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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to rise to speak to a very important piece of legislation. Bill C-56 is actually a reflection of many discussions that have been held throughout our communities, in virtually every community throughout the country from coast to coast to coast. In particular, I know my colleagues have been listening to what their constituents have been saying, and we have some very serious issues on which we need to work together in order to overcome them. The types of issues this bill is dealing with are things such as inflation and interest rates, indirectly if not directly. The bill specifically deals with issues like housing and competition. In order to ensure that there is a sense of stability, it deals with issues like groceries and how we have seen the rise and drop, though mostly the rise, in grocery prices.

I would argue that while some members, in particular the Conservatives, will focus their attention on being critical of personalities, the government and the members of the national Liberal caucus are very much focused on what is hurting Canada today and on listening to what Canadians have to say. That is what this bill is all about.

Just a few moments ago, I was reconfirming some headlines. One of them dealt with a developer who was saying that he was going to be moving toward building 5,000 new rental units because of the GST forgiveness, which is actually in this legislation. It is a bit dependent, as the developer is hoping to see provinces join and follow suit in terms of what the federal government is doing. We have actually seen a number of provinces do that. I believe that at the end of the day, in good part because of this legislation, we will see thousands and thousands of new homes being constructed.

We can think in terms of the issue of grocery prices and inflation and how much these are hurting the pocketbooks of Canadians. In the last budget, we created the grocery rebate for Canadians. Somewhere in the neighbourhood of 11 million Canadians were affected by that particular policy, through which we were able to put money into the pockets of Canadians to help alleviate the issue of inflation, in particular with respect to groceries.

In September, following the caucus discussion, the Prime Minister made a presentation about the importance of things like the Competition Act, of holding those who sell our groceries accountable, and the idea of bringing the big five, for example, before the minister and before the government, in one sense to hold them more accountable and to put in some deadlines. We want to see more stability in that area from Costco, Walmart, Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys, which are the big five. I understand that just over 80% of grocery sales in Canada are through those five large companies. The minister and government laid down the expectations of the government. Stability in pricing is of great importance, and this legislation would help deal with the issue. The Competition Act is something that can have an impact.

There was a time when people would say that bigger is better; they would use the argument of efficiency. That argument does not sell anymore. We need to ensure that there is more accountability and transparency; it is not good enough to stand by and watch consumers being gouged. We are very sensitive to the issue of inflation.

If we look at it, and there is the odd little heckle or murmur from the Conservatives, at the end of the day, it would be easy to say that Canada is doing exceptionally well on inflation, which is true. We understand that people are still suffering from the impacts of inflation, and that is why we have taken measures, not only in this legislation but also in other legislation and in budgetary measures that have been brought before the House.

We can understand and appreciate what people have to go through. This legislation is a reflection of what we are hearing. We are responding to the needs of the people of Canada. We will continue to focus on the policy changes necessary to help and have the backs of Canadians. We have done this through the pandemic, up to this point, and, I would ultimately argue, since we formed government back in 2015.

The House resumed from September 25 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.

Foreign Affairs and International Development

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot say how surprised I am, to say the least, that we are addressing this issue today—not that I do not consider it important, on the contrary. My office and the office of my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan held discussions prior to the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development so that we could again bring up the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh, given the events of recent days and weeks. There was then an agreement.

Yesterday, during the very first meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, I did say that we wanted to revisit this issue, since we have an open study, so to speak, on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan and recent events require us to look at this issue again. We therefore had discussions with our Conservative colleagues about this.

Suddenly, this morning, without warning, the Conservatives moved this motion to adopt the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Not that I do not think this report should be adopted or that this is an important issue. It is a matter of the utmost urgency, and I will come back to this in a moment.

There was, however, a distinct lack of co-operation on the part of our Conservative colleagues, a lack of consultation and communication, even though our offices had been in contact for several weeks about the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. As a result, I can only conclude that this is a delaying tactic that has nothing to do with the substance of the issue. This is a parliamentary guerrilla tactic to prevent the government from passing its inflation bill.

At the same, I must say that I disagree with the Liberal Party’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader when he says that the inflation issue is more important in the calculations or in the ranking of important matters. I know that our constituents are living with the daily consequences of inflation and the housing shortage and that it is vitally important that we address this issue. Moreover, we were scheduled to discuss this, as part of the study of Bill C-56.

However, right now, there are people losing their lives in Nagorno-Karabakh and the international community is showing little or no concern. There are only a few countries, including France, in particular, that really seem to care about what is happening in that region.

Azerbaijan claims that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of its territory. International law seems to confirm the Azerbaijani claim. However, if it is true that the people of Nagorno-Karabakh are part of Azerbaijan, how can we tolerate, under the principle of the duty and responsibility to protect—a concept that was adopted by the United Nations at Canada’s instigation—a government literally starving and attacking a population in its territory? That, however, is what is happening.

For several months, after the 2020 conflict, the government claimed that it wanted to adopt a balanced position, stating that it did not know what was really happening on the ground. It said that it did not really know who the attacker was and who was in the wrong.

However, since then, the facts keep pointing at Azerbaijan.

There was a reluctant statement from Global Affairs Canada, which we actually reiterated in the report, that simply called on Azerbaijan to live up to its commitment under the peace agreement that it reached with Armenia after the 2020 conflict under Russian auspices. This statement called on Azerbaijan to live up to its commitment to keep the Lachin Corridor open and call on it to respect the terms of the ceasefire.

Aside from this half-hearted statement, not much has been done by the Canadian government. Of course, a special rapporteur was sent, and none other than Stéphane Dion, Canada’s ambassador plenipotentiary, who is the right fit for all purposes and missions. He was sent to Armenia to support Armenian democracy. Some recommendations were taken from his report, including the recommendation to open an embassy in Yerevan, a commitment made by the Prime Minister several years ago that is finally being implemented. How can we accept that Azerbaijan has, on several occasions, not only violated the ceasefire agreement reached with Armenia in 2020, but also blatantly crossed into Armenia’s sovereign territory?

In the House, since February 2022, we have stood in solidarity in our determination to denounce Russia’s illegal and unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. Several countries around the world look at Canada and its claims to defend international law, human rights and the rule of law, and then wonder about how we seem to apply things differently based on the situation. Palestine has been living under occupation since 1967 to near total indifference. Armenia has been subjected to military attacks by Azerbaijan to near total indifference. The Canadian government is determined, and we completely support it, to defend Ukraine against Russian aggression. Why then the double standard? Why not be just as firm about Azerbaijan’s aggression against Armenia as we have been and still are about Russia's aggression against Ukraine?

Azerbaijan violated the peace agreements once again by launching a military offensive in the Nagorno-Karabakh region on September 19. People are fleeing by the hundreds, fearing repression. Indeed, there have been disturbing reports about how the Azeri troops are treating the civilian population. There are reports of summary executions and discrimination against Armenian populations. For months now, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh have been suffering the effects of the blockade, which Azerbaijan initially tried to deny so as not to be accused of violating the terms of the ceasefire agreement signed with Armenia in 2020.

Azerbaijan is a rather authoritarian state that rarely tolerates protests. However, it did tolerate a months-long protest by so-called environmentalists who blocked the Lachin corridor under the pretext of wanting to prevent mining developments in Nagorno-Karabakh. The fact of the matter is that Azerbaijan's main fear was that mining resources would flow from Nagorno-Karabakh into Armenia. Under the pretext of preventing mining development for supposedly environmental reasons, these activists were therefore tolerated in the Lachin corridor for months.

In January of this year, I brought this serious situation before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. In the wake of the blockade of the Lachin corridor, we conducted a study on this specific situation at the request of the Bloc Québécois. That study eventually led to this report, which is quite brief. As I was saying, it essentially repeats the wording of the Canadian declaration. I felt that the Liberals wanted to soft-pedal, that they were not too eager to adopt a report. I told them that it was the Global Affairs Canada statement repeated verbatim and that they could not be against that.

One thing led to another and they ended up accepting. However, I get the impression that as a result of Azerbaijan lobbying certain Liberal MPs, they were reluctant to take a position, much like the government. The report says:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, in accordance with its obligations as a party to the trilateral declaration of November 9, 2020, and following the appeal made by the Government of Canada on December 14, 2022, to reopen the Lachin Corridor and guarantee freedom of movement in order to avoid any deterioration in the humanitarian situation, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

The response came. On June 14, the Minister of Foreign Affairs sent us a two-page response that was interesting but contained many of the same soothing statements that the government has been offering up for months concerning the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh. It said that the government was following developments closely, that it was monitoring the situation every day, that it was urging Azerbaijan to open the corridor, and so on. Meanwhile, in violation of the terms of the ceasefire agreement, Azerbaijan repeatedly resumed hostilities, including against Armenia. This development met with, as I have said, near total indifference.

Azerbaijan eventually realized that the truth about the corridor supposedly being blockaded by eco-activists was coming out. Public protests are not permitted in Azerbaijan, except in the Lachin corridor, curiously enough. The Azerbaijan government realized that no one was buying its story, so it decided to just set up a military roadblock, right under the noses of the so-called Russian peacekeepers. The ceasefire agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020 was brokered by Russia, which was supposed to guarantee that the ceasefire stayed in place by having troops on the ground. Who knows why Russia's attention seems to be elsewhere, but the Russian peacekeepers barely fulfilled their role. I would go so far as to say they did not fulfill it at all.

In fact, they were even used by Azerbaijan to carry out attacks not only against Nagorno-Karabakh, but also against Armenia itself. The same aggressor that we are denouncing in the war in Ukraine is abetting Azerbaijan in attacking another independent nation, the only democracy in the Caucasus region, where we have committed to defending democracy, yet we are doing nothing. We are letting it happen.

Canada makes soothing comments that it is monitoring the situation very closely, that it is paying attention to what is going on, that it is urging Azerbaijan to reopen the corridor, but this is no longer about reopening the Lachin corridor. The territory of Nagorno-Karabakh has been occupied by the Azerbaijani military. Its population, which has been starving and deprived of all basic medical supplies for months, is now under military occupation by Azerbaijan, which is committing atrocities against the civilian population. Again, this news has been met with near total indifference.

Words cannot express how disappointed I am with the Liberal government's attitude toward this conflict. For months, it suggested that we could not be sure which nation was the aggressor was in this case. What will it take for the Liberal government to understand that Azerbaijan is the aggressor, that the fact that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan under international law cannot justify military aggression against innocent civilians and cannot justify a nation literally starving its population? In another context, that would be called genocide. This is a very serious issue.

I certainly do not want to downplay the importance of the debate we are having on the adoption of the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. However, I cannot help but wonder once again if this is the time to discuss it. I know our Conservative colleagues are genuinely and deeply concerned about the situation because, as I stated earlier, we have had discussions. Our offices have had discussions about the fact that we wanted to raise this issue again in the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. Since our offices have been in contact, why are we being surprised this morning by this motion to adopt the report? Why were we not consulted? Why were we not even informed?

This morning, I was coming out of another committee when I was told I had to speak. Why proceed this way on such an important issue that should see us all working together?

What we are seeing, unfortunately, is a political move by our Conservative friends to derail and delay debate on the inflation bill. I come back to the comments by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I am not saying that the issue is more important than what is happening in Nagorno‑Karabakh, because people are dying right now in Nagorno‑Karabakh, but our fellow Canadians in every riding are dealing with the problem of inflation. Our fellow Canadians in every riding are dealing with the problem of a housing shortage.

Our Conservative colleagues rise every day in the House and say that the current inflation is unacceptable, but they come here today with this delaying tactic. Someone would have called them whited sepulchres.

We saw yesterday how hypocritical our colleagues can be, and I use that word carefully. When it was proposed that the passages in which the veteran of the Waffen-SS was in our gallery, and even the related video excerpts, be removed from the record of the debates, they refused. My Conservative colleagues need to show some honesty. If they are as interested in the issue of Nagorno‑Karabakh as they claim, they should not proceed as they did this morning.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan never complains about doing it. Is it a coincidence that concurrence motions on reports are never moved during Conservative opposition days, but always when dealing with government legislation?

When the Conservatives use this tactic, and they have done it many times before, it is always meant to prevent debate on the government agenda, because there are other opportunities to debate these types of important issues. If the Conservatives were very serious about the issue of the concurrence motion that they are moving, there are other ways of doing it. They know that, but they like to use the concurrence motion in order to frustrate government legislation.

Bill C-56 is too important for Canadians. We will get it through, no matter what kinds of games they play, because it is important to Canadians.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I sense frustration from the Bloc member. I too join him in the frustration, because I too recognize these issues that are having such an impact on Canadians. No matter where one lives in Canada, the issues we were supposed to be debating today are having an impact. There is legislation to address this. We need to pass that legislation, Bill C-56, which is there to support Canadians from coast to coast to coast. That is what we were supposed to be debating.

For people who maybe do not necessarily follow all the details of the proceedings of the House, this motion brought forward by the Conservative Party has very little to do with the issue within the motion and has everything to do with trying to frustrate the debate on these very important issues. This legislation is important. We should be passing Bill C-56. There are other opportunities for the Conservatives to debate this issue. It is an important issue.

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

Madam Speaker, usually I would indicate that it is a pleasure to be able to rise to address a particular issue in the chamber. I would like to break my speech into a couple of parts related to the issue at hand.

First, I would like to provide a bit of background as to why we are debating this issue before us. Suffice it to say that all issues are ultimately important, particularly in the minds of many different people. When we have a finite amount of time to debate issues on the floor of the House of Commons, we have to try to place them, whether they are opposition agenda items or government agenda items, in some sense of an order of priority. War and things taking place internationally have always played an important role in debates of the chamber.

Members will recall last Monday, for example, we had the very serious issue of foreign interference being debated. I would have thought it to be universally accepted by most members of this chamber, but it was not by the Conservatives because I believe they had one person come in to speak once and that was it. Then they were absolutely quite. They did not get engaged, yet that was on the issue of foreign interference.

I can assure members across the way that the level of interest on that issue is actually quite high, yet the Conservative Party, with the exception of its very first speaker, was absolutely silent. I suspect it was because its members wanted to have their fingers in the air to figure out what they could or should be saying. That was an important international issue.

When we think of foreign affairs, we often have take-note debates and emergency debates. These are opportunities not only for opposition members but also for government members to stand and express concerns by reflecting on what their constituents are saying about that particular issue, and they can raise it in great detail. That is one of the advantages of the rules we have to accommodate issues of this nature.

I think people need to be aware of the background of these reports. For example, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, who did not participate in the international interference debate last Monday, and who often likes to talk about his concerns about what is happening around the world, has brought forward a concurrence motion. I want us to put this into the proper perspective of when the report was actually tabled, which was back on February 17 of this year. Allow me to read the entire report. I can assure members it will not take long, but so I do not misquote, I will put on my glasses.

The report, which was tabled on February 17, states:

That the committee report to the House that it calls on the Azerbaijani authorities, in accordance with its obligations as a party to the trilateral declaration of November 9, 2020, and following the appeal made by the Government of Canada on December 14, 2022, to reopen the Lachin Corridor and guarantee freedom of movement in order to avoid any deterioration in the humanitarian situation, and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the Government table a comprehensive response to the report.

It is one paragraph that was brought into the chamber on February 17. Do members know there was actually a response to that report? An official response was given. Did the member refer to, cite or quote the response? I am not convinced the member is aware that there was a response given to the report on June 14 of this year. If so, he could have read first-hand how the government responded to that report.

Did the standing committee meet to discuss the response to the report and give an indication as to whether it wanted to have further debate on the issue? I do not know. I am not on the foreign affairs committee, nor have I asked any of its members. However, if I were to speculate, given the track record of the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, I would suggest that it likely did not.

Why do we have it today? I was supposed to be the first one to speak today. Do members know what the topic was? It was to be on Bill C-56, which is a wake-up call for the Conservative Party of Canada. People are hurting. Interest rates, inflation, what the grocery store giants are doing, and housing are the important issues that Canadians are facing today. This is not to take away from the importance of the issue described in that one-paragraph report from the standing committee months ago. After all, the government gave a formal response to it.

All issues are important. The reason for this motion is not to say we want to have a debate on this issue here on the floor of the House of Commons, but that this is being used as a tool to prevent the debate the was supposed to be taking place to deal with the Canadian economy and how Canadians are hurting. The members of the Conservative Party want to play games and filibuster. Shame on them for that sort of behaviour as an official opposition.

There are mechanisms from which the Conservatives can choose, such as opposition days, where they have a number of days every year to choose to debate important issues. For instance, they can add additional substance to the one paragraph that was provided by the standing committee. They could express other concerns. They could draw in the comparison, as the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did, with what is happening in Ukraine today.

As one of my colleagues said, the Conservatives are putting politics above people. That is shameful. If the member or the Conservative Party, because I think this is its agenda, did not want to use one of their opposition days and were keen to have this debate in a forum that would allow people to really get engaged on the issue, why would they not approach the government and ask for a take-note debate? To the very best of my knowledge, and I sit on the House leadership team, that was not done.

There is no member who brings forward more petitions than the member across the way. How many petitions has he tabled with respect to this connection for humanitarian aid, the Lachin corridor? I will get more into that shortly. To what degree has that taken place? Better yet, I am having a difficult time trying to recall when the member rose with a request for an emergency debate on this issue. The reason we cannot remember a date is that he did not request one.

The only reason this concurrence motion has been brought forward for us today is because the Conservative Party has, once again, fallen into two principles. The first is character assassination. Every opportunity the Conservative members get, they try to make the Prime Minister of Canada look bad, even if it spreads false information. They are very good at this. The other thing they want to do is frustrate the House and what is taking place on the floor. Today is a very good example of that.

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan in particular, and all Conservative members, needs to realize that the people they are hurting—

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 is very important legislation that we are debating. If we just reflect, in terms of our homes and our constituents, people are genuinely concerned about issues of housing affordability, the housing supply, inflation and the price of groceries.

That is what Bill C-56 is all about. It is recognizing that the constituents we are collectively representing are having a difficult time. That is why we have Bill C-56. I hope that all members, from all sides of the House, will recognize that this is legislation that not only should pass but should pass in a relatively quick fashion, in order to support the people of Canada from coast to coast to coast.

In listening to all of the debate, I want to emphasize to those who might be following it that the government has been on the housing file now for many years. In fact, it is this government, more than any other government in generations, that has made a commitment to invest in housing. We are not talking one sector alone but rather, whether it is free market, non-profits or investing in stakeholders, virtually from day one, as a government, we have been investing in housing in Canada, unprecedented in comparison to any other government in generations.

All one needs to look at are some of our more recent budgets. Members often talk about the important role of non-profits. Take a look at what we are doing in housing co-ops, providing hundreds of thousands of dollars to try to encourage additional housing co-ops to be built. It is a wonderful form of housing.

We could talk about the millions and millions invested into non-profits. We could talk about the rapid transition housing. Having the ability to support housing needs has always been important to this government.

We see what is taking place in our communities. This initiative, this legislation, is actually now being looked at by provincial jurisdictions, and some of them are adopting it as provincial policy, which will see thousands of homes being built.

I would like to think that all members will look at that holistic approach that the government has been taking, the specifics of this legislation, and get behind it.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we work together and act now to make life affordable for all Canadians. I heard that very clearly from constituents in my riding during the summertime. People are finding it difficult. That is why it is important that we work together to pass Bill C-56, which would make a difference.

That is why the minister of industry called the five CEOs of the major grocery companies to come to Ottawa, to tell them that it is really very important that we work together to stabilize the price of groceries. I am sure that by Thanksgiving, they will show us some results. If not, we are ready to take other measures to make sure the price of food stabilizes for all Canadians and we can make life more affordable for them.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Winnipeg North.

I rise today to speak at second reading to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act; also known as the affordable housing and groceries act. I believe this is an important and very much needed piece of legislation. Before I get into the specific measures contained in this bill, I would like to speak to the global economic situation that makes some of the measures contained in this bill necessary.

The world is experiencing a global inflation crisis. Canada is not an island, and we are not immune to the factors that are driving high prices around the world. From the COVID-19 pandemic to the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, from supply chain challenges to climate change impacting harvests and causing crop failures, inflation is an inescapable global phenomenon. Compared to our G7 allies, Canada has fared very well. In August, Canada's inflation rate was measured at 4% according to the data published by the Financial Times. This is just behind Japan and almost tied with the United States and compares to 6.7% in the United Kingdom, 6.1% in Germany and 5.4% in Italy.

COVID-19 was an unforeseen and unimagined global crisis. The world essentially ground to a halt. Canada has fared relatively well through the pandemic recovery, thanks to the resiliency of the Canadian economy and in part to the programs to support Canadians and business owners to allow them to keep paying their bills when we had to stay at home and many business owners had to close their doors. Without that support, I shudder to think of where we would be now.

However, just because Canada is doing better than many of our peer countries, that does not make the impact on the day-to-day lives of regular Canadians any less real. Several factors are driving rates in Canada, including energy prices and food prices. I have had many meetings on the issue of affordability. I have heard this loud and clear from my constituents in Scarborough Centre. It was a consistent theme whether I met them at local events or on their doorsteps or in my constituency office: People are hurting and people are worried. More and more Canadians are having difficulty making ends meet. They are having to stretch every paycheque further and further.

Access to affordable, suitable housing has been a problem in our community for far too long. Rents are out of control, home ownership is for many an elusive dream. Interest rates are high and it costs so much more just to cover the necessities of life like putting food on the table. Grocery bills have skyrocketed.

The Grace Place Church operates one of several food banks in my community, and Pastor Amos tells me that demand has increased from 14,000 visits per month during the pandemic to 20,000 per month today. This is not sustainable. I have taken these messages to the government and I am pleased to say that, with Bill C-56, the government is listening. No one measure or measures will be the silver bullet, but the steps outlined in this legislation would have a meaningful impact.

Let me speak first to housing, which is an issue I have raised several times in this House. We need to be clear and unequivocal: There is a housing crisis in this country. We need to build more housing of all kinds. We need to build houses and rental units. We need more affordable housing of all types. We need to build senior homes and long-term care and student housing. We need more supply, and it needs to be affordable as well as accessible. We need more smart density housing, especially around the transit hubs.

There are many reasons for the housing crisis, and one thing must be clear: We cannot solve it alone. Every level of government has a role to play. The federal government, the provinces and the municipalities all have levers and responsibilities and all must come to the table, put politics aside and work for the good of all Canadians. As a federal government, we have limited levers, but we do have a big one: We have money. We need to come to the table with serious dollars; we expect the provinces to match the amounts or at least make major contributions.

However, if we just put money on the table we will have failed. In health care, we use federal funding to enforce national standards of care. Likewise, with housing, we need to make federal dollars contingent on specific changes needed to address the housing crisis and make housing more affordable.

We have already seen this with the government's housing accelerator fund. By making municipalities agree to loosening residential zoning restrictions to allow for more density and accelerating affordable housing projects as a condition to receive federal funding, our government would use federal dollars to help drive change at the municipal level, which would see more smart density and more affordable homes built. It is an important step to addressing housing affordability.

Clearly we need to do more, and with this bill, we would be building on the steps we have taken. I am glad we are tackling the issue of rental units, which are a critical part of our housing ecosystems. They are the choice for students who are away to study, for young people just starting their careers, for newcomers making their start in our country and for seniors looking to downsize but who still want to be independent.

The cost of rent is too high for too many now. That is why we are acting with specific measures on Bill C-56. To build more rental housing faster, we would remove the GST on new rental housing, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences. This would accelerate much needed rental housing builds across Canada.

As well, we are calling on provinces to also waive the provincial sales tax on new apartments. I am so glad to see the Province of Ontario immediately agree to follow our lead, and I hope all other provinces follow suit. This would help rental housing get built faster and encourage new builds to break ground. New supply will help to increase competition and moderate prices. Already, housing experts say that this change will take many rental building projects out of the planning stage and into construction by making building rental units more attractive than before, rather than simply building more condominiums.

Tim Richter, CEO of the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, said, “It's the federal government being very serious about taking some meaningful and muscular steps to address the housing crisis.”

This is one important measure, but it is not going to solve every issue in the housing market. It is not meant to. We cannot just do one thing; we need to do all the things. We all need to come to the table, and we all need to act now.

Let me turn my attention now to the more basic issue of affordability. We have taken many actions over the years to make life more affordable, especially for the middle class and those working hard to join it. The Canada child benefit has put more money into the pockets of Canadian families that need help the most every quarter. Thanks in part to this tax-free, income-based support for low- to middle-income families with children, there were 782,000 fewer children living in poverty in 2020 compared to 2015. That is a big deal. I have heard from many families in my riding how the CCB has literally been life-changing.

Another major step we took, in co-operation with the provinces but largely funded by the federal government, has been the Canada-wide early learning and child care program. In Ontario, for most families, child care costs have already been cut in half and will soon go down to $10 a day. This is saving families thousands of dollars. We also continue to expand dental care for lower income Canadians, starting with children and seniors.

These measures have been impactful, but with inflation driving up the cost of everyday life, we need to do more. I have spoken to food bank operators in my riding. Demand spiked through the pandemic and is still high today.

That is why we are also taking action to stabilize grocery prices. High grocery prices have made it tougher for many Canadians and their families, all while grocers are increasing their profits. We are acting in both the near and medium terms.

The one-time grocery rebate delivered up to $467 to a family to help them put food on the table. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and the industry minister met the CEOs of the five major grocers and made it clear that we expect concrete measures on how they can stabilize food prices with a plan by Thanksgiving. We will make it easier to crack down on unfair practices that drive up prices and make it harder for local grocers to compete to protect Canadians and help them with the cost of groceries.

I look forward to the debate on this bill. I look forward to constructive suggestions on how it can be made better, and I look forward to working with all parliamentarians to make life more affordable for all Canadians.

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in 2017, we saw the Prime Minister announce with great fanfare the national housing strategy. He said it was going to be life-changing and transformational. That was in 2017.

Since then, house prices have doubled, and we have just heard the opposition whip remind us that about nine out of 10 young people in this country do not own a home and do not believe they will ever have that opportunity. Rents have doubled in this country, and that is if someone can find a place to rent. Vacancy rates are now at an all-time low, generally hovering around 1% across the country.

Inflation is skyrocketing, which of course, means that interest rates have spiked, which caused mortgage rates to go up. Mortgages have doubled. People with variable rate mortgages have seen their payments double. Those with fixed rate mortgages who are going to renew those mortgages in the next several months or years are worried that they are not going to be able to afford their home anymore. This is in the midst of a housing crisis.

Homelessness is on the rise. There are tent communities now in cities large and small all across the country. There are new immigrants and students who are living in homeless shelters, like Covenant House in Toronto. On average, three homeless Canadians die every week on the streets of Toronto.

The national housing strategy has certainly been life-changing for many. It has been transformational, but not the transformation that I suspect the Liberals had hoped for. It is not just in the big cities, of course. I represent a smaller community. I would like to say it is as beautiful as South Surrey—White Rock, maybe more, but it is also very expensive there.

Forty percent of households in Parry Sound—Muskoka spend more than 30% of their income on shelter costs. The median employment income in Parry Sound—Muskoka is about 20% lower than the provincial average across Ontario. The vacancy rate for rentals in Muskoka is 0.65%. That means there is nothing to rent. People are stretched thin because they cannot afford to pay for groceries because of the carbon tax. I get calls every week, and I am sure everyone in the House gets these calls as well, from constituents who are facing high prices at the grocery store. They feel the pinch of the carbon tax every time they go to the grocery store, fill up their car or need to get more fuel to heat their homes.

The people in my riding do not think the Liberal government cares, and it is hard for me to tell them otherwise. With an ever-increasing carbon tax that punishes rural Canadians and the most vulnerable in our society, there is no relief in sight.

On grocery prices, it is no wonder prices are so high. There is carbon tax one and carbon tax two point zero. It is on the farmer who grows the food and the trucker who delivers the food. It is a tax on food.

Here we are today. Over the summer, the Prime Minister shuffled his cabinet and named a new Minister of Housing. Someone started to wake up and realize that there is in fact a crisis in housing, and that the government has to do something because what it has done clearly is not working. However, it was not before the Prime Minister took an opportunity, while announcing a few units in Hamilton, to deflect from his failure by saying that it is not primarily his responsibility.

It was a life-changing, transformational program in 2017. In July 2023, he told Canadians that it was not really his fault. Now today, we have Bill C-56, which is supposed to be a big new change coming to the housing portfolio. What is offered on housing in this bill?

The Liberals are finally delivering on a promise they made back in the 2015 campaign to give back the GST on the construction of new rental buildings. That is it. That is all. We were expecting big change from the new minister and big change coming from the Prime Minister. However, this is what we got.

What is not in the bill? How about some CMHC reforms? The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which reports to the government, might be one of the biggest gatekeepers in the whole country. I know lots of colleagues around the House who have heard from people in their ridings, whether it is from small community groups trying to get housing built or smaller municipalities, about the stories of anguish when they go to CMHC to try to get their ridiculously complicated funding application approved. With the bureaucratic hurdles at the CMHC and in Ottawa, they often give up. If they do get a response, they often do not even get a reason why they have been rejected.

We can see builders and community groups, which do not really have the resources to battle with the CMHC, going back to the drawing table without much guidance on what they have to do differently. It is like this, of course, because this government has allowed the CMHC to grow and grow over the last eight years, and it kills more projects that it approves.

The member for Carleton, the Leader of the Opposition, put forward a bill that Bill C-56 certainly would not address. It would provide accountability to Canadians for the CMHC in Ottawa. The CMHC would have, on average, 60 days to respond to an application. We would put the executives at the CMHC on notice. We would put their bonuses on the line and say, “You have to meet these timelines”, because in a crisis, we pull out every stop. It is a bold target, but in a housing crisis, there cannot be some bureaucrat in Ottawa who is blocking homes. They have to be looking for every way possible to get more homes built.

Speaking of targets, they are another thing that is missing from the bill before us. For too long, the federal government has been happy to give massive federal transfers to cities to help them build all kinds of infrastructure with no strings attached to get more housing built. We need to tip the scales back in favour of the builders, not the blockers, because there is a scarcity of housing. There is a huge lack of supply. There are not enough townhomes, triplexes and single family homes, and not nearly enough density around transit. We need to make housing abundant again in this country. What is missing in the bill is any target for the municipalities to meet.

The Liberals are happy to fly around the country and hand out a cheque here and a cheque there for a few hundred units here and a few hundred units there, and that is as far as it gets. They do not have targets, so we see no results. On this side of the House, we believe in results. On that side of the House, they seem to believe in photo-ops and talking points, and that is not working. We need accountability, incentives and targets.

To me, it is pretty clear that the government just does not get it. The last minister of housing could not even admit that housing was a crisis in this country. The new minister started out doing what the last minister did by trumpeting on social media about the great success they are having on housing. He then went on a little housing retreat in P.E.I. and listened to the experts, including some experts who actually proposed some pretty good ideas. Then he went to London for another retreat and teased the media on the way in about something that will be really big that we have never done before in housing. Then he came back out and announced the same old funding from a program they started a year ago, which has delivered no results. It is more of the same: meaningless photo-ops and announcements of a little bit of money. There are no plans, no targets, no goals and no results.

To the young people shafted by the government, to all the seniors on fixed incomes worried about how they are going to get by and to the new Canadians who come here and feel like they have been sold a bill of goods, I say that I am sorry we have a government that pretends to care but does not really deliver.

To the House and to the government, I say that Bill C-56 is a cruel joke. It is not serious. The Liberals give themselves lots of pats on the back, but there are no results. The proof of their failure is in the dismay of the young people who have given up the hope of owning a home. It is in the tear-filled eyes I see when seniors come to me and feel ashamed that the food bank they used to donate to is one from which they now have to get their groceries. The proof is in the tent cities, where people living in tents go to their jobs but cannot find a home. The proof is in the number of homeless Canadians who die on the streets.

There is a housing crisis in this country, and Bill C-56 is further proof that the government just does not get it.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka.

We have a cost of living crisis in Canada. The prices of housing, groceries, fuel and home heating have pushed far too many to the financial breaking point. Once upon a time, if people worked hard in Canada, they could earn a paycheque that would comfortably pay for their necessities. They would even have some cash left over and maybe take a family vacation.

My father was an electrician. One of my brothers is an electrician and another is a carpenter. These are good blue-collar jobs in the skilled trades. We grew up in a safe neighbourhood on Vancouver Island, a place that is not that safe anymore. My father worked hard, and he was able to raise and support six children. We did not always have a lot, but we always had enough. My brothers worked hard and were able to live comfortably. Sometimes, we did not have a lot in our kitchen cupboards, but my father never had to visit the food bank to put food on the table for us.

That was the promise of Canada, but under the Liberals, that promise is broken. After eight years of the overbearing NDP-Liberal government, Canadians are out of money and they are turning their backs on the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister knows it. Out of pure political desperation, he has put forward new legislation to address the mess he has made of housing and grocery prices. Unfortunately, this legislation, Bill C-56, is inadequate.

The Liberals could have adopted the comprehensive housing policy put forward by the Leader of the Opposition in the building homes not bureaucracy act, but instead, they are taking a patchwork approach to the housing crisis. The bill would remove the GST for rental unit construction projects, a campaign promise the Liberals made and broke in 2015. I support this proposal, but would have preferred that the Liberals adopt the positive and sweeping reforms contained in our Conservative leader's bill. I will have more on that in a moment.

Bill C-56 also includes Conservative policy introduced by my colleague from Bay of Quinte in amending the Competition Act by removing the efficiencies defence. This change would give the Competition Bureau more teeth to prevent mergers that would lead to higher prices and less choice. The changes in the legislation are positive and supportable, but it is lamentable that we are in this economic position in the first place.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal costly coalition, the promise of Canada is broken. Canadians with higher education and many working in the skilled trades find themselves living in tents or in their cars. Crime, chaos, drugs and disorder plague our streets, and we have a Minister of Justice who says it is all in our heads.

After eight years of the NDP-Liberal government and its punitive carbon tax, the cost of groceries is out of control, and Canadian families are hurting. There is a tax on the farmer who grows the food, a tax on the trucker who ships the food and a tax on the store that sells the food, and they are all a tax on the family struggling to buy the food. One in five Canadians is now skipping meals because they simply cannot afford food, and food bank usage is now up at levels we have never seen before. Food banks in my community are at risk of bankruptcy because they cannot keep up with demand. Put simply, our citizens cannot afford to feed themselves because of the NDP-Liberal government.

They also are struggling to put a roof over their heads. Nine in 10 young Canadians believe the dream of home ownership is just that: a dream. Mortgages have doubled. Rents have doubled. Down payments have doubled. Greater Vancouver is now the third most overpriced housing market on the planet. In the city of Vancouver, the average rent is over $3,300 a month, and for a two-bedroom apartment it is nearly $3,900 a month. We can add that to the $2 plus for a litre for gas.

A recent C.D. Howe Institute study determined that in Vancouver nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is from government gatekeepers adding unnecessary red tape. That means that over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is bloated by delays, fees, regulations, taxes and high-priced consultants.

Data from Statistics Canada shows that residential construction investment has declined for the fourth consecutive month, including a decrease of 3.2% in Vancouver. In Canada, it used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years just to save up for a down payment. The NDP-Liberal government's record on housing has been nothing short of disastrous.

Just a few weeks ago, the Liberals met in London, Ontario, for a three-day retreat. They said that housing and affordability were their top priorities. What did the retreat accomplish? They reannounced their broken campaign promise from 2015 to remove the GST from new, purpose-built rental housing. After the Liberals heard about our common-sense Conservative plan to axe the housing tax, they flip-flopped and tried to take credit.

To address the increase in the price of food, the Prime Minister announced that they were calling in the grocery store CEOs for a meeting. I am sure they were very intimidated. He then threatened them with tax measures that would inevitably be passed on to consumers if they did not lower prices. As expected, this amounted to nothing more than a stunt, a grocery gimmick, theatre. Photo ops, announcements, virtue-signalling, and now they are plagiarizing ideas from the Conservatives.

If the NDP-Liberal government is looking for another idea to plagiarize from Conservatives, it should repeal its carbon taxes and stop the reckless spending that caused this affordability crisis in the first place. These are the real reasons Canadians are struggling with the high cost of living: high interest rates, and high prices in the grocery stores and at the gas pumps.

Bill C-56 does not go far enough and simply would not cut it when it comes to addressing and fixing the housing crisis in this country.

The Leader of the Opposition introduced the building homes not bureaucracy act in Parliament last week. This is a real plan that would tie housing completions to infrastructure funding so we can get shovels in the ground while providing a building bonus to municipalities that exceed their home-building targets. Simply put, if one builds more houses efficiently, one would get more money. Projections are that Canada needs 3.5 million new homes by 2030. We had better get started. Our message to municipalities is clear: build, build, build.

The Prime Minister rewards big city gatekeepers with tax dollars, regardless of whether or not they build homes. Our Conservative plan would require municipalities to build homes close to transit. Conservatives would also list 15% of the federal government's 37,000 buildings so they can be turned into affordable housing. We would remove the GST for any new home with rental houses below market value, incentivizing the construction of affordable homes. Conservatives would cut the bonuses of the gatekeepers at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation if they are unable to speed up approval of applications to an average of 60 days. Under the watch of the Prime Minister, these bureaucrats have been rewarded with huge performance bonuses for an abysmal performance. Much like the current Prime Minister, Bill C-56 is weak, inadequate, and reeks of desperation.

Only a common-sense Conservative government would fix this housing crisis by building homes not bureaucracy. Only a Conservative government would bring home lower prices for Canadians by ending the inflationary deficits and axing the carbon tax. The promise of Canada is broken, but hope is on the way. Conservatives would reverse these reckless policies and restore the promise of Canada.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question about the grocery portion of Bill C-56.

I am reading the Competition Bureau's report from June of this year entitled, “Canada Needs More Grocery Competition”. In that report, the Competition Bureau makes the point that the big three retailers earn a profit combined of $3.6 billion. It sounds like a lot of money, but that is on $100 billion of sales. So, that is a 3.6% profit margin, which certainly does not sound like greedflation, as our NDP colleagues like to call it.

My question to the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge is whether he thinks 3.6% is too much profit.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and honour to rise in this most honourable of House to speak to something very important: Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, who will rise after I speak.

With that, let me first say that as an individual, I love capitalism, as I believe many others here in the House do. I love the free markets and creating wealth. Why do I encourage those things? I do so because this is what creates jobs and futures. At the same time, we need government and our regulatory bodies, including the Competition Bureau, to play a role to ensure that there is competition in the marketplace. Everybody likes the free markets and capitalism, but we also need competition to ensure that innovation occurs, that prices become lower, and that the standard of living for all Canadians and for people literally across the world improves.

I am so happy to see that there are a number of items here with regard to the Competition Bureau that will strengthen its role in markets across this country. Getting rid of the efficiencies defence is one thing that I applaud the minister and his team for putting in, as well as the industry committee and other committees that have looked at these issues. It is just so important.

Bill C-56 puts forward legislation to encourage the construction of much-needed new rental housing. We are proposing to eliminate the goods and services tax, the GST, on the construction of new rental apartment buildings. This is one more tool to create the conditions necessary to build the kinds of housing Canadians need and families want to live in.

With this bill, we are also moving forward with immediate actions to enhance competition across the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector. By doing so, we are helping to drive down costs for middle-class Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

Bill C-56 includes a set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act that would do the following: provide the Competition Bureau with powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; remove the efficiencies defence, which I spoke to earlier, that currently allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition, even when Canadian consumers would pay higher prices and have fewer choices; and empower the Competition Bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

Our government is taking concrete actions to help stabilize food prices and improve competition in Canada. However, the industry also needs to step up with meaningful solutions. Canadians can be assured that the government will continue to work day in and day out to bring them much-needed relief.

Our government is well aware that the economic situation is still difficult for many families. Many are struggling to make ends meet and put food on the table. However, inflation has fallen from a peak of 8.1% in June 2022 to 4% in August this year. There are now almost 1 million more Canadians in the workforce than before the pandemic. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predicts that, next year, Canada will experience the strongest economic growth among G7 countries.

However, we know that the past three years have been really hard for Canadians. COVID took its toll on our mental health and on the economy. Thankfully, we are past that. We have gone through COVID, the COVID recession, Putin's illegal invasion of Ukraine, supply chain snarls, wildfires and hurricanes. We continue to see high global inflation and are now enduring elevated interest rates.

Our government will do everything we can to help Canadians get through these challenging times and to build an economy with strong and steady growth, stable prices and abundant, well-paying middle-class jobs for hard-working Canadians. Our government has always believed in investing in Canadians, restoring middle-class prosperity and building a country where everyone has a chance to succeed and prosper.

There were 2.3 million Canadians lifted out of poverty between 2015 and 2021. In 2015, 14.5% of Canadians were living in poverty. Today, that is down to 7.4 %; this is real progress for Canadians across this beautiful country.

Our Canada-wide system of early learning and child care is making life more affordable for hard-working families, saving families in Ontario up to $8,500 this year per child after tax; pre-tax, that is over $10,000. With a record 85.7% labour force participation rate in July for prime-working-age women, it is helping to address labour shortages and grow our economy at the same time.

From enhancing the Canada workers benefit to creating the Canada child benefit and a new Canadian dental care plan, we have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians can count on and depend on. All the while, we have ensured that Canada maintains the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

On the housing front, we have been active. We created the tax-free home savings account and doubled the first-time homebuyers tax credit, which will in turn help Canadians afford the home they deserve in the future.

With Bill C-56, we are proposing to do even more by eliminating the GST on the construction of new apartment buildings.

Our goal with this legislation is to temporarily change the economic equation so that builders who are dealing with higher construction costs as a result of global inflation get financial incentives to build projects that otherwise would not get built. The removal of the GST will encourage builders to build more housing in communities across the country, which will lower the cost of rent for Canadians.

Our objective is very clear. We want to eliminate the obstacles to building a larger number of housing units more quickly to reduce the cost of those units. Of course, we will also need the co-operation of our partners.

Our government is calling on all provinces that currently apply provincial sales taxes or the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax to rental housing to join us by matching our rebate for new rental housing. I would like to say that organizations such as RESCON, the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, and its members that build high, low and medium housing have come out in favour of the removal of GST on new purpose-built rental housing. It is something for which I have called for a long time. It was in our platform, and I am glad we are having it done now.

We would also require local governments to end inclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments near public transit in order to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. Canadians need support when it comes to accessing housing. We need all levels of government to come together in this effort.

In conclusion, there is a lot of work ahead of us to do. As global inflation and the cost of housing continue to impact Canadians, we must continue to take real action to make life more affordable and build an economy that works for all Canadians. With this legislation, we are leading the charge on housing, to create the necessary conditions and build the types of housing we need and that families want to live in.

Since 2015, our priority has been to build a strong middle class to offer everyone the chance to succeed, but there is still some work to be done.

The measures we are proposing in Bill C‑56 line up with this goal by making it possible to build more of the housing units that Canadians need and to work on lowering the price of groceries.

I invite my colleagues to support this important bill.

I am so glad to see Bill C-56 come to the floor of the House of Commons for debate. I encourage the House to get this bill to committee as soon as possible so the finance committee, or whichever committee will be looking at it, can debate it and even look at amendments to strengthen it. There are many things that are good for the economy in this bill. They are good for the housing sector, for the Competition Bureau and for helping our businesses, as we have done with the Canadian emergency business loan, which put in place during COVID and helped hundreds of thousands of businesses survive in our country.

Let us all work together in the House to get this bill approved for all our businesses, for our stakeholders and, most important, for every single Canadian in this beautiful country.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I am very grateful for the question from the member; he knows I like him very much.

Talking about fast-tracking, I think Canadians watching are going to hear that the Conservatives are going to fast-track Bill C-56 because, as they claim, a lot of their good ideas are in it. I suspect what I am hearing very loudly now is that the Conservatives are going to support and even fast-track this bill. What a great gift it would be to Canadians struggling if there was unanimous consent, something that rarely happens here, to send Bill C-56 to the Senate so that we can help Canadians.

We did something in budget 2022, but what we are proposing today, I would say, would more particularly affect the grocery sector. It is always the right day to do something great, so why do the Conservatives not unite with the NDP and Bloc, give unanimous consent, send Bill C-56 to the Senate and show Canadians that we all care about what they are going through?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bachrach, for subbing in for me while I participated in debate on Bill C-56 in the chamber.

I have a question for the Green Budget Coalition. Often in Canada, when we talk about major energy infrastructure projects, more often than not it's a conversation about pipelines. We know that the current federal government has invested over $30 billion in one particular pipeline.

In your proposal for the next budget, you talked about a zero-emissions electricity grid based on renewables. I wonder if you could speak to the potential for generating employment and wealth out of that kind of grid in addition to lowering Canada's emissions.