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

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

Madam Speaker, the member is a great member who is always contributing to the debate in this House. I think she would find comfort in the fact that in Bill C-56 we are not only addressing issues around groceries and stabilizing the price of food in this country but also addressing the issue of housing.

She is quite right that there is always more we should be looking to do. The fact that we are going to be removing GST on the construction of rental housing is a step in the right direction. The fact that we will have a landmark competition reform is a step in the right direction. The fact that we are continuing to fight for Canadians to stabilize prices is a step in the right direction. I welcome her suggestions. This is something that should be studied in committee, and we always listen very carefully to what committee members have to say.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for Bill C-56. Some movement on the Competition Bureau is very important, and I appreciate his efforts.

It is the 1386 “Yeoman's Tale” that the phrase “better late than never” comes from. It is good to see the efficiency defence being looked at.

This was previously a motion in committee, an amendment to the previous Competition Bureau work we did, which was actually defeated by the Liberals. Since that time, we have also seen greater mergers. Are they really committed long-term to this? We opposed the Rona takeover by Lowe's, which was approved by the Liberals, Zellers being taken over by Target, Future Shop by Best Buy, and most recently the Rogers and Shaw merger. Is this actually going to be a change in behaviour for the long term from the Liberal Party of Canada to increase competition?

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

Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. minister is delighted that I am here for his speech. I thank him for his clarifications.

It is true that the current Competition Bureau regime focuses on efficiency when analyzing mergers and acquisitions, sometimes to the detriment of consumers. As a result, over the years, many large grocery groups have formed. This enabled them to lower their costs while raising prices. Consumers did not benefit from that.

Now, with regard to mergers and acquisitions in this market in Canada—the minister knows about this because there were just five CEOs in his office the other day, which is not a lot of people—we have basically come to the end of the exercise. It is not clear whether, in this market, the measures in Bill C‑56 will allow us to reverse course and have new entrants.

I know he is an energetic and creative man. What solutions does he have for bringing new entrants into this market, because five is not enough?

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

Madam Speaker, members know by now that I have enormous respect for colleagues on both sides of the aisle, because we are all parliamentarians.

Canadians are watching at home, and I know many are watching these debates. In times of need, at a time when they are asking for help, I think Bill C-56 is really addressing the most pressing needs of Canadians. One is around competition, one is around more housing and one is around the CEBA loans extension.

I am always open to listening to members of this House. I am always open, obviously, to listening to Canadians. I hope that what I hear from the member is going to be strong support for Bill C-56, because Canadians are watching and they expect all parliamentarians to be on their side and to lower costs in this country.

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

Madam Speaker, as a member who has been sitting in the House for many years, I should know that. My apologies to the interpreters and to all those who felt the inconvenience.

As I was saying, we have provided additional funding to the Competition Bureau. In 2022, in the budget legislation, we included additional amendments to make sure that wage fixing agreements between employers would be illegal, and there would be an increase in maximum penalties so unfair practices could no longer be absorbed by the largest firms as simply a cost of doing business.

Before introducing these amendments, we undertook a formal review of the act and its enforcement regime through an extensive consultation process in order to get feedback from Canadians on possible fundamental reforms.

In keeping with that promise, in November 2022, I launched the consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada. As part of this process, we received more than 130 submissions from stakeholders and more than 400 submissions from members of the general public, whom I would like to thank.

We spent the last several months listening to Canadians and carefully analyzing their submissions. We are now responding with an initial set of amendments to rebalance the marketplace. While it is only the first response to the consultation, these amendments strike at the core of the country's competition law regime and will undoubtedly empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public and improve competition. I would like to thank it for all its work while I am delivering these remarks to the House.

As part of its mandate, the bureau conducts market studies to identify relevant regulations, business practices or other factors that may impede competition in a given sector. However, unlike many competition authorities around the world, the bureau does not have formal investigative powers to compel information. Rather, it must rely on what information is already in its possession, publicly available or provided voluntarily by stakeholders. Because the bureau cannot compel information, it has become apparent that it can rarely get a complete picture, leaving knowledge gaps and potentially casting doubt on the reliability or completeness of the information it gathers. This means that the recommendations the bureau can provide to the government and Canadians are not as complete and as impactful as they could be.

We therefore propose to grant the bureau the authority to conduct market studies in which it can seek to compel the production of information. This was highlighted as a very important issue by the bureau's retail grocery market study and was formally recommended by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I would also underscore that the proposal to create a formal market study framework was broadly supported by stakeholders during the public consultations. However, many stakeholders emphasized the need for safeguards to prevent fishing expeditions or investigations that place a heavy burden on companies or the government.

We considered these comments carefully and came up with a proposed framework aligned with international best practices. I think this will ensure that any burden placed on the companies is limited to what is strictly necessary to achieve public policy objectives.

We have a quite unique feature in our competition law regime that has been the subject of much debate and criticism throughout the law's existence, known as the so-called efficiencies exception or efficiencies defence. It currently protects a merger that harms competition from being successfully challenged, so long as the efficiency gains that it generates for the companies involved will exceed the harm to competition and therefore, supposedly, the harm to consumers.

The provision has been cited as a significant obstacle to competitive markets by a broad cross-section of stakeholders for many years, and particularly so during the public consultation. This exception makes it nearly impossible for the bureau to successfully challenge anti-competitive mergers, so much so that it rarely tries to do it.

Many stakeholders have argued that the act is too narrowly focused on gains in efficiency that benefit specific companies over the short term, but that ultimately lead to industry concentration that hurts consumers over the long term. We are proposing to eliminate the efficiencies exception, which would mean that if a proposed merger were considered anti-competitive, it could be reviewed despite any efficiency gains generated for the companies.

Repealing this exception would give priority to competition and bring Canada in line with international standards.

Of course, if a proposed merger creates efficiencies that strengthen competition in a sector, the tribunal would be able to consider them in its deliberations.

Let me talk about vertical collaborations. The act already recognizes that certain collaborations between competitors may result in significant harm to competition, even if they fall short of the true cartel practices like price fixing or bid rigging. Currently, only agreements between competitors, or so-called horizontal collaborations, can be addressed under the act in most cases. However, agreements between non-competing entities, such as a landlord and a tenant, are known as vertical agreements and are outside the scope of the bureau's review of potentially anti-competitive agreements, even if they result in less competition.

As identified in the bureau's recent retail grocery market study, cases have emerged about property controls made between commercial landlords and tenants to exclude potential competitors from a rental property, sometimes even after the tenant has left. One can understand why we are focusing on that. At the same time as we are talking to the CEOs of grocery chains to say they have to help Canadians, that they have to be part of stabilizing prices, we want this landmark reform on competition because we need to address these issues.

In some cases, controls like these have prevented independent grocers from moving into the only shopping centre in a community. In other cases, discount retailers were prevented from selling certain products near large supermarket chains renting from the same landlord.

We are proposing to amend the provision to allow for the review of vertical collaborations that essentially seek to limit competition, even if the agreements are not between competitors. It would also open the door for the Competition Bureau to look at other forms of collaboration, beyond property controls that can harm competition.

In conclusion, the consultation revealed a strong appetite for further reforms to strengthen the law and its enforcement. I would say it is about time that we had landmark reform of competition in this country, at a time when Canadians want to see less consolidation, more competition and lower prices. Now is the moment to act. I hope everyone in this House will join us, because this is about Canadians. This is about Canada. This is about our competitiveness around the world.

As the next step in our continued efforts to modernize the law, these proposed amendments directly contribute to addressing the most immediate concerns of Canadians about the rising cost of groceries, while we continue to consider further reform to ensure that Canadians and small businesses can benefit from fair marketplaces across Canada.

Let us improve competition in Canada, increase innovation and lower costs for Canadians. With that, I hope that all members in this House will support Bill C-56 so that we can show Canadians, not only as government but as parliamentarians, that we will act to help them in times of high costs.

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

Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 includes measures to eliminate the GST on new rental housing. In the long term, this could impact supply, at least theoretically. However, this is for housing that will be built a long time from now, housing that will be started in 2030 and completed in 2035. Meanwhile, during a briefing, we learned that the government had not commissioned any analysis or study on how much this measure will cost or what impact it will have on new housing construction.

I would like to know if this way of doing things worries my colleague. Once again, this is a quick pre-election ploy of creating a measure without knowing how much it will cost or what the outcome will be. The Liberals did the same thing when it came to increasing the immigration target with their friends at McKinsey.

Has the government's tendency to propose legislative changes without doing the necessary calculations become problematic?

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

Madam Speaker, everyone knows that times are really tough for Canadians. Housing and grocery prices are higher than ever and continue to rise. There is a real need for the government to intervene and adopt public policies to try to create circumstances in which those prices are more affordable for Canadians.

Bill C-56 sets out what the government is proposing to accomplish that. There are some good ideas about the Competition Bureau. However, I would say that more could be done. The bill introduced by the leader of the NDP goes even further with regard to the Competition Bureau. For example, it seeks to impose harsher penalties on companies that fix prices and to make the companies in the industry that are planning a merger responsible for showing that they are not doing something that would be harmful to Canadians. Right now, it is up to the Competition Bureau to prove that a company merger would be harmful to Canadians.

We think that the burden of proof should fall on the companies, that they should have to prove that their activities are in the interest of Canadians. The status quo that we have had for so long has not served Canadians well. There are some good ideas in the bill, but we must do more.

When it comes to housing, we in the NDP think that it is very important to not rely solely on market-based solutions, should we have to use them. If we truly want to resolve the housing crisis that has been growing for decades in Canada—under Liberal and Conservative governments alike—then we need solutions that come from outside the market as well as within the market. We have made several proposals, including an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations to give them the opportunity to buy affordable social housing when the organizations that run them decide to sell them.

All too often, large corporations are the ones buying these buildings. They renovate them, only so they can kick out the existing tenants and take on new ones who can afford to pay higher rents. If we are going to implement market-based solutions, we think it is important that the government adopt policies that will help address the critical shortage of social and affordable housing. We do not see anything like that in Bill C-56. We know that there are opportunities to work with the government and the other parties to ensure that Canada takes a strategic approach that includes non-market solutions, but we are not there yet.

I am really happy today to speak to Bill C-56. I think it is an interesting bill. We know that it is a really hard time for Canadians and that it has been for some time now. The costs of housing and food are higher than they have ever been, and they continue to go up.

There is no doubt in our minds, as New Democrats, that some kind of public policy intervention is required in order to try to get a handle on this situation.

In both cases, we have reached this moment of crisis because, for 30 years now, we have had Liberal and Conservative governments that have largely said to leave all this to the market. The market has not produced solutions around affordability.

It is not that the market does not have a really important role to play in the building of housing, for example, or in the delivery of groceries. However, we know, from what we have seen over the past number of years, and in the case of housing, for decades now, that if we just leave it to the market, then we are going to continue to end up in a worse and worse situation. The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of housing needs in Canada that will never be met by the market, because it is not profitable enough for the market to meet them.

That is why we need a strategy that pushes private actors into making available, as part of their holdings, affordable suites. It is why we need governments to take responsibility again, as governments did from the 1940s all the way up to the 1990s, when the federal Liberals of the day cancelled the national housing strategy that was in place.

Unless we get governments back to the table and taking responsibility for the creation of social housing, we are not going to see an adequate resolution to the housing crisis. We are going to see it continue.

I have more to say about that. I will carry on with the housing piece, because I think the evidence has been that we have a pretty unified approach between the Liberals and Conservatives. What we have seen this fall already, and, in fact, if we looked back over the last 30 years, is that it is largely a market-based approach to the housing sector.

That is one of the things that changed significantly in Canada in the 1990s, whereas before, we had governments that said that there is a responsibility and an obligation to be investing in social housing and to be maintaining and expanding social housing stock. Really, in the 90s, a decision was made to say that, actually, we are going to leave housing entirely to the market. This has been consistently followed by every government we have had after Chrétien.

This is not done in the other G7 countries. In fact, of our G7 comparators, Canada has one of the lowest percentages of social housing in its housing stock. Canada has really dropped the ball because of this “market-think” that has dominated both Liberal and Conservative governments.

I rush again to say that it is not that the market does not have a role. It is not that there is not going to be market-based housing. It is that a whole other pillar, which was social housing and affordable housing, evaporated; we are living with the consequences of that now. Affordable housing, in some cases, can be provided through market mechanisms if one has the right rules in place, set by public policy.

The problem with Bill C-56 is that the government has not proposed the next stage for meaningfully building social and affordable units, whether in the bill or alongside it. This means that it is an incomplete strategy.

There is a risk of just adding to the public policy that prefers market solutions and puts money back in the pockets of developers without being upfront with Canadians about what the plan is or presenting a plan for a really aggressive social housing building strategy.

That can be the government building social housing. It can be meaningfully engaging the non-profit and co-operative sectors to build social housing. The real point is that we do not see it here.

There is an affinity with the Conservative leader's presentation of a housing plan last week as well. He also talks about taking the GST off purpose-built rental. He does talk a little bit about some affordability conditions in his bill, but they are not defined. When he talks about how it has to be rented below market, we really need a definition of what he means by that. If one charges just 1% below the market rate, we are not really helping Canadians.

I think it is noteworthy that, when the Conservative leader talks about using federal land in order to build more housing, there is no talk about affordability conditions in that part of his bill. That is actually where developers stand to make the biggest gains and make the most money. Therefore, it is really important to have some kind of affordability or social housing framework in respect of the forfeiture of federal lands for housing.

If those conditions are in place, it can be a very good thing to use federal land to develop for housing, but not in the absence of those criteria. In Ontario, we recently saw a Conservative government that decided to allow for the sale of protected lands in order to build more housing; however, it did not establish good rules about that, and it subsequently had to backtrack completely.

Canadians are watching this file very closely. They are not interested in seeing politicians abuse the housing crisis to make money for their developer friends. This is why the conversation that we have around affordable and social housing conditions here in Parliament as we discuss Bill C-56 is so important.

For instance, I think of the NDP's call for a non-profit acquisition fund to try to stop one of the important contributors to the housing crisis. This is that, where there have been apartment blocks with affordable and social units in them, non-profit housing providers or co-ops that have been running them for decades decide they cannot do it anymore, and they put them up on the market. When and if this happens, we have seen a lot of real estate investment trusts or big corporate landlords swoop in and buy those buildings. They have fast access to capital, and they have a lot of money in reserve that they can use to buy these places. They renovate, ask for exceptional rent increases, kick out all the people who were there before and get new tenants who can pay higher rents.

What that means, and some have calculated this, is that for every unit of social affordable housing we are building in Canada right now, we are losing 15. That is not sustainable. It means we are not on track. That is why it is not enough to just propose new market mechanisms to get developers to build new housing, rental or otherwise.

We really need to have a concerted and strategic effort to make sure that we are building a lot more affordable social units and that we are not losing the ones we already have, particularly in communities where there are experienced and competent non-profit or co-operative agencies to take those places over and continue to offer them as units with either affordable or social housing rents, which are calculated as a percentage of one's income, so those who have a lower income pay a lower rent. That is really important.

I have to add that one of the reasons why there have been so many of those buildings come on the market in the last 10 years or so and why real estate investment trusts and big corporate landlords have been able to scoop up so many existing affordable housing units, is the Harper Conservatives. The federal government, in the heyday of its involvement in housing, used to offer operating grants that would help subsidize the rents for these buildings that were tied to the mortgages. In some cases, the mortgages were 40- or 50-year mortgages, and when they came up for renewal, the federal government had to renew that operating funding.

The Harper government, while the leader of the Conservatives was at the table, made a decision not to renew those operating agreements. That is why so many buildings across Canada ended up for sale. The current operators could not continue to offer what they had been offering before, which was affordable rents, or properly, social housing, because the federal money that made that possible went away as a result of the decisions of the Harper Conservatives.

The Liberals ran in 2015 on renewing those operating agreements, and then they did not. There was some talk about coming up with an alternative arrangement, but the evidence is that it was not successful, so the operating grants were not renewed and there was not really a successful initiative that replaced that money to make sure that those units could continue to be offered on an affordable or social basis. Therefore, in the Harper years, we lost 600,000 units of social housing. The leader of the Conservatives, who gets up and talks a lot about housing, how much housing we have lost and how expensive it has become, sat at the table while his government refused to renew funding agreements that, in some cases, had been in place for 40 or 50 years to make sure those units could continue to be affordable.

Also, we saw big profit-seeking interests come in and buy up those buildings, kick out the tenants, fix them up a bit and then charge exorbitant rents. We cannot allow that to continue, and we really need to see, alongside or in this legislation, depending on the mechanism that parties can come to some agreement about, either conditions on this GST rebate or something like a non-profit acquisition fund.

Certainly, the housing co-investment fund was the only real housing initiative under the new national housing strategy the Liberals announced and have been working on in various ways over the last seven to eight years. Although I think most people feel it has not been very effective, it was what got some social housing built. That fund has been depleted, and we need to see it replenished so the organizations that do have plans in their community on how to provide affordable and social rents, with some help from government funders, can get down to doing that work instead of being held up.

When it comes to grocery prices, we in the NDP do not think the Liberals' approach of calling in CEOs for a meeting and wagging their finger has a likelihood of success. If a wagging of the finger was all that corporate executives needed to lower their prices, goodness knows the Liberals should have done it a long time ago. They should not have waited those 20 months while grocery inflation was outpacing the regular rate of inflation, at a time when grocery store profits were neither standing still nor diminishing. What we saw over that time was that they were making far more money than they did prepandemic.

The Conservatives would have us believe that the carbon tax is the only thing driving up grocery prices, but if that were the case, then their profits would not be growing. If all they were doing was passing on the increased costs that grocery stores have experienced as a result of the carbon tax, their profits would not be growing. However, they are growing, which means those companies are increasing their prices by more than the increase in input costs. Any government or any party that wants to form a government with some sense of seriousness about addressing the challenges that Canadians have been facing at the grocery store has to recognize the role of corporate greed in the equation, or they will be unable to do this.

For a long time, going back to during the pandemic when we saw big grocery retailers and other big box retailers making way more money than they had in the years just prior to the pandemic, the New Democrats have recommended a windfall profit tax along the lines of what governments in some other countries, including some places where they have conservative governments, have done. We think that one of the best ways to ensure that corporate greed is not unduly affecting grocery prices is to have something in place that says to grocery retailers that, if they are price gouging, they are not going to get to keep it. That is the best way to make sure that they are not gouging Canadians at the store. We think that is called for because not only have grocery store profits gone up but also even the margins for groceries have gone up.

We would say to those who say that traditionally the grocery sector is a small-margin industry compared to other industries and that again it is the same thing as we see in housing, where Conservatives and Liberals want to treat housing as if it were any other good. This is where they say, “Oh, do they need a house?” Although I should not say “need” because that does not capture the market approach. It is, “Oh, do they want a house? Do they want a Nintendo game? Do they want a new pair of shoes? Do they want to eat at a fancy restaurant?” All these things are just things that people want, ultimately, from a market point of view.

New Democrats are here to say that, when it comes to food and housing, these are not just commodities like anything else. These are things that people have a right to because they are essential to live a dignified and healthy existence, and we have an obligation as a country to make sure that people are housed and fed at reasonable prices they can afford. More and more, we see those prices getting away on us. This is why, alongside effective market mechanisms, such as taking the GST off purpose-built rentals, if the goal is just to build more rental apartments, we also need mechanisms with non-market solutions to make sure not only that are we getting more units that Canadians will not be able to afford anyway, but also that we are getting more units that those who can afford them can access, while also ensuring that we are building units that those who cannot afford the options on the market are also able to access because everyone should be able to access a home here in Canada.

The House resumed 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.

The Economy

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the MP for Vaughan—Woodbridge for his hard work for his constituents and all Canadians.

Canadians need more homes built faster and they need affordable groceries. Bill C-56, which the government tabled last week, would help to provide both.

With this bill, we would remove the GST from the construction of rental housing to build more homes faster. We would empower Canada's Competition Bureau to help small grocers compete. We are demanding CEOs of Canada's largest grocers to present a plan to stabilize prices.

We are going to continue to move forward with a serious plan to help Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my constituents in Vaughan—Woodbridge are feeling the pressure of increased housing costs and grocery prices. This summer, I heard them loud and clear, from the skilled trades workers who are building our homes and critical infrastructure to the workers creating made-in-Canada products in the manufacturing sector and the seniors who helped build our country. That is why I was pleased to see our government introduce Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, as the next phase of our government's plan to bring down the cost of living for Canadians.

Could the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance tell my residents what this bill would do?

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[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—

[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.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House for the first time this session to discuss the very important bill that we have in front of us.

This summer, I spoke to many constituents of mine in Guelph who had concerns about the price of housing, the price of groceries and big business taking over the marketplace in many areas. I am really pleased that the first piece of legislation of the session that we have in front of us to talk about is Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

The government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in these times of high inflation. Many measures that we have been introducing have been to help people who are unfairly affected by the inflationary winds that are blowing globally right now. We need to do more than we have been doing in terms of targeted support. The bill in front of us today addresses what we could do to help build more rental housing, as well as to try to curb the inflation that we see in the grocery market in particular.

Families across the country are relying on parliamentarians to do what we can to help with measures such as those we have outlined in Bill C-56 and the ensuing debate that we will have.

Making housing more affordable is something that we need to look at, including where the federal government can influence the activities within the marketplace, so that young people, young Canadians, have the dream of owning a home again. Right now, it is increasingly out of reach, and paying for rent has become more expensive across the country. This is really affecting younger Canadians, as well as people who are just trying to get their foot into the market.

The housing crisis has an impact on our economy. When people are not succeeding, our economy does not succeed. Without more homes in our communities, it is difficult for businesses to attract the workers they need to grow and succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, it means less money is being spent in our communities for necessities such as groceries. This has a direct impact on small business.

Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rental rebate on new purpose-built rental housing; this would encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects for which construction began on or after September 14, 2023, and on or before December 31, 2030, with construction completed before 2036.

Working on the supply is an important part of what the federal government could do to help. For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, for a developer, the enhanced GST rental rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief to incent the developer to make the numbers work. This tool could help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need and that families want to live in. This, in turn, would open up the opportunity for renters to have a reduction in the cost they are paying for the units that are constructed.

The measure also removes a restriction on the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations, could build or purchase purpose-built rental housing and be permitted to claim 100% of the enhanced GST rental rebate.

The government is also calling on provinces that currently apply provincial sales tax or the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax to rental housing to join us by matching our rebate for new rental housing. It was very encouraging to hear that Ontario, the province where my riding exists, will be participating in this program.

We are also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage building apartments near public transit in order to have their housing accelerator fund applications approved. I know that Guelph has worked hard on this application. We have had many community discussions around this, but sometimes the numbers just do not work. In those cases, programs such as the one we are initiating today, through this bill, would help the numbers to work.

Launched in March 2023, the housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities, towns and indigenous governments unlock new housing supply, targeting about 100,000 units across the country; speed up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems; introduce zoning reforms to build more density; and incentive development close to public transit. Last week, the government announced that London, Ontario is the first city to benefit from this fund. Of course, Guelph is watching that very closely. The fund also supports the development of complete low-carbon and climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive, equitable and diverse. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster so we can reduce the cost of housing for everyone.

We are also looking at how we can help Canadians with their grocery bills, and we need to stabilize the price of groceries in Canada. Through the one-time grocery rebate in July, we delivered targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who need it the most. It was up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and up to $234 for single Canadians without children, including seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew that more needed to be done to address the rising cost of groceries. The interim measure was really to address the increase in groceries and not actually the groceries' being purchased at a higher price every week. This is why we are taking immediate steps to enhance competition across the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, to help stabilize costs for middle-class Canadians.

Through Bill C-56, the government would be introducing a first set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act, intended to provide the Competition Bureau with powers to compel the production of information in order to conduct effective and complete market studies and to remove the inefficiencies defence, which is currently allowing anti-competitive mergers to happen if the corporate efficiencies are being used as a reason for them to go forward. Canadian customers would still pay higher prices even if these efficiencies are realized. The bill would empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular, in situations where larger grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

This bill would build on our other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians. These include delivering the automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit, starting July 2023, to provide $1,518 total for eligible single workers and $2,616 for an eligible family, split among three advance payments and the final payment after a person has completed their 2023 tax return. We are also supporting three and a half million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,437 per child under the age of six and $6,275 per child for children aged six through 17. Increasing old age security is another measure we have taken, including indexing that to inflation. We have also reduced fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, moving towards the cost of $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories already reaching that goal.

We are looking at what we can do to influence the market to help people who are facing these costs. We are working on helping Canadians put food on their table, pay the rent and be successful within their communities. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family. Making life more affordable is a key part of that.

I urge hon. members to support this legislation, and I am open to questions.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

I am pleased to rise today to introduce Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

I would like to explain why it is so important that we work together to pass this bill. This bill includes urgent measures to make life more affordable for Canadians, including removing the GST on the construction of new apartment buildings, which would help get more rental homes built faster.

The bill would also enhance competition across the economy, with a focus on the grocery sector to help stabilize food prices for Canadians.

Specifically, this legislation would increase the GST rental rebate from 36% to 100% and remove the existing GST rental rebate phase-out thresholds for new rental housing projects. That means for a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, our plan would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is about encouraging developers to build homes that otherwise would not get built. It is a game-changer for housing in our country. Mike Moffatt, one of Canada's leading housing experts, called this “a fantastic transformative step.” and Toronto's former chief city planner, Jennifer Keesmaat, said that this measure could be “the beginning of a sea change."

This is the newest measure in our ambitious housing plan, one that is about building more homes faster, cracking down on unfair practices by investors and ensuring that Canadians can afford a safe place to call home. Our plan includes the new tax-free first home savings account, which is already helping tens of thousands of Canadians save up to $40,000 tax-free toward that first down payment. Our plan also includes the $4 billion race-to-the-top housing accelerator fund, which is already breaking down barriers and encouraging municipalities to build more homes.

With Bill C-56, we are doing even more with provinces like Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia already following our lead by eliminating provincial taxes on new rentals. We will build even more of the rental homes that Canadians need.

This bill also seeks to amend the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau so that it can investigate price gouging and price fixing.

It would put an end to anti-competitive mergers that drive up prices and limit Canadians' choices. It would also enable the Competition Bureau to ensure that big grocery stores cannot prevent smaller competitors from opening stores nearby. Our government is relentlessly focused on building an economy with stable prices, steady growth, and abundant, well-paying, middle-class jobs.

There are currently 980,000 more Canadians in the job market than before the pandemic. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that, on average, Canada will see the strongest economic growth in the G7 this year and next. DBRS Morningstar also confirmed our AAA credit rating earlier this month.

Since we were elected, 2.3 million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty. In 2015, 14.5% of Canadians were living in poverty. By 2021, that number had dropped to 7.4%. Our affordable Canada-wide early learning and child care system is supporting a record labour force participation rate of 85.7% for working-age women. It is also helping to grow the economy and make life more affordable for families from coast to coast to coast.

Furthermore, whether by enhancing the Canada workers benefit or by creating the Canada child benefit or the new Canada dental care plan, we have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians rely on, while ensuring that Canada maintains the lowest deficit and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

We are working hard for Canadians, but we know we have more work to do. Bill C-56 will deliver real, concrete solutions. More competition will help with the sticker shock at the grocery checkout counter. Eliminating the GST on rental housing will get more homes built faster, so that more Canadians have an affordable place to call home.

Bill C-56 is an important step in our plan to continue delivering on what matters most to Canadians, and I encourage my colleagues to support its swift passage.

[Chrystia Freeland, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to seek unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Guelph.