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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

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

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

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

I am asking him to withdraw his remarks.

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

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

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

That is ranging into debate at this point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the hon. member agree with his parliamentary secretary?

I was very disappointed in his response.