from a lack of competition in banking, transportation and telecommunications, which are, not coincidentally, all federally regulated industries. The NDP-Liberal government knows the legislation would have zero impact on food prices, yet it calls it the “affordable housing and groceries act”. That is pure propaganda, and it is insulting.

However, Canadians are not stupid. They can clearly see the NDP-Liberal government's real grocery policy is higher prices. Every Canadian knows this is the official policy of the Liberal Party: to increase the cost of energy. It is Liberal policy to increase prices on everything made using energy, everything shipped using energy and everything grown using energy.

That is the purpose of the carbon tax. That is the purpose of the costly fuel regulations. That is the purpose of the blackout electricity regulations. Together, these policies represent a triple threat to affordable food prices—

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

The member for St. Catharines is rising on a point of order.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know we have been hearing a lot about the price on pollution in debate today, but when I stood up, the Conservatives were very eager to keep us on track with the bill, and we are wavering on relevance here. As loud as the hon. member yells, she needs to get back to the bill.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Order. Relevance is always important, but the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke appears to me to be on message.

I will return the floor to the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, together, these policies represent a triple threat to affordable food prices, but that was not enough for the proudly socialist coalition. They were not happy enough with Canadians sucking up bad policies through paper straws. That is why the minister for Communist China's environment is using a pollution prevention order to ban plastic food packaging. The Liberals are not passing legislation. They are not even using regulation. They are issuing an order under the Environmental Protection Act.

The government was given extraordinary power by Parliament to protect the environment from actual danger. Past orders included requiring dentists to prevent mercury from getting into the environment when disposing of dental amalgams. They were never meant for taking recyclable food containers off store shelves. This is another obvious abuse of power.

It is the same as when the Liberals illegally banned plastic straws. They knew this sneaky policy will increase the price of food, the same way they knew imposing the carbon tax and the costly fuel regulations would hammer Atlantic Canada especially hard. They knew it and they did it anyhow. They knew their policies would make life unaffordable. They knew making energy more expensive would make food more expensive. They knew it, but they did not care about Canadians struggling with the cost of living.

Their ideological obsession has morphed into a religious obsession. The church of climate socialism believes we must repent for the sin of capitalism or else we will face a climate apocalypse. Anyone who dissents from climate socialism is branded a heretic. The Liberals need this deep faith in their own righteousness to justify to themselves that it is okay to call this an affordable groceries bill when it has nothing to do with grocery prices. As I said from the start, the contents of the bill were lifted from Conservative bills. Conservatives put forward positive policies. We look forward to seeing how they can be improved in committee.

The government could have chosen plenty of positive-sounding political titles to market the bill. Instead, the Prime Minister made the decision to gaslight Canadians. He will fly around the country dumping tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere claiming he has an affordable groceries bill that proves he is not completely out of touch. Meanwhile, the environment minister, the unrepentant vandal who once attacked the home of Ralph Klein and terrorized his wife, seeks to increase the cost of food with more plastic bans. Not only will this plastic packaging ban lead to higher prices, but it will also reduce competition. This would be like Harper introducing the drug-free prison act while Peter MacKay and Jason Kenney are going around handing out crack pipes to convicts. I can just imagine what the member for Winnipeg North would have to say about that.

Let us get the bill to committee. Even though it has been plagiarized from Conservative bills, we have to go over it with a fine-tooth comb. We know the Liberals like to copy and paste things into legislation. We know it because they did it when they tried to ban hunting rifles. That bill was riddled with the kinds of typographical errors that come from copying and pasting text between different types of documents. That Liberals are lazy and lackadaisical about legislation is not a surprise to lawful firearms owners, but after eight years, one would have thought they would be making fewer errors with experience.

The truth is that they are tired and worn out. That is why we have seen a steady march of senior Liberal staffers out of government and into senior lobbying positions. The smart ones are fleeing a sinking ship. The desperate ones are trying to bail it out. The bad ones claim the ship is not sinking. The Liberals claim the ship is flying full of affordable food. Canadians will pay a heavy price for Liberal delusions. The Prime Minister is not worth the cost.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seemed to be such enthusiasm in the House for the member's speech. If she has anything more to add, I wonder if there is unanimous consent to give her a few more minutes.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Is there consent?

[An hon. member]

No.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is not easy.

I tried to keep up, but it was very difficult, because the member's speech was all over the map. I will try to narrow the focus, because—I just have to say it—I am very professional. We are talking about Bill C-56, so I will talk about Bill C-56. If we were talking about something else, I would talk about that.

Let us get back to Bill C-56 and take a look back at the Conservative opposition day on April 28, when the Conservatives announced that they wanted to penalize municipalities that were not building enough housing. I would like to come back to the importance of municipal politics. Municipalities know their area and the needs of their population. They provide services directly, and they are the ones that manage the living environments in their neighbourhoods.

When I hear the Conservatives say that municipalities and cities are the ones delaying the process, what message does that send? We are led to believe that they might want the municipalities to dodge public consultations so that real estate developers can take over. I would like to know what the member thinks about that, although I admit that I do not expect to get a real answer to my question.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to hear this kind of question from the “block everything” party. In fact, what our legislation was going to say is that what would happen is that we would—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Order. The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby is rising on a point of order.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are the “block everything” party.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That is not a point of order.

I will allow the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke to answer the question.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Conservative legislation would have provided extra incentive for the municipalities that chose to build more housing and remove the barriers, such as costly development fees that do not justify what the work being done is or the building permit cost that, right now, is $15,000 a house in some places.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to give it to the hon. member. She did something that is quite unique in this place. She brought a lot of us together tonight in agreement on, maybe, the ridiculousness of the speech. However, I really want the member to continue to explain to me what the “church of climate socialism” means.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a Christian. I only hear the proselytizing from the other parties, so I have not joined that and I have not attended one of their religious meetings. I think this time it is going to be held in the United Arab Emirates, or perhaps it is going on right now. Perhaps they will tell one of the crowd of people who have been dispatched from Canada to tell us about it when they come back and explain that particular curriculum.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, honestly, if I did not work here, I would pay money to just hear stuff like that every day of the week.

In all seriousness, we have heard a couple of references this evening and today about plagiarism. Political plagiarism reigns supreme on the other side of the House. The Leader of the Opposition continues to steal political themes from former president Trump. He has adopted Mike Harris's “common sense revolution” tag. If the Leader of the Opposition has any original ideas when it comes to housing or the bill that is in front of us, when can we expect to hear them in the House?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is misinformation, disinformation and malinformation. Call up the Kremlin and have them bring their spy back over there. The next thing we know, we are going to be watching an episode of what the member of Parliament has been doing on Spy Ops. We will have to tune into Netflix if it is not censored yet.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was wondering, to wind up, if the member had anything to add to her remarks.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can say that Canadians, especially the ones I have been talking to across the country, know they are being gaslit and are tired of it. Not only that, they are tired of the carbon tax being applied to the gaslighting fuel the Liberals are gaslighting them with.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see that the House will have to once again sit until midnight to discuss this bill. Why? Because this government chose to impose a super closure motion. We think that this approach, the muzzling of parliamentarians, makes a mockery of democracy. Everyone here was elected by the people in our ridings, and this government should give more weight to our voices. This just shows how much respect the Liberals have for our democratic institutions.

An even more serious problem with this super closure motion is the short period of time allocated to study the bill in committee. Only two evenings are allocated, and that is it. Even though my party supports the principle of the bill, we think it is essential to study it in depth in committee. However, this super closure motion forces us to skip over the study in committee. It would therefore not be surprising if there are still problems with the bill after it is studied in committee, and that is really disappointing.

Let me give an example. The first part of the bill exempts rental property construction from the GST. It applies as of September 14. If the bill becomes law, construction projects undertaken on or after September 14 will be able to benefit from the measure. However, the bill does not say what constitutes the start of the project. Is it when the first shovel hits the ground? Is it when the first payment is made for the plans? Is it when the land is purchased? If the building has a dual purpose, what constitutes the beginning? We have no idea, because the bill does not define these concepts.

Let us use a concrete example to illustrate the uncertainty this creates for businesses. A company is planning to build a rental property. The ground floor will be occupied by commercial premises, so not part of the project, but all the upper floors will be used for rental housing. On September 14, work had not yet started on any of the rental housing floors, but work had begun on the ground floor. I repeat, the ground floor will be used for commercial purposes, so it is not a part of the rental project. The company does not know whether it will be entitled to benefit from the measure for the upper floors because of the date and the lack of definition in the bill. We also know that with skyrocketing construction costs, high interest rates and a shortage of skilled labour, developing a housing project is complex, and not having clear information from the government about its bill does nothing to help the company in its current choices. The fog caused by this bill, which was drafted too quickly, is creating uncertainty for businesses.

Will we be able to clarify the situation in committee in just two evenings? There are no guarantees. We will work on it, but I would like to remind the House that it would have been really important not to shut down the committee's work in this way.

As members know, Bill C‑56 has two parts. The first part provides a GST rebate to the builder of a rental housing building. The rebate will be given during the sale or pending sale if the builder becomes an owner.

The rebate does not apply when the buyer is already totally exempt, as in the case of a government agency or a municipality, or partially exempt, as in the case of a not‑for‑profit organization or a housing co‑operative. Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects. It only pertains to private housing.

In practice, the rental housing builder will bill the GST to the government instead of to the buyer at the time of sale. To qualify for the rebate, the building will have had to have been under construction between September 14, 2023, and December 31, 2030, and the project will have to be completed before December 31, 2035.

However, the bill does not include any details on the type of building or housing nor does it specify any affordability requirements to qualify for the rebate. Instead, the bill gives the government the power to clarify these issues through regulations. We are seeing the government gloss over its bills by giving too much power to the minister, who will be able to complete the bill with his own regulations once it has been implemented. That is not an approach that we appreciate.

It would be hard to impose affordability criteria on builders because they do not own buildings once they are built. However, it is possible to make the buyer pay the GST after the fact if the units are rented at exorbitant prices. These are the kinds of amendments and clarifications the committee should look at, but will it have time?

I would also point out that, in our view, it would have been possible to do more to promote the construction of housing, particularly social housing, by allocating the same amount, but implementing other measures. Obviously, we are debating what the government is proposing, and that is what we will be voting on, but we will continue to make suggestions, just in case it decides to listen.

The second part of the bill makes three amendments to the Competition Act.

The first amendment gives the commissioner of competition real power. Right now, when the Competition Bureau examines the competitive environment of a given sector, it cannot compel anyone to testify or order the production of documents. It will be able to do so under Bill C-56. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for that change for 20-odd years.

The second amendment broadens the scope of anti-competitive practices prohibited by the act. Right now, the act prohibits agreements between competitors to remove a player from the market. With this bill, it will also be prohibited to reach an agreement with someone who is not a competitor in order to reduce competition. Let me give an example. When a grocery store rents a space in a mall, it is standard practice for the contract to contain clauses prohibiting the landlord from renting a space to another grocery store. This type of practice, which limits competition, will now be prohibited under Bill C-56. We applaud that measure.

The third amendment will make mergers and acquisitions more difficult. Currently, when a company wants to buy a competitor, the Competition Act states that the Competition Bureau will allow it if it can be demonstrated that the takeover will result in efficiency gains, even if the merger shrinks competition. This provision, which favours concentration and is unique in the industrialized world, is repealed in Bill C-56. We have also been calling for this change for a long time, and the member for Terrebonne has been particularly keen to see it.

We strongly support the principle of this second part and even feel it is long overdue. We have been asking for these changes for years, decades even.

We understand that, thanks to the government's super closure motion, Bill C-56 is going to be amended. Government Business No. 30 authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance to broaden the scope of the bill to make three amendments.

The first change is an increase in fines. It is taken directly from Bill C-352, which was introduced by the leader of the NDP and amends the Competition Act. Many of its provisions would become obsolete because of Bill C‑56. The other two changes have to do with abuse of dominance and investigating powers when the Competition Bureau conducts a market study. Subject to the wording of the amendments to be submitted in committee, these changes have no real effect. They were probably added to the motion to please the party that is supporting the closure motion, but the changes will have no real effect.

Let us come back to the first change, which is to “increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum)”. As I was saying, that is taken from Bill C‑352.

Currently, in addition to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years for executives who commit an offence under the Act, the bureau and the tribunal can impose a maximum fine of $5 million on the offending company. The motion proposes increasing the maximum fine to $25 million, and to $35 million for repeat offenders. In the case of a large company, the maximum penalty could be even higher, up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the practice.

We know that the NDP bill went even further and specified the following: “if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 10% of the person's annual worldwide gross revenues”. Clearly, the government was not prepared to go that far. It is a good change. The maximum fine of $5 million could be seen as the cost of doing business. The revised amounts are designed to have a real deterrent effect. That makes the Canadian legislation comparable to the U.S. and European laws.

The second amendment is “allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced”. The Competition Bureau has significant power. It can compel witnesses to appear, demand documents and request searches if necessary. However, these powers are available to the bureau only when it is investigating a clear infringement following a formal disclosure. The investigation then becomes quasi-criminal.

However, when the bureau is conducting a study to determine whether competition is working properly in a given field or market, it has no such powers. For example, in its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June 2023, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. They refused to hand over the documents it had requested and refused to answer some of its questions. Bill C-56 solves that problem and gives the Competition Bureau investigative powers when it is conducting a market study.

The NDP's Bill C-352 did basically the same thing. Government Business No. 30 proposes a technical amendment to the manner in which the bureau can initiate a market study, but it does not really do much to change the current practice. This aspect was likely only added to the motion to please the NDP, but it really does not do anything.

It is the same thing for the third amendment, which proposes to “revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market”.

Currently, a company that monopolizes a significant share of the market cannot take advantage of its dominant position to limit competition, for example, by preventing a supplier from working with a competitor. The existing act prohibits several of these kinds of practices, which effectively limit competition, prevent it from working properly or make it virtually impossible for a new player to enter the market. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping a company from taking advantage of a lack of competition to sell products at excessive prices. If, for example, a grocer enjoys a monopoly in a given region, there is nothing to stop that grocer from taking advantage of the monopoly to gouge consumers by charging exorbitant prices.

Bill C‑352 addressed this loophole. A whole range of anti-competitive practices were already prohibited, and it added a new one: “directly or indirectly imposing excessive and unfair selling prices”. It was a good measure, but clearly the government did not want to move in that direction. To please the NDP and hide the fact that it has given up on defending consumers against the major players, the government's motion adds a procedural amendment to Bill C‑56 to give the tribunal the power to prevent an anti-competitive practice that the current law already prohibits anyway. Again, it is nothing but hot air.

The day before yesterday, the Minister of Finance tabled the fall economic statement. As we all know, an economic statement is not quite as big a deal as a budget. It usually includes measures the government intends to take to deal with emergencies that have arisen since the budget was tabled.

There are emergencies aplenty, including the housing crisis, homelessness, the media, the rising cost of living, the small business emergency account deadline, seniors' buying power and scandalous oil industry subsidies, not to mention EI reform, the plight of seasonal forestry workers following the summer's forest fires, support for culture, support for the market garden and horticulture sectors following the summer's floods, and the funding that was promised for school breakfasts but has not yet been delivered, to name but a few.

However, the only emergency mentioned in the economic statement has to do with housing. Ottawa does need to do a lot more for housing, especially social housing. Unfortunately, the government's response is nothing more than what has already been announced in Bill C‑56. In fact, the rest will not be delivered until after the next election, and only if the Liberals are re-elected. Responding to the urgency of the housing crisis with election promises that are two years or more away is simply unacceptable, especially when we know that once the money is available, it takes two to three years before it is actually flows. It is like the $900 million that was finally announced for Quebec this fall, but that had been budgeted two years earlier.

We in the Bloc Québécois had proposed an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations, as well as an interest-free or very low-interest loan program, to stimulate the construction of affordable social rental housing, while waiting for a comprehensive policy in the next budget.

Still on the subject of housing, I would like to point out that the minister brought forward a good measure concerning Airbnbs, which will have to comply with municipal rules, or else the people and businesses that manage them will no longer have access to federal tax deductions for their operations. It remains to be seen whether the Canada Revenue Agency will be able to properly apply this new constraint.

One not so good measure is the creation of a new department that specializes in interference: the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. The purpose of that department is to impose its conditions on Quebec, the provinces and the municipalities. If they do not abide by the interference, Ottawa will cut their transfers. The Liberals come here to steal the only bill that the Conservatives introduced, their plan to build more housing, by threatening the provinces and municipalities with cutting their infrastructure funding. I should note that it was the Conservative leader himself who introduced Bill C‑356 in the House.

With this bill, Ottawa would impose an obligation to increase housing starts by 15% compared to the previous year on all municipalities where the cost of housing is high, and that list is growing longer and longer. If the housing starts in municipalities do not increase as required by Ottawa, the Conservative leader would cut their gas tax and public transit transfers by by 1% for each percentage point shortfall under the target that he unilaterally set.

For example, housing starts in Quebec dropped by 60% this year rather than increasing by 15%, largely because of rising interest rates. If the Conservatives' bill were already in force, this would mean a roughly 75% reduction in transfer payments to the Quebec government. This is a really dangerous and unfair bill that centralizes power in Ottawa. The fact that the Minister of Finance is making use of the principle of that bill is a major offensive action in terms of centralization of power. We will have detailed numbers shortly.

I would like to say a few more words about the new department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This announcement essentially creates a federal department of municipal affairs. Since municipal affairs fall under provincial jurisdiction, this is nothing less than a department of interference, which is threatening to cut transfers, exactly as the Conservatives are hoping for and proposing in their bill.

Here are a few more details about this new department. It is worth noting that Trudeau senior's government tried to do much the same thing. In 1971, it created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. A Library of Parliament research document states that, “[g]iven the inescapable constitutional limitations, the ministry had no program responsibilities”. Faced with a lack of co-operation from the provinces, this attempt from Trudeau senior's government to interfere in municipal affairs ended in failure. The research document also states that “[i]n view of the Ministry's lack of credibility and the government's desire to cut expenditures, the [Ministry of State for Urban Affairs] was abolished on 31 March 1979”.

In the coming years, we will see whether Quebec and the provinces will once again be capable of defending their jurisdiction against this new department. This is the same story a generation later, so I would like to quote a philosopher: “All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce”. I believe that is what we are witnessing now.

In closing, let me reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑56 because it contains a few good measures and nothing that is downright harmful. However, Bill C‑56 is but a drop in an ocean of need. On housing, there is no indication that the bill will help lower the cost of rent. If nothing is done to correct this problem, we are headed for a major national tragedy. We need three times more rental housing in new construction to stop the housing crisis from getting worse. If Bill C‑56 did even a little to increase the proportion of rental units in new construction developments, that would be something, but we are light years away from meeting those needs.

The changes to the Competition Act are good, and the Bloc Québécois wholeheartedly supports them. Still, the government's claim that these changes will help lower grocery bills seems like misrepresentation. Removing from the act the section that called for mergers and acquisitions to be allowed if the company could demonstrate efficiencies is a good thing. This section of the Competition Act encourages concentration, which often leads to higher prices.

Since 1996, the vast majority of grocery chains have disappeared and been bought up by competitors. I am talking about companies like Steinberg, A&P and Provigo. IGA was bought by Sobey's, and Adonis by Metro. The same is true in Canada. Think of Woodward's, Commisso's, Safeway, Whole Foods, T&T, Longo's, Farm Boy and so on. Of the 13 chains we used to have, now there are only three, or five if we include Costco and Walmart. They control 80% of the market. It is an oligopoly.

While Bill C‑56 proposes some good measures, it is inconceivable that this is the government's only response to skyrocketing housing and food prices. When it comes to housing, we need to review and improve the failed Canada housing strategy.

Regarding competition, we need to review the concept of abuse of dominance to prevent the big players from taking advantage of their disproportionate share of the market to increase prices will, for lack of competition, or to abuse farmers and processors, whom they are holding hostage. These two things need to be done, whether or not Bill C‑56 is passed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy the speeches from the member from the Bloc. I always learn a lot and I really appreciate the research that is done.

Just in the closing remarks, the member talked about the oligopoly of the grocery chains in Canada. Really, only three families take so much profit away from Canadians and leave Canadians hungry.

I wonder if the member would not mind sharing whether they would support the NDP's ask for an excess profits tax on big grocery chains.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her kind words. I feel the same way about her. It is always a pleasure to listen to her speeches, for which she does a lot of research.

I want to specify that, when it comes to the oligopoly in the food sector, passing Bill C‑56 will prevent the situation from getting worse, but it will not bring back the competition there used to be.

Taxing the excess profits of giants in these situations may be very useful, and we are in favour in principle, as we have said often. Obviously, this needs to be done scrupulously to respect the rights of these companies. When it is conclusively established that they have excess profits, we have to be able to tax them.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when looking at this legislation and looking at the title, we know that here in Canada, inflation is still high and has been high for a long time and that inflation is the cause of high interest rates, which is then causing high mortgage payments.

When we look at the title of this particular legislation, one would think that it would actually, truly be affecting affordability for Canadians, which is the cost of everything that they are buying and then also their mortgage costs.

I am wondering if the member can speak to whether this legislation will actually be affecting inflation, the cause of inflation and also the cause of interest rates.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for her very deep, content-rich question.

As I said, Bill C‑56 has some good measures for fighting inflation, but they are just a drop in the bucket. They are inconsequential.

Will eliminating the GST on the construction of rental housing lower the price of homes and apartments? The answer is no, far from it. Even the government is unable to tell us how much it expects and by how much the rents could go down. If it has any research or models, it is keeping them well hidden and we cannot get any access to them. It is a principled position. It is limited.

We know that improving the Competition Act will help lower prices, but we cannot turn back time. It will help stop or slow down the situation, nothing more. Many other measures need to be taken. Fighting inflation is complex. If the government's response to inflation is just that, then it is lacking. It is a drop in the bucket.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for taking this debate seriously, unlike the previous MP, who chose to use her time to entertain people and possibly create some kind of platform for future entertainment.

Knowing that Canada's three largest grocers, Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, made more than $3.6 billion in combined profits in 2022, it is good to see that the Liberals are finally talking to CEOs and asking them to stabilize prices, although just nicely.

I hear from this member that we have to be more serious about how to make better efforts to amend the Competition Act and bring more grocery competition into Canada.

I wonder if the member can share his thoughts on how we could make sure that we can bring grocery prices down.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question. Bill C‑56 amends the Competition Act. This should have been done at least 20 years ago. If we look at what was happening in 1986, we see that there were 13 major players. As my colleague said, now there are only three. That number goes up to five if we include the two big American retailers that sell groceries, Walmart and Costco. These five companies form an oligopoly that controls 80% of the market. The Governor of the Bank of Canada told the Standing Committee on Finance that the problem is that there is no competition in that market because they are able to pass on 100% of the increase in input costs to consumers without reducing their profits. The competition is not working.

Bill C‑56, when implemented, will prevent further issues in the long run, but it will not automatically restore a competitive market ecosystem in the food sector. Major challenges will remain. There is still a lot to do. Reducing food inflation requires many micro-interventions involving farmers, primary processors, and so on. It is a complex challenge, but there is certainly room for intervention in terms of large retailers that constitute an oligopoly. Bill C‑56 is a step in the right direction, but it is not the only solution.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is always interesting, always brilliant, always thorough and always has relevant things to say.

As we have heard, the GST rebate will not solve the entire housing crisis. Housing is a complex issue. At the current rate of construction, we know that we will never be able to build the amount of housing we need. We are talking about 3.5 million units in Canada and 1.1 million in Quebec. We have never built more than 70,000 units. We will never get there.

We also need to tackle the financialization of housing. That is extremely important. We proposed a measure, and I would like my colleague to talk about it. It is an acquisition fund. We know that we are losing affordable housing. In fact, we are losing more than we are creating right now, which is rather interesting, because these large groups and real estate funds, which are often international, are buying up the affordable housing stock right now. It is a real tragedy.

What we need is an acquisition fund. The government needs to make a fund available to not-for-profit organizations to be able to buy housing that is still affordable—there are still some out there—and remove them from the market to guarantee affordability. I would like my colleague to talk a bit about this measure and tell us how this might greatly improve things in the market.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first point out that my hon. colleague did a tour of Quebec to talk about housing. He stopped in Joliette. We had a full house. Everything he is contributing is wonderful and informative.

My colleague spoke about the financialization of housing and how to put an end to that. For example, that is what we are seeing in Montreal, and it is mainly the Bronfman family's company that is doing it. It is hard to get any closer to the Liberal Party than that. These people are taking affordable housing off the market, and not enough housing is being built to counter that.

What we suggested is to offer an acquisition fund interest rate, which is something that the Union des municipalités du Québec has been calling for. This would involve implementing a measure to fund the purchase of these buildings at an interest rate that is lower than the market rate, to get them out of the financialization spiral that is causing people to be evicted and rents to go up.

The current market rate is very high. However, with the borrowing authority of the government or the CMHC, we could simply pass the better rate on or even subsidize it to make this acquisition possible. Let me give an example. The government borrows at 3.6%. Suppose we want to give a non-profit organization an interest rate of 2% for one billion housing units that we want to get out of the financialization trap and that we are going to make truly affordable in the long term. That would cost $16 million. The difference between 3.6% and 2% is almost nothing for the government.

By using its leverage, the non-profit would have an advantage. That would prevent financialization, which is what happens when big conglomerates like the Bronfmans get their hands on housing that is affordable and make it so that it is no longer affordable. This is one possible solution we are proposing to the government.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam.

I am here today to talk about the affordability act. We know that right now Canadians across the country are facing a huge financial challenge. It has been a hard period of time. We lived through the pandemic and then we moved on to a high inflation reality. Things are just starting to cost more and more.

One of the things this bill does is remove GST for builds of rental housing. In my riding, these are the average rents in just a few of my communities: in Campbell River, it is over $1,500; in Powell River it is close to $1,500; and then in Comox, it is a whopping $1,849. Those are just the average rents. If someone lives on a fixed income or has a low income, it is just a huge challenge to pay for the things they desperately need.

I am the spokesperson for seniors in my party. Just last week, a 77-year-old gentleman walk into my office, almost an octogenarian. He shared with me that he has been living in the same location for 40 years. It recently was purchased and he is going to be renovicted. That is appalling. He needs to have a stable home to age in. I think we all know that we cannot just build houses by yelling out abracadabra and there will be a house. They do not just build themselves. Although I support this movement, we know from what we are seeing done by the government that the Liberals are just continuing to delay the process. That means that housing will be delayed up to seven years or more.

This is a crisis point. The urgency in the communities that I serve is profound. They need to see money on the ground, supports for municipalities and regional districts, to get that money out the door in the most efficient way possible.

I read an article yesterday from Oxfam. It talked about how the richest people in the world are emitting as much as the bottom 66% of income earners on the planet. Now, I love a French rosé, but when I look at what I see happening with the ultrarich, I swear they are bathing in it. They are bathing in it at the expense of everyday Canadians, who desperately need this support. What we have not seen from the government, or from Conservative governments in the past, is a willingness to actually say to the ultrawealthy that they have to pay their fair share. In my riding, people are paying their fair share. They pay their taxes. They work hard every day and they are being punished for doing that when the ultrawealthy are getting away with bigger and bigger profits.

We know the reality is that Canada has the lowest tax rate for corporations, at 15%. Ultrawealthy corporations in this country like oil and gas have seen an increase to their profits in the last year or so that is higher than the 30 years previous. We cannot say that it is just inflation, when we can see how much they are taking home of profit after inflation is accounted for.

We know that grocery stores are making more profit now than they were prior to the pandemic. That again is adjusting for inflation. Even with those extra costs, they are still making a huge amount of money and their profits are popping like popcorn everywhere. They cannot justify that when the very basics are not affordable for most Canadians. I think that it is time that we start to address these issues and take them seriously because, really, we need to build a more fair society.

I talk a lot in this place about having a bar of dignity that no one falls below. What we are seeing in this country is more and more people falling below that. I think of people with fixed incomes, people who are single parents; people who are working; and two people with decent jobs who are living out of an RV because they cannot afford even a simple apartment to live in because of how high the cost of living has become.

The other thing I am hearing from my constituents again and again is that they can hardly afford the cost of food. In my riding, there are a lot of small farms that are doing everything they can to grow food in our area and provide as reasonable a cost as they can, because they really believe in food security. I want to thank them. They do that because of what they believe in. It makes a huge difference. We also know that grocery stores are making a huge amount of profit, and they are getting away with it.

I am really relieved that the Liberals have finally listened to our leader, the member for Burnaby South, about making sure that the Competition Bureau has more teeth to crack down on price gouging. It is as though they were looking through the windshield and, suddenly, the windshield wiper moved all the dirt out of the way, and they can now see clearly that they need to do the right thing. I am grateful that they are finally listening to us, and I cannot wait to see this done.

Many Canadians are trying to buy the basic necessities of food to feed their families. We are seeing so many children whose parents care about them desperately, but they do not have enough to send them to school with a good lunch or make sure they have a good breakfast. That is shameful in this country. If we have a Competition Bureau that can do its job, it is going to make the biggest difference; it is about time.

Without having a strong Competition Bureau, having processes where grocery stores can be held to account, we are censuring consumers. We are telling consumers that we will not put anything in place. We had the Liberal government call grocery CEOs and ask them to stabilize prices because they are upsetting people. That is not putting teeth in and telling them this is serious, because our people in this country matter. They matter more than grocery stores bringing home a huge amount of profit.

I am glad the changes that the NDP has made for Bill C-56 will actually help everyday Canadians. It is not as far as we would go. There are a lot of things we would definitely have in the bill, but we got something in there that is going to make a difference.

I have been watching this place for many years, before I even got here in 2015. Sometimes I feel like I am experiencing déjà vu, because what I see happen again and again is the continued betrayal of small businesses by both Conservative and Liberal governments. I know that, in my riding, small businesses make the difference. They are the ones that stand up every day and look after our community. They care about the people they employ, and they work hard to better our communities.

During the pandemic, it was terrifying. I have to say that my community did an amazing job of supporting local businesses the best it could. Community members talked to one another. We talked to communities. We made sure that people were taken care of the best they could be. When that struggle was still there, we fought like heck to have a good loan that was helping people get through that time. The CEBA loan was created.

Now we are in a situation where the government is refusing to listen to these small business owners and make something work for them so that they do not lose their businesses. It was really sad for me to see nothing to deal with this in the financial update. I would have loved to see this in the bill, because small businesses work hard.

I was talking to a business owner in my riding, who said that rural communities have particular challenges, both with the pandemic and then later on with inflation, as well as waiting for more people to come to our small communities for tourism. They are struggling the most. To see the government not take that important connection seriously and to see it really betray those small businesses has been very concerning to me.

I will wrap up, but I just want to say that, in this House, we all have to work collectively to make sure that life is more affordable for Canadians. They deserve it, and it is really our job to maintain a bar of dignity that no one falls below. In this country right now, too many are falling; we need to do better by them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the speech from my colleague from North Island—Powell River. She speaks about the bar of dignity a lot. I hear it a lot. I do a lot of work with the disability community, and they appreciate the human rights lens the member always talks about.

Does she mind sharing a bit about the fact that the disability benefit was not mentioned in the fall economic statement? We know it disproportionately impacts women and indigenous people, and I wanted to hear her thoughts on that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up an important reality.

We know that people across this country who are living with disabilities have particular challenges, are all too often marginalized and fall below the bar of dignity that I talk about, and really have a hard time making ends meet. This is important. When we see people from various communities supported in a good way, the amazing thing that happens is that opportunity grows. However, if we leave people in a situation where they cannot make ends meet and they are struggling every day just to get by, it is really hard for them to maintain the creativity they may have in their spirit.

When we talk about a bar of dignity, we are talking about the disability benefit. If people were lifted out of poverty and had the space to expand what they might be able to do to look at a life that is not fraught with concern and terror every day, what a better community we would have. It makes me think of my friend Karen, who teaches me a lot about living in the disabled community. She always says that when we make something accessible for everyone, we make it accessible for everyone. Let us make it accessible for everyone and see what a beautiful culture we could create in this country.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑56 touches on housing. It is a priority, actually.

I said it earlier, when my colleague made his speech. It will be difficult to build millions of homes. That has never been done in Canada. We have to find ways to rise to the challenge. We talked about an acquisition fund, which could be an interesting tool.

The elephant in the room when it comes to the housing crisis is the financialization of housing. Big real estate empires are buying up the housing stock. In Montreal alone, it is estimated that less than 1% of owners own a third of the rental stock. That is outrageous. We need to do something about these people who buy up buildings with 60, 80 or 100 units, either to demolish them or renovate them. They double the price and it becomes very problematic.

I am certain it is the same in Toronto and Vancouver. Ottawa needs to tackle this. Could my colleague speak to that? I imagine that the NDP has been thinking about these issues. Do they have any ideas about how to deal with this?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a really important question.

We know that, right now, what we are seeing across the country and, sadly, what we have seen the government participate in is giving money to corporations that are building housing and basing it on market or above-market value. That means we are just continuing to see housing built that is not going to make a difference for everyday Canadians. The financialization of housing is taking away everyday, common people's rights in this country. We need to do better. Part of that is having non-market housing. I want to thank the member for Vancouver East, who has been very clear on this. If we do not have an investment in housing that makes a difference for people, we are letting them down.

This country does not need that. The government is abandoning people who are living on the streets every day. All of the members of this place have a safe place to go home to at the end of the day, and it is shameful that we allow other people to not have a safe place. What it does to their spirits destabilizes our country, and we need to do better by them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know this issue has come up, if not from this member, then from one of her colleagues. It is the issue of extreme anti-competition that we are seeing, in particular with regard to the grocery retail giants. I know that in Canada, Loblaws, which owns Shoppers, occupies about 40% of the retail grocery market. Compare that to in the United States, where Walmart, the largest, owns only 18%.

I am wondering whether the member could expand on how she thinks the legislation would help with anti-competition practice.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a big, broad and complex question I am being asked.

First of all, I would say that part of it is this place's fault. Under both Liberal and Conservative governments, we have not seen an active stance around competition. In fact, recently, we have seen mergers in this country that mean there will be less competition. The people who pay when there is less competition are always the hard-working Canadians.

What we need to see is more legislation like the leader of the NDP brought forward, to make sure we have teeth in these processes to make a difference for everyday Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments that my colleague from North Island—Powell River just made on how the grocery chains have made it harder for people to eat healthy food. This morning, there was a meeting of parliamentarians, senators and stakeholders on anti-poverty, and when I say “parliamentarians”, I mean all but the Conservatives. They came together to talk about the intersection of health, housing, food security and disability. The urgency that I heard in that room is not being expressed by the Liberal government in the House. This follows up on the idea that the fall economic statement was a real disappointment for many of those groups. It was certainly a disappointment for the disability community.

It was the expectation of the community, the NDP and other members in the House, that the Canada disability benefit would at least get a mention in the fall economic statement, and it did not. I am here to say that that is not acceptable. As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby said earlier tonight, New Democrats expect to see some movement on the Canada disability benefit right away. People are suffering, and not just at the grocery store, but also when it comes to housing, which is the next thing I want to talk about.

When we talk about the housing and grocery affordability act, we have to acknowledge that people are losing their housing every single day in this country. We are losing affordable housing at a rate of 15 to one. It was mentioned earlier that seniors are being renovicted today. As we have the debates today, seniors are getting notice of above-guideline rent increases. Their rents are going up 30%, 40% and 50%. They cannot afford it and are out on the street.

I am getting phone calls at my office from residents who have lived in the same units in my community for 20, 30 and sometimes 35 years, and they are being renovicted. They are in their seventies, and they have nowhere to go. Their safety net is their community, and they have nowhere to live because of, as one of my colleagues said earlier today, the financialization of housing. I blame the Liberals and the Conservatives before them for not protecting people's right to housing and allowing large corporations to buy up affordable housing and not replace it.

As has been said earlier today, the NDP is supporting Bill C-56. This is a move toward affordability in the areas of food and housing, but, at the same time, there is so much more to do. I think about the fact that purpose-built rentals in this country have not been invested in for decades.

I can talk specifically about what happened in Coquitlam. I was a city councillor at the time, and an application came forward for a purpose-built rental building. The Liberals at the time, in 2015, had promised a GST exemption on purpose-built rentals. A company came forward in good faith to build purpose-built rentals. It was expecting relief on the GST and was going to pass it down to renters. The company was excited to do that work in my community to make housing affordable for frontline workers, whether they were nurses, firefighters or people who worked in grocery stores. It was excited to do that work, only to be disappointed with the Liberal government not following through on its promise of a GST rebate.

The Liberals, at that point, decided to go with their corporate buddies who were asking them to please give them low-interest loans instead. The commercial loan interest rates were so low, but still the Liberal government decided to follow up with their corporate buddies and give them low-interest loans. That would contribute to the loss of 15 affordable units to every one that was built.

I cannot express my disappointment enough that the Liberal government waited eight years to bring this GST rebate forward. I am happy we have it. The Liberals have at least moved the needle a tiny bit, but they really need to start taking this seriously because, as I said, people have lost their homes today.

I want to note the infrastructure gap, which is so wide. We are talking about the small movement on groceries and the Competition Act, which we are happy about, and we are happy about housing, although there is so much more to do. I want to speak about infrastructure because mayors and councillors were in town all of this week talking about the massive infrastructure gap, and my colleague from Nunavut was talking about the exorbitant infrastructure gap in northern Canada, in Nunavut, and the housing crisis going on there. The federal government has walked away from almost $8 billion in funding for indigenous communities and infrastructure. That is totally unacceptable, and we expect to see that rectified in the spring budget, that is for sure. We cannot continue to not invest in infrastructure and we cannot continue down this path of abusing human rights in this country.

I am going to zip my speech up, but I want to make sure that I talk about transit. When we talk about affordability, we need to talk about public transit. The mayors out in my area of British Columbia have been talking about the fact that they expect the federal government to be involved in funding public transit. If we are going to make these investments in housing, which are desperately needed, if we are going to make these investments in accessibility, which are desperately needed, and if we are going to really get serious about reducing emissions in this country, we need to invest in public transit. The mayors out in British Columbia are asking for that, and I am expecting the infrastructure minister will come forward with the public transit funding that has been promised. We cannot wait until 2026 to get transit funding. We need to change behaviour now. We cannot wait.

I want to close out by talking about the member for Burnaby South, who has a bill on the floor, Bill C-352, that also addresses the Competition Act. NDP members are so proud of this bill and of the fact that we are finally in this country going to force the government to get serious about the Competition Act. We know that Canadians right now have the highest cellphone bills and the highest Internet bills. We are now looking at conglomerations of the largest banks, which already charge too much in consumer charges. We need to stop this conglomeration of the largest corporations in this country and give some power back to consumers.

I am looking forward to the passing of Bill C-56. I am also looking forward to the passing of Bill C-352.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I would like to remind members that they have to be in their seats to ask questions and make comments.

The hon. member for North Island—Powell River.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for taking a moment. I was having a conversation. I am sorry to the member for that.

The member talked a bit about the financialization of housing, and I shared in my speech not too long ago how expensive rents are in my communities, which are significantly smaller than some of the communities the member represents. I wonder if she could share with this place why the need for non-market housing is so important when we are seeing the cost of rents go up higher and higher every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is such an important question. For eight years, I sat at a city council table and saw that perfectly affordable housing was being bought by large corporations and upzoned for them, and then almost a quarter of the condos they were building were sitting empty for years. The efforts of the development industry to pull profits out of communities at the cost of affordable homes for Canadians of all ages were very difficult to watch, because we could see the profit leaving communities. Those developments were not building communities, and we can see now that we have a lot more work to do in the area of bringing back affordable units. It is 15:1. People cannot afford to live in these communities anymore when they are taken over by real estate trusts and development groups that build luxury condo after luxury condo.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank my colleague for reminding the House about some of the issues I have brought up regarding indigenous peoples. It is absolutely an injustice indeed that there are so many cuts being anticipated and that there are great gaps, such as the $350-billion infrastructure gap for first nations.

That figure does not even include infrastructure gaps for Métis and Inuit, but I will get back to the debate on this important bill. It could have great impacts for Nunavummiut, who suffer the most for lack of housing, as well as the cost of living. Could the member share with us why this bill is so important, not just for northerners but for all Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I raise my hands to the member for Nunavut, who has stood up so many times in this House to explain to the Liberal government why it is so important that it live up to its human rights commitments, especially in regard to housing. There are absolutely unacceptable conditions in Nunavut, and there is a partner there ready to go.

I will follow up on the question from the member, though. We know food prices are extremely high across the country. We know this is about food price gouging. This is about profits. Because there is not competition in the grocery chains, they are taking home extreme profits. They are not being taxed fairly, and they are taking advantage of Canadians. That is why this bill is so important: We need to get serious about addressing that competition.

The other thing I will talk about is the fact that the rental, co-op and not-for-profit housing in this country needs extreme investment, and this is a tiny move forward. We are hoping for more from the Liberals. We need more from the Liberals. Affordability is just so important across the board.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of getting affordable housing off the market in order to protect it from financialization. I would like her to talk about the importance of defining affordability based on tenants' ability to pay rather than comparing it to the average market price.

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member is very adept at research, and he knows this as well, but I just want to say here that housing prices have increased exponentially over the last two decades, and wages have not. Wages have not kept pace with the cost of living or with housing, and this is one of the reasons, as a New Democrat standing here today, I am so happy to know we have the anti-scab legislation coming forward, that a well-paying job is a union job. We are so looking forward to more Canadians being able to take advantage of those kinds of work conditions.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

There being no further members rising for debate, pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask for a recorded division.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #456

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

It being 12:14 a.m, pursuant to order made earlier today, the House stands adjourned until later this day at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

Good night.

(The House adjourned at 12:14 a.m.)