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

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

Yes.

The hon. member may continue.

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

Madam Speaker, they have called in the heads of the grocery chains as well as the heads of major food manufacturers to come speak with the government and work together to come up with further solutions, because we all have to work together. We know when grocery chains are making record profits and CEOs and others in the C-suite are getting high-level bonuses that Canadians need to know they are also concerned about other stakeholders, such as their loyal customers and their frontline employees, who need help given to them as well.

We are proposing reforms to the Competition Act to foster competition across the economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, in addition to these other measures we have taken. Of course, we also gave the grocery rebate to try to help with affordability.

We have modernized competition law and the necessary enforcement to combat price-fixing in all sectors by applying some of the highest penalties in the world. We did it with the help of public consultation to ensure Canadian voices were engaged and heard.

We would also introduce amendments that would eliminate big business mergers with anti-competitive effects, enable the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and stop anti-competitive collaborations that stifle small businesses, especially small, local grocers.

We also need to take the necessary steps to collect public data on the costs throughout the agri-food supply chain, including disaggregated data on costs of primary agriculture food and beverage processing and food retail sectors. We know farmers are working hard across Canada. We know they need support and we do not want to see any more pressure put on them.

In addition, there would be funding for indigenous-led initiatives in remote and northern areas to improve infrastructure that supports food security in the communities. The recommendation recognizes the unique challenges attributed to vulnerable communities in times of crisis and would facilitate measures to support and protect them.

There were several other recommendations made in these studies, and we are following up on most of them.

We know this government has lived through some of the most challenging global events in history. The opposition likes to confuse correlation with causality, but just because something happened at the same time as something else does not mean it is caused by it. We have heard time and time again experts who have cited that the causes of this global inflation are the three Cs: climate change, COVID and conflict. Those are the three major reasons for this inflation, and we are doing everything we can as a government to try to help Canadians fight inflation and deal with the issue of affordability.

All of us here will continue working on affordability to ensure a prosperous marketplace that fosters economic growth and a comfortable standard of living for Canadians and their families. We see them, we hear them and we are acting to correct this affordability crisis.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill C-56, would the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill agree that a band-aid covering an infection does not actually heal the infection and only makes it worse?

When I look at the farmers in my riding, they are the only people I know of who buy retail and sell wholesale. Putting a carbon tax on top of their monthly bills does directly affect our economy. Would she agree with that?

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

Madam Speaker, the member asked a couple of different questions.

Band-aids do not heal wounds, it is true, but Bill C-56 is definitely more than a band-aid. We know we need more housing, and this would provide more housing. We have heard it from many experts. This would help Canadians get more affordable housing, especially in the rental sector.

Additionally, on the subject of farmers, absolutely farmers are hard-working. I come from a family of farmers. In my Dutch background, my mother's family are all farmers, and they talk to me. They recognize climate change is a reality and that we need to work on this as well to help them deal with climate events.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Since Parliament resumed, we have often heard the Liberals brag about holding a major summit with the heads of large grocery chains. It is a big show that promises potential commitments, but none of that is binding on the big grocers. We were expecting a response within three weeks, so there is still a week and a half left.

What will happen if the grocers do not decide to voluntarily lower prices? Will a surtax be imposed? Will we go on the offensive on that? Will the government use a coercive approach? After that, where will that tax show up? Will it be passed on to consumers? How will prices be brought down? Will the Liberals impose an obligation to deliver?

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

Madam Speaker, we are having meetings currently. We believe that the grocery chains and the large manufacturers will come forward with solutions.

In Canada, we all work together. I believe they understand that the thing to maximize is not only shareholder value, it is also stakeholder value in other areas, such as employees and customers.

We are working with them. We will come up with solutions. Certainly, the last thing we want to do is increase prices for consumers. Whatever solutions we come up would not be passed on to consumers.

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

Madam Speaker, for months now, large grocery chains have been ripping off consumers. People are paying crazy prices while the companies make record profits. Now, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is going on bended knee to the CEOs of those companies to ask if they can stabilize prices. Prices are already too high. Even if prices can be stabilized, people will still be paying too much.

Is that the Liberal plan? To stabilize extortion?

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

Madam Speaker, the prices are too high. We all understand that. We have all seen that.

We are asking. We are not on our knees, we are meeting with the heads of these companies, both the grocery chains and the manufacturers, to talk to them about what they could do voluntarily to address this with us.

We are willing to see that these exceedingly high profits and bonuses are not okay when people are suffering, unlike the Conservatives who like to blame everything on the price on pollution, not at all looking to the profits that are being made by both the grocery sector and the oil and gas sector when Canadians are struggling.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise for the first time in this session of Parliament to speak to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

The lack of affordable housing has been top of mind in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound as home and rental prices have continued to increase over the last eight years.

To give members some data, in 2015, when the current government took office, rental units were on average $700 a month, I did have a fairly wide variance as I represent a large rural riding, but now that rent is well over $1,000 per month. An average house price in 2015 was $311,000 whereas now it is over $608,000. Further complicating this is home sales are down over 27% below the five-year average, and over 31% below the 10-year average.

This speaks directly to the impact the Liberal government's inflationary deficit spending is having on the economy and the ability for people to get into homes, not only to get them built, but to afford to build them or to move into rental units. This has finally come home to roost with the Liberal government, which is acting now, albeit far too late. It is funny that it finally comes forward with a bill to help make life more affordable for Canadians at the same time that the hon. leader of the official opposition introduced his bill, the building homes not bureaucracy act. It liked the bill so much it decided to take a piece of it and call it its own. I guess we could say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I would offer that it could save itself a lot of work by just passing the more comprehensive bill from the Leader of the Opposition.

One of the aspects of the bill that I question is how it is going to address the immediate housing crisis that Canadians are facing right now. If we read the bill, these rental housing units do not even have to be completed until 12 years from now, in the year 2035.

This housing issue has been going on and I have been hearing about it almost the whole time since I was elected. I hosted a housing task force meeting just over a year ago back in my riding because I recognized that this issue transcends all levels of government, elected officials and stakeholders. Everybody has a piece to play in solving this. Those stakeholders included my counties, health units, realtors, builders, chambers of commerce, not-for-profits, co-op housing groups and the construction sector. I would like to paint the picture of the complexity of this issue we are facing and why this bill does not go far enough. There is the increasing cost of land to build on; rising interest rates; the Nimbyism that is existing at all levels, but in particular at the municipal level; development charges and red tape; labour shortages in the construction sector; high inflation on building goods and everyday goods caused by not only supply chain issues, but more importantly, the carbon tax; and the deficit spending of the Liberal government.

This cost of living crisis has basically exhausted the not-for-profits in my area as the demand for aid continues to increase. They have been calling for the removal of the GST on not-for-profits as well, not just what is being proposed in Bill C-56. Existing landlords are hesitant to rent out their properties due to the challenges that so many Canadians are facing because of a frequency of home takeovers, and the excessive red tape for private investment because federal government programs are too restrictive. Ultimately, removing the GST from eligible purpose-built rentals is just one small drop in the bucket for what the residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound need to see in order to fix this housing crisis.

The government likes to talk about some of its other programs, like the housing accelerator fund. I had the privilege of sitting on the HUMA committee when we first studied the housing accelerator fund, but it has failed to demonstrate its utility. Today, I am only aware of one announcement of any funding going out under that program.

When I asked the minister specifically at committee a year ago about how this is going to help a large portion of Canada, i.e., those of us who live in rural Canada, he admitted on the public record that this funding is geared toward the major urban centres in this country, not for the rest of Canada.

I was lucky enough to question the president of the CMHC at that committee as well about the level of bureaucracy and complications. I will mention a specific example of the challenges that not-for-profits were facing. Ultimately, I was successful in advocating for a change.

There was a not-for-profit senior housing development that was running into roadblocks because of the Liberal government's inflationary spending and the costs that have gone up, as I highlighted earlier, to the point where it had to buy down, according to the CMHC, through its financial institution, the actual lending rate.

It was not allowed to talk or renegotiate that, because now the prices had doubled. I will get into specifics a bit later. It was being told it could not communicate in it. Fortunately, when I had the president there, we were able to come to a solution, but the point is that too much bureaucracy is causing the problems. We need fewer gatekeepers, not more.

I will get into some of the specifics I just mentioned. In this case, the construction costs had gone from $3 million to $7 million for this not-for-profit. That is why it is so important that we change it.

In prepping for this speech, I reached out to a number of stakeholders and not-for-profits in my area to ask how this would help them. They feel it is a step in the right direction, but there are plenty of tangible steps the government needs to take in order to make more substantial changes.

I mentioned charities and not-for-profits. I have Habitat for Humanity in my riding; it is a charity that builds homes for low-income residents, and it suggested removing the GST from the sale of homes being built for charities as well, because that is not mentioned at all in the bill. A challenge it specifically faces is that, when fair market value rises, so does the GST, which makes it more expensive for charities such as Habitat for Humanity to build these homes for low-income Canadians, especially given the affordability crisis that Canadians are facing, which has now reduced the charitable donations these charities are receiving.

Additional feedback I got from charities was to remove the compounding carbon tax and clean fuel standards, as they increase costs significantly for charities, which receive no rebate off these additional taxes.

Ultimately, Bill C-56 contains a number of half measures, ideas taken from opposition parties, including, as I already mentioned, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and, on the competition side, from my colleague from the Bay of Quinte. They have an overreliance on existing programs that are obviously not working, and they are just redoing funding announcements. As I said, while there are some solid measures in this bill that may encourage the construction of more homes, more must be done now to catch up and ensure that Canadians have a roof over their head immediately.

Specifically regarding the housing portion of the bill, the reality is that there is a lot more value in the hon. Leader of the Opposition's building homes not bureaucracy act as a bill, because it goes far beyond just removing the GST from certain new builds. It sets out a road map for bringing homes that people can afford to more Canadians.

Ultimately, if the Liberal government is serious about addressing housing affordability, it would fast-track the Leader of the Opposition's bill and make it law today.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say, I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative Party today. It is not recognizing the many different things that this legislation would actually do.

It is very easy to critique the legislation and underestimate the degree to which it would help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In fact, yesterday we saw on the floor a concurrence motion to prevent debate on this particular piece of legislation. There is no sign the Conservatives want to let up in terms of allowing the bill to go to committee.

Does the Conservative Party support the legislation today? If Conservative members support it, do they believe the legislation should get to committee some time this month or next month? It would provide relief to Canadians. When do Conservative members feel the bill should go to committee?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not shocked that the member for Winnipeg North is disappointed; I am frequently disappointed in a lot of the stuff that comes from that side of the aisle as well. I am not shocked by his comments.

My point back would be that I believe every MP in the House should have the right to speak to every piece of legislation, because a lot of MPs do not have the opportunity to speak as often as that member does in this chamber. If he would have listened to my speech, he would know that this is one of the most important issues that Canadians are facing in every riding. Every MP in here, if I asked for a show of hands, I am sure would stick up their hand and say that housing affordability is one of the primary issues they hear about daily.

We need to be able to share that, and we should all have the opportunity to speak to it.

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

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's last comment about how much speaking time certain members get. I want to congratulate him on his speech.

I am wondering about something. For some time now, certain Conservative members from Quebec have been passing themselves off as champions of jurisdictional issues in the House. We in the Bloc Québécois are quite accustomed to seeing the Liberals interfere in areas of jurisdiction that are not theirs. Much to our surprise, this bill does not encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces or the municipalities. However, in what my friend described as the Conservative Party's proposals, I see interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. In case my colleague needs a little reminder, subsections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867 give the provinces legislative jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

Am I to understand from this afternoon's debate that the Conservative Party does not want to respect the Canadian Constitution? What is going on?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for not breaking out the French today, but I want to try to get a serious reply back to his question.

We absolutely believe in the Constitution, but as I said in my speech, the challenge we have with housing is that it transcends all levels of government. It requires everybody to work collaboratively and co-operatively together. If he actually reads what we are proposing from the Conservative Party, he would realize that our bill would offer incentives. It would not be interfering in different levels of jurisdiction; it would incentivize municipalities to get more houses built to meet targets. If they cannot do that, ultimately, they would not actually be trying to help solve the problem we are facing, which is that Canadians need a roof over their head. Therefore, they would not get that money, or as much money;

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I are both Ontario-based MPs. It has been asked in the House several times, and yesterday, during conversations about the bill, I was asking about the Conservative housing plan. One of the key things that strikes me is that they want to sell off public assets, yet we have seen the Doug Ford Conservative government do that in a very problematic way in Ontario. It is at the point where it has been quite controversial, in fact.

As such, I want to hear that the Conservatives would not specifically do that at the federal level and that they would not follow their Conservative colleagues in that regard. What is their plan, specifically, for selling off those public lands?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into the specifics of our plan. Our job right now is to criticize. Maybe that is even too harsh of a word. I would like to say that we will hold the government to account to ensure the legislation it is putting forward is the best possible for all Canadians.

If the member is concerned about provincial politics, I encourage her to resign as a federal member of Parliament and run for provincial parliament. I am sure there are openings available. We will have a plan as soon as the next election is called, and the NDP—