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

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member touched briefly on the compounding effect of the carbon tax. The carbon tax is very different than the GST. The GST has input tax credits and the tax itself, so the consumer only ends up paying a one-time 5% tax. However, the carbon tax is a compounding tax: tax on the carbon tax, then carbon tax on carbon tax. Could the member explain a bit more on how that has a very damaging effect on Canadians and really propels inflation?

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it has a very profound effect. We just have to talk to the manufacturers and farmers who have had it implemented upon them.

The Canadian public only sees the rebate, which they still pay more of on their side, but farmers, manufacturers, truckers, cold storage facilities and grocery stores do not get a rebate at all with the carbon tax. Every time that cost is imposed on a business, it has no choice but to pass it down to the consumer. When that is done one, two, three, four or five times, the result is seeing that price increase five times. The consumer pays it. At the end of the day, Canadians are suffering.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches from the Conservatives, who seem to delight in reminding us that removing the GST from housing was their idea. Whether the idea came from the Conservatives or the Liberals, ultimately, will it actually make a difference?

I sincerely wonder, because in the end, the money will not go back into the pockets of those who rent housing, but rather into the pockets of those who build it. This sends a message to builders that they will be able to build homes for less. As the Minister of Finance said, it will cost them $25,000 less to build a $500,000 building. If the building is valued at $800,000 on the market, why would someone sell it for $25,000 less? It will be sold at the same price and the builder will simply make more profit.

I am having a hard time understanding how this magic solution will suddenly solve the problem.

[Ryan Williams, Conservative, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Madam Speaker, we all know about the housing crisis we are in. It is the worst in the world. I know all of us, as parliamentarians, want to fix that. We all agree that we need more supply, and I think the debate in the House is how to get more supply.

How do we work with those municipalities and the provinces in getting more supply? There will be different ideologies on how to do that. Taking the GST off of purpose-built rentals is a great idea, as is working with municipalities to make sure we get permits approved faster. That is what our leader is all about, and it is a great idea. Let us work together to make sure we get houses built so Canadians can finally afford a home.

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to share my time with the hon. member for Shefford.

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

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House?

It is agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I want you to know that I am very critical of this bill. Obviously, it does not set out any harmful measures. It sets out some mini-measures and some relatively important things. It is clearly not a panacea, but we will support it because we cannot be against it. However, when I read the bill, I could not help but be very critical of it for the following reasons.

We are dealing with a government that is incapable of thinking long term or seeing past the end of its nose. We have been in a housing crisis for two, five, 10, 15, 20 years, yet never has there been any long-term action except for a failed national housing strategy. We are in a situation where food prices have increased exponentially. Still, it took a Liberal caucus meeting where backbenchers were probably so angry at the government that something had to be done.

What was the centrepiece of its action? No joke, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry decided he was going to do something. He decided he was going to call up the people who represent 80% of Canada's grocery retail market for a meeting. He picked up the telephone and then realized there were only five of them: three big chains, Costco and Walmart. It took him 30 seconds to make the calls.

Economics teaches us that industries find ways to concentrate. Some are more complex than others. However, when there are so few players controlling the grocery market that they could all tee off together, the industry concentration is obvious. The Conservatives are no better. Concentration has been an issue for years. Everything had to blow up before the Minister of Industry decided to invite them over for a coffee. There are so few of them that they would only need one Nespresso pod.

What has happened since 1986? Steinberg and A&P closed down. Loblaws acquired Provigo. Sobeys acquired IGA. Metro acquired Adonis. In the 1980s, there were 13 grocery chains. That was already a small number, but now we are down to three. Now we have to include Walmart and Costco to say there is some competition. The Minister of Industry was never interested in this. It is funny: The Liberals are suddenly seeing that an election may be looming. It is funny: All of a sudden they are seeing their poll results. It took polls for them to realize that their constituents would like to eat three meals a day.

This serves as a very sobering reminder of how out of touch the Liberals are. I would remind the House, however, that this all began under the Conservatives, and no one did anything. We know what happened. Are the Bloc Québécois members the only ones saying this? Not necessarily, although we have been proposing measures for 20 years to improve competition and ensure that consumers come first. The Competition Bureau is also saying these things. More and more mergers and acquisitions are happening. No one is stopping them. The profit margin on products is increasing.

What does that mean? It means that it costs companies less thanks to economies of scale and additional savings when they merge. At the same time, they are charging more for their products. Between those two things, they are earning an excess of profits due to a lack of competition. These people are lining their pockets. No matter what the Conservatives say, it is not the result of free enterprise and the genius of capitalism. It is the result of less competition.

We therefore need to seriously rethink how this market is organized, because a market that works is one where consumers can go and see a competitor, where people can say that if the price is too high at company A, they will go and purchase from company B. Those companies would then have to compete with one another. This is no longer the case in Canada. When five individuals sitting in a room control 80% of the market, we no longer have a healthy grocery market.

As I said, Bill C‑56 proposes measures that the Bloc Québécois has been requesting, not for two years, not for five years or eight years, not just since the Liberals came to power, but for 20 years. That is a verifiable fact. We care about the middle class and purchasing power, even between election periods.

There are some good things in this bill. It gives the commissioner real investigative powers. Instead of just conducting small studies and giving his opinion, as he is currently being forced to do, he will be able to compel people to testify. He will be able to ask for documents. A competition bureau needs to be able to investigate. In Canada, the commissioner's powers are limited.

The bill broadens the range of anti-competitive activities. Right now, we have a model that is unique in the world, but we are not the best country in the world. Members know what I think about that. When companies want to merge, the Competition Bureau lets them as long as doing so will generate efficiency gains, because that will lower costs.

However, the commissioner cannot say that the result will be less competition and therefore fewer reductions, higher prices and more money in the pockets of company shareholders because of a lack of competition. The commissioner cannot prevent that. Today, we will be able to take a step toward doing so. That is good, but it is just a start.

We will support the bill, but we are not commending the government for this, far from it. The government is congratulating itself on this. However, the members on the other side of the House have some soul-searching to do, as do the Conservatives. There is still a lot of work to be done. We need to review the notion of abuse of dominance. We need to prevent the big players from abusing their large share of the market. That is just a start. This bill is disappointing, but we cannot be against it.

Let us talk about housing. Right now, there is a flaw in the market: It is not housing the poorest. That is a serious problem. Canada is still part of the G7. The market is not housing the poorest. The market is not building co‑operative housing. The market did not build the Centre d'hébergement multiservice de Mirabel, which helps people who hit a rough patch, such as a separation or substance abuse problems. The market is not putting people back to work, and that is what is needed. While we should be talking about this, while it should be our primary concern, while there are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec, while there are people sleeping in tents, the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister are in a kind of intellectual symbiosis all of a sudden. They have become buddies. They are both attacking municipalities.

Instead of helping to release the $900 million for Quebec, they go on about the national housing strategy because Ottawa wants to put a Canadian flag on the corner of the cheque. Suddenly, there are too many regulations. They are against protecting farmland, even though food is supposedly important to them. They are against protecting our architectural heritage. They are against harmoniously organizing our municipalities. They are against housing.

In the meantime, this is what is going on in my riding. When land was expropriated to build the Mirabel airport in the 1970s, the stolen land eventually had to be returned. At the time, airport easements were implemented. Today, there is one runway. At the time, there were plans for six. Today, for much of the land in Mirabel, which is zoned residential, federal regulations prevent the municipality of Mirabel from building housing, from housing people.

It is funny. The federal government does not care about those regulations. They are within its jurisdiction. Rather than doing what it needs to do, it is going after mayors. It is going after municipal consultants and cities. When Mirabel made the request in 2007, it never heard back. It never heard back in 2014, either. In 2022, at committee with the minister and again with the deputy minister, not a word came from Ottawa. I wrote to the Minister of Transport about this over the weekend. I urge him to review those easements.

The problem is, Quebec is being blackmailed by Ottawa, which is imposing conditions on releasing the funds. Meanwhile, real people, real families are on the street, living in tents or giving birth in their cars.

I want to say one last thing. We need to think about the demand. It takes four seconds to increase an immigration target, but it takes time to build housing. Even if the federal government's plan to eliminate the GST worked, it applies to housing starts in 2030, which will not be complete until 2035. The National Bank and the TD Bank have the same message: The immigration plan is poorly thought out. As usual and as with the GST rebate, no studies were done. That is what we were told at the briefing. We were told that the market is buckling under the demand.

That is because the Liberals are always busy coming up with stunts to win votes. They continue to invite the grocery stores, increase immigration targets, come up with poor plans for housing, impose conditions and turn a blind eye to their own federal regulations that hinder the creation of housing. With the attitude of this government and the Conservatives, I predict that this crisis will be even worse in 10 years.

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

Madam Speaker, I do not think that spending literally billions of dollars is a political stunt. It is a reality.

I do not believe that the first-ever national housing strategy is a political stunt. I believe these are attempts by the government to ensure that we are able to address this as best we can. The national government needs to play a strong leadership role. We can understand the issues out there that need to be dealt with. However, other levels of government are also required to be equally engaged.

For the first time in a generation, we are seeing different levels of government coming together to address this issue. When the member talks about homelessness that on the streets, it is more than just having a shelter. There are all sorts of issues around that.

There is no one level of government that needs to be engaged, and not only governments, but also non-profits and other stakeholders, are needed to resolve the issue of housing before us. Would the member not agree with that?

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

Madam Speaker, let us deal with the parliamentary secretary the way we have to deal with the Conservatives on social media, in other words, let us set the record straight.

When it comes to the $900 million in the national housing strategy that is stuck in Ottawa's coffers—it is in fact stuck in Ottawa's coffers—if it were not for the Bloc Québécois bringing this up during every question period in the House, no one would be talking about it.

It took three and a half years to negotiate with Quebec because under the national housing strategy, Quebec, in its own jurisdiction, wants to have the money that is just sitting in Ottawa. This is not fiction. It is fact.

The airspace easements that are preventing thousands of people in my own riding from getting housing fall under federal jurisdiction. Funnily enough, the Liberals do not question that. What a coincidence.

If the government really wants to house people, then it will get on with it and show leadership. When I look up the word “leadership” in the dictionary, I do not see a federal government that drags its feet for three and half years before paying out the money and needs to be prodded every question period just to give Quebec its funding when all the other provinces have already received their share.

When I talk about leadership, I am not talking about a program where the government boasts that is has invested a certain amount, but more than half of the funding comes directly from Quebec City and the provinces are subject to federal conditions.

If that is the kind of leadership the parliamentary secretary is offering us, we can do without it.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I agree with some of what my colleague has said with respect to unchecked capitalism creating market failure. On that, I think we should all listen to the member. He is very well versed in economics when it comes to that issue.

I want to ask the member two questions. First, does he think it is a problem when the CFO of Pepsi brags, on national television, that they can sell their product for whatever they want? It seems as though we are focused on just the grocers, but there is a whole supply chain before the grocers that is completely absent from this discussion.

If the member does not want to answer that question, could he say why the government waited so long to get dragged into doing something?

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

Madam Speaker, earlier, the previous Conservative member was supposed to speak for 10 minutes. The Green Party objected and he got 20 minutes. He did not even talk about housing. He focused on the price of a bag of chips.

Now my Conservative colleague, who deals with economic matters, is talking about the price of Pepsi. I find that a little unusual. Earlier I mentioned all the mergers and acquisitions that have happened since 1986. As a result, today we have a handful of people who probably belong to the same private club and control 80% of the market price.

The Harper government did nothing about it. There was nothing about that in the Conservative platform. There has been nothing about that in the Conservatives' questions in the House. Today, as the price of food continues to rise, there is still a significant lack of details.

My colleague asked why the Liberals have not done anything. It is for the same reason that successive Conservative governments did nothing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing from the Liberals and the Conservatives that this development-driven model is going to solve the affordable housing crisis. Nowhere in the world has a developer in the private sector model solved an affordable housing crisis.

Right now, 3.5% of the housing stock is non-market housing. We just need to go outside these doors to see what it looks like for every large or medium-sized city in this country. It is homelessness.

We have an urgent need. Hopefully my colleague could speak about the sense of urgency in Mirabel, his community. Does the member agree that the federal government needs to urgently step forward with non-market housing?

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

Madam Speaker, Quebec is the only province with ongoing social and co-operative housing construction programs. Because it does not understand Quebec's programs, the federal government is incapable of negotiating this quickly and correctly.

I agree with my colleague on the substance. The market does not house those who need it most, those with fewer financial means. We need to correct that market with social housing.

However, it is important to remember that the construction of housing falls under Quebec's jurisdiction and, unfortunately, we are not the right Parliament to be talking about this issue. The money needs to be transferred to Quebec.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C‑56.

As the member for Shefford, I have had a lot of people talk to me about the issue of social housing and homelessness. The town of Granby has been hit hard by this crisis and, as the critic for seniors, during my tour of the four corners of Quebec, I was also made aware of the housing challenges that seniors face.

We cannot remain indifferent and believe that a wave of a magic wand will fix all this. We have a duty to be conscientious. The issue of housing is constantly in the news right now, so we cannot be against the idea of studying this bill in committee.

In my speech today, I will summarize the bill. I will then talk about the importance of respecting what each level of government can do. Finally, I will present the Bloc Québécois's proposals.

First, let me first remind the House that Bill C-56 essentially contains four measures. The first is a GST rebate for the construction of new rental apartment buildings. As everyone knows, this will not really bring prices down, no matter what the Minister of Finance says. During recent briefings, we asked for the studies on which the Deputy Prime Minister based her claim that prices would go down. No one was able to confirm that assertion. She did not have an answer and wanted to check the information and get back to us later. I think it is unlikely that she will ever get back to us.

Clearly, this does not replace the Marshall plan for low-cost housing that the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, our critic for social programs, is calling for. My colleague was kind enough to accept my invitation to come and speak with the community organizations involved in these issues in my region, in collaboration with the Groupe Actions Solutions Pauvreté and its two subcommittees on social housing and homelessness. Their expertise is so valuable and deserves to be recognized more.

However, to return to the GST rebate on new rental apartment buildings, some developers may be swayed by profit-related concerns to build rental apartment buildings rather than condos, and this could ease the pressures driving the cost of market-based housing higher.

According to the Société d'habitation du Québec, although roughly 40% of Quebec households are renters, only 14% of new construction between now and 2030 is expected to be rental housing. This means that the current shortage will worsen in the years to come. If Bill C‑56 can raise that percentage, at least it will help reduce the shortage.

Part 1 of the bill, which amends the Excise Tax Act, proposes giving builders of rental properties a GST rebate equal to 5% of the selling price. The rebate would apply at the time of sale, or deemed sale if the builder becomes the owner. However, the rebate will only apply where the purchaser has already been fully exempted, such as a government agency or municipality, or partially exempted, such as a non‑profit organization or housing co‑operative. Thus, Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects. It only covers private housing. Even so, this is the kind of change that will need to be considered in committee and studied.

Another aspect of the bill is that it proposes three amendments to the Competition Act. One proposal is to give the Competition Bureau of Canada real power to conduct an inquiry when it studies a sector. We regularly proposed this type of measure prior to 2011 in bills on gas prices. The proposal makes it harder for companies to merge. We were already asking for this. Another proposal is to broaden the concept of anti-competitive practices. It is worth looking at.

Right now, when a company wants to buy out a competitor, the Competition Act provides that the bureau will allow it only if the company can show that the buyout will lead to gains in efficiency, even if the merger lessens competition. This provision promoting concentration is unique in the industrialized world and is repealed in Bill C‑56.

The Bloc Québécois, including the member for Terrebonne, called for this measure. The Bloc will stick to its way of doing politics: It will be a party that makes suggestions. It will continue to make suggestions throughout this session, while also avoiding spreading disinformation.

For a long time, the Bloc Québécois has been saying that the provinces and municipalities are best placed to know the housing needs in their jurisdictions. The federal government should not interfere. Let us not forget that housing is the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Need I remind our colleagues that sections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution state that property and civil rights and matters of a local nature are provincial legislative jurisdictions? This means the federal government has no standing to interfere.

The numbers speak for themselves. Bill C‑56 is just one drop in an ocean of needs. With the rise in demand, Quebec will need 1.1 million extra housing units within the next six years. Homelessness is rising in every region of Quebec. The homeless population has jumped by 44% over the last five years to reach an estimated 10,000.

The housing shortage and the resulting high cost of available apartments are playing a direct part in this crisis. The Bloc Québécois already has a wide array of suggestions and comments concerning possible solutions to the housing crisis currently raging across Quebec and Canada.

We initially took a favourable view of the Canada-Quebec housing agreement signed in 2020. The agreement is worth $3.7 billion, half of it provided by the federal government. However, we were dismayed that the negotiations leading up to the agreement took three years. Funds intended for Quebec were frozen until the two levels of government could find common ground. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about the federal government's constant need to dictate how Quebec should spend its money.

Once again, Quebec wants its share transferred to it without conditions. Had this been done back in 2017, Quebec could have started building and renovating numerous housing projects, including social housing, three years sooner, which would certainly have alleviated today's rampant housing crisis. Unconditional transfers would significantly streamline funding processes, whereas the various agreements add to the red tape involved—

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

I must interrupt the hon. member because the hon. Leader of the Opposition is rising on a point of order.