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.

Opposition Motion—Measures to Lower Food Prices

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member, who has been a good friend for many years.

In terms of the bills I already mentioned, whether it is Bill C-56 or Bill C-59, we are going to make sure that they bring in legislative measures and give more powers to the bureau and the controllers. In that way, they will be able to control those subsidies, including the one that the hon. member is talking about.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate on the NDP motion submitted by the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford in relation to the price of essential foods and the conduct of grocery giants, such as Loblaws, Metro and Sobeys.

The proposed motion is timely, because by voting in favour of Bill C-59 last week, this House approved the latest initiative in the government's comprehensive modernization of the Competition Act. The relevant clauses were approved unanimously, showing the strong consensus here in this chamber on these issues.

The truth of the matter is that the government has been extremely active in promoting competition in all sectors of the economy, including in the grocery retail industry. It begins with resourcing. In budget 2021, the government increased the Competition Bureau's budget by $96 million over five years and $27.5 million ongoing thereafter. The increase in resources was a much needed boost to the bureau's capacity, and in its own words, “These funds enhance our ability to enforce the law and advocate for more competition. They help ensure we have the right tools to deal with Canada’s competition challenges now and in the future.”

Needless to say, law enforcement will not be effective if the enforcers are not able to carry out their tasks, and that is why this extraordinary increase was crucial to the bureau's functioning. The next step had to do with the legal framework under which the bureau operates, the Competition Act, which was aging and falling short compared to our international partners.

Through the 2022 budget bill, Bill C-19, we took the first step in remedying this, correcting some of the obvious issues. This included criminalizing wage-fixing agreements, allowing private parties to seek an order for abuse of a dominant position and raising maximum penalty amounts to be based on the benefits of anti-competitive conduct. This ensures that sanctions would no longer be a mere slap on the wrist for today's largest economic actors.

The government knew, however, that much more remained to be done. Where the solutions were less readily obvious, the minister turned to the public process, launching a comprehensive public consultation on the future of Canada's competition policy. The process ran from November 2022 through March 2023.

In response to a consultation paper released by Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, over 500 responses were received. This consisted of over 130 from identified stakeholders like academics, businesses, practitioners and non-government organizations.

While this feedback was being received, government officials also met with stakeholders in round table groups, allowing them to voice their views and to interact with each other as well. Stakeholders were not shy about sharing their opinions with us. They knew what sorts of outcomes they wanted to be delivered.

There was no shortage of proposals made, some highly concrete and detailed, others more directional in nature. What we heard, however, is that Canadians wanted more competition. Across many domains, the desire to strengthen the law, to enable the bureau to act and to align with international counterparts was evident.

Of course, many also expressed reservations about ensuring we get the details right and warned about overcorrection. The government took those to heart as well, taking inspiration from examples in other jurisdictions and recognizing the careful balancing that must be done when developing new legislation.

All told, the results of the consultation can be seen in two pieces of government legislation.

First, Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, was adopted in December 2023. It took some of the largest issues off the table. It eliminated the “efficiency exception”, which allowed anti-competition mergers to withstand challenge. It revised the law on abuse of dominant position to open up new avenues for a remedial order. It broadened the types of collaboration the bureau can examine, including those that are not formed between direct competitors. It established a framework for the bureau to conduct marketing studies, including the possibility of production orders to compel information. Work on this last amendment is already under way, as the bureau has announced an intention to launch a study into the passenger air travel industry.

Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023, is the second legislative effort following the consultation. As we know, it is currently before the Senate, and the government looks forward to its quick adoption. The amendments to the Competition Act that it contains are incredibly comprehensive. I will provide some of the highlights.

The bill makes critical amendments to merger notification and review to ensure that the bureau is aware of the most important deals and would be able to take action before it is too late. It significantly revamps the enforcement framework to strengthen provisions dealing with anti-competitive agreements, and it broadens the private enforcement framework so that more people could bring their own cases before the Competition Tribunal for a wider variety of reasons; in some cases, they could even be eligible for a financial award.

Bill C-59 also helps address important government priorities by making it harder to engage in “greenwashing”, which is the questionable or false representation of a product or a business’s environmental benefits. It facilitates useful environmental collaboration that might otherwise have been unlawful. It helps to make repair options more available for consumers by ensuring that refusals to provide the necessary means can be reviewed and remedied as needed.

Finally, overall, Bill C-59 makes a number of critical but often technical updates throughout the law to remove enforcement obstacles and make sure that the entire system runs smoothly.

I cannot overstate how important these measures are. The competition commissioner has referred to this as a “generational” transformation. It is by far the most significant update to the law since the amendments in 2009, following the recommendations of the competition policy review panel; arguably, it is the most comprehensive rewrite of the Competition Act since it first came into effect in 1986. Our world has changed since then, and it became clear that the law needed to keep pace to enable institutions that can oversee fast-changing markets and landscapes.

After the passage of Bill C-59, we can guarantee that our competition law will work for Canadians in markets such as the one under scrutiny here, as well as the many other markets throughout our economy.

I am thankful for having been given the opportunity to share a few words.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize; that was completely unintentional. If you will indulge me, I will start from the top and eliminate the name.

I want to thank the page for the podium here and say that I am very grateful for the opportunity to respond to comments made earlier by the leader of the New Democratic Party regarding the actions that our government is taking to address the very real food affordability challenges that Canadians are experiencing. That includes my neighbours, friends and family in Milton, Ontario.

We have an obligation to ensure that all Canadians have access to food and other daily essential goods. I said yesterday in the House of Commons that it is not as though Canadians can simply buy less food. Food is an essential item and needs to be affordable in our country.

Our government has been actively engaged and committed to improving affordability across the board with the view to alleviating the financial stress that is placed on Canadians. While we are doing that, we are addressing the growing costs of essential goods, including groceries. That requires a very strong consumer advocacy sector as well as timely and independent research on consumer issues. That is why our government is targeting enhanced support for Canadian consumers through additional investments in consumer advocacy work.

Yesterday I was talking about the value and the potential for more ombudspeople in the grocery sector to do research and conduct a bit of introspection with respect to why grocery prices are so high these days. Everybody seems to have a theory or some kind of an idea as to why grocery prices are inflated, but there are different reasons, and very complex reasons actually, because everything we shop for at the grocery store comes from somewhere else these days.

We announced in October 2023 that our government would be tripling our investment in Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada's contributions program for non-profit consumer and voluntary organizations. That program's funding was increased to $5 million annually. The additional funds are allowing organizations which advocate directly for the rights of consumers to examine existing and emerging business practices that can be harmful to Canadians, while also recommending actions to improve affordability, increase grocery competition and build on existing government efforts to promote and protect the interests of Canadian consumers.

It is absolutely and abundantly clear that grocery chains in Canada have taken advantage of consumers at various times. The very fact that we have an uncompetitive, consumerist and capitalistic approach to selling food, an essential item in this country, raises eyebrows. As somebody who grew up in non-profit housing, I have to wonder whether there is not more space for non-profit groceries. That is not to suggest that we would not support the workers in those stores, and we would certainly continue to support agriculture workers, farmers and food producers. However, there is a lot of value in removing profit from the essentials.

As a co-op kid, I never hesitate to talk about the value of non-profits. There is one non-profit organization in my riding about whose incredible work I would like to speak: Food for Life, a local charity and organization, a community-serving group that rescues food. In fact, it purchased a couple of refrigerated trucks with support from the federal government. That means that people from the organization can arrive at a grocery store they have contracts with, and before food comes off the shelf and goes into the landfill, the Food for Life experts go in and remove food from the shelves.

Food for Life is supporting the affordability for Canadians on two levels. One, the disposal of food costs grocery stores a lot of money, so they can actually eliminate that cost, which would be passed on to the consumers who shop at the store. Also, the organization is removing high-quality food that will not be sold for one reason or another. I have a lot of feelings about best-before dates. My partner and I often argue about what food has gone bad. I am the type of person who cuts a bit of mould off cheese, grates up the cheese and puts it on my pasta. It does not bother me too much. Perhaps my partner feels a bit differently about cheese mould.

Food for Life and the experts there do an amazing job rescuing food, putting it on shelves, packaging it, storing it and freezing it, and they actually have two free grocery stores. It always raises eyebrows when I tell people that my riding, my region, has two free grocery stores. Anybody back home listening can google “Food for Life in Halton”. People can drop by one of their grocery stores. They have excellent variety: fruit, vegetables, meat, bread and all the essentials.

All that the experts at Food for Life ask for is just a tiny bit of information, nothing terribly intrusive, just so they can continue to serve our community better. I am proud to say that I am a monthly donor to Food for Life. Anybody who is interested can examine the pathway of food waste and how we can redirect food waste toward people who really need it. I just want to stress that the invaluable, incredible work of Food for Life Canada in Halton is doing just that.

Let us go back to some of the projects that our government is funding to further explore barriers to grocery competition in the Canadian context. We have assisted in funding some studies that were completed by the Competition Bureau. It reported that existing barriers in the Canadian grocery sector context include “restrictive covenants” and “property controls”, and retail contracts that limit our control on how real estate is used by competing players in the grocery industry.

Our government is committed to reiterating our commitments to enhancing affordability for Canadians, as demonstrated by our investment through budget 2024. We understand the cost pressures that Canadian families are facing, and they often start with the price of food. That is why budget 2024 launched a national school food program in Canada, the first of its kind, and it will help ensure that more than 400,000 children have access to healthy meals and snacks, so they can remain focused on learning and growing while in class.

I have visited a lot of amazing school food programs. They basically do boxes where they take snacks out of packaging and create little hampers that go to the classrooms. That is to ensure there is a healthy snack available to any kid who might be a little hungry.

There are a lot of reasons a student might be a little hungry, or having a snack attack. It might be because they forgot their lunch at home. It might be because their banana got squished in their bag and they did not want to eat it. It could be because of time poverty; some families just run out of time. Sometimes we forget our lunch. Sometimes it is an affordability challenge and sometimes it is a time poverty issue. Sometimes it is a convenience issue. However, none of those reasons should get in the way of making sure a young kid or student has access to a healthy snack.

I want to give Halton Food for Thought a shout-out and Food4Kids Halton, as they are amazing organizations. The volunteers, the teachers and the parents who show up, and everybody who purchases food for or donates food to these programs, are all saints and I just want to say I appreciate them.

A national school food program will nationalize that and ensure that it does not always just rely on goodwill, donations and volunteers. We are going to ensure that all schools have access to it. It is definitely the case that schools in higher-income neighbourhoods tend to have more volunteers, and they often have more services. We do not want schools in lower, more modest-income neighbourhoods or communities to not have access to these essential programs.

I am really glad that our government is taking the extraordinary step of starting a national school food program. I think 400,000 kids is a lot of kids, and that is a great program and a great way to ensure that young people and students are not going hungry while they are in class.

Our government also believes that a lack of competition in Canada's grocery sector means that Canadians will ultimately pay higher prices to feed themselves and their families. We have actually seen that. It was not that long ago that Loblaw Companies sent out, in Ontario at least, those little $25 gift cards to anybody who went online and signed up. That was sort of its sorry for fixing the price of bread for over a decade. There was a big lawsuit and Loblaw basically said, “Sorry, we were fixing the price of bread. We will make amends by sending everybody 25 bucks.”

As sort of an act of protest, I spent my $25 at Loblaws. I remember doing that, but I think that did not really make up for the fact that it was working against customers. Where we shop is democratic: With our dollars, we want to support companies that have the best interests of their consumers in mind. I believe in customer service and I also believe that companies have a duty to respect their customers. It would be great to see more of that.

Let us go back to some of the significant efforts the Liberals have deployed to ensure that Canada's competition laws are fit for the modern economy. We have also brought forward important amendments to the Competition Act through Bill C-56, and that is the affordable housing and groceries act. These amendments would give further enforcement powers to the Competition Bureau to prevent anti-competitive mergers and to address competition-stifling practices in large dominant players.

It is clear when there is not enough competition in a market. If there is only one store in a community, then it can basically charge whatever it wants. Even when there is more than one store, we can see some of the unfair corporate practices that target more vulnerable communities. Oftentimes, there is a smaller store, like a Shoppers Drug Mart or a convenience store, that is within walking distance to affordable housing. However, with some of the bigger stores, the more discount grocery stores, people require a vehicle to get to them.

In some of those smaller stores, we will see a higher price for the exact same item. I have seen it myself. A can of tomato soup is $2.49 at Shoppers Drug Mart, but if one goes to a No Frills, and it is on for $1.29. Both stores happen to be owned by the same company, so that is an unfair practice. I am not going to be convinced that the shelf cost of an item in one store versus another is actually double.

Finally, our government has made it a priority to maintain something called the food price data hub to give Canadians up-to-date and detailed information on food prices to help them make informed decisions about their grocery options. I am happy to elaborate on the food price data hub in a question.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure and an honour to rise in the House. I want to give a shout-out to my family, including my daughters, back home in the city of Vaughan. My daughters should all be sleeping because they have school in the morning. I wish them a wonderful day tomorrow.

Before I get into my formal remarks, I will give an example that personifies how we are doing the right thing to grow our economy in this beautiful country and also invest confidently in Canadians and Canadian families, and that is the recent announcement by Honda to invest $15 billion into the Canadian auto sector and the development of electric vehicles, along with the manufacturing plants.

Last week, I was able to join the Premier of Ontario, the Prime Minister, ministers across the board and many of my hon. colleagues of the House for an announcement of $1.6 billion from a Japanese company, Asahi Kasei, to develop separators for electric vehicles. This will create thousands of jobs in the Port Colborne area of Ontario and provide bright futures for families there, something that we believe in. Confident governments and countries invest in their citizens.

A few days later, I was able to visit Vellore Corners Dentistry, Dr. Elena Panovski and her staff, to talk about the Canada dental care plan. This dentist sent out a flyer in my neighbourhood and many neighbourhoods in the city of Vaughan, telling patients that if they are eligible for the Canada dental care plan, they should go to her clinic. The dentist had also put up a billboard along a major regional road in the city. I visited the clinic and met Peter, an 80-year-old senior citizen in my riding, someone who came to this country and worked hard. He had his Sun Life Canadian dental care plan card with him and was at the dentist thanks to the program that we have implemented. That is awesome. That is progress.

We were sent here to do what is right for our citizens. In fact, as of today, over 90,000 seniors have gone to dental care providers across this country. If we do not all clap about that, I do not know what we are going to clap about. Members on the other side are not clapping. Over two million eligible seniors have signed up, have been approved and will receive their cards. Why is that important? It is important because the day I arrived here in 2015, one of the programs that I knew would make a difference in the lives of literally millions of Canadians was a dental care program, and that is what we have done.

We have done so much: the Canada child benefit, raising personal income tax rates on the wealthiest, cutting taxes for the middle class, raising the basic personal expenditure amount, signing free trade deals with countries around the world and being at the table, and we will continue to do so.

This bill will implement important and fiscally responsible measures from the 2023 fall economic statement that support our government's efforts to build more homes faster, make life more affordable and create more good jobs. Our government is working to create a better future for all generations, and Bill C‑59 is essential to making that goal a reality.

With Canada's housing plan and the 2024 budget, we are taking numerous steps to help increase the supply of housing with the goal of reducing the high costs Canadians face. Bill C‑59 promises to support those efforts by helping increase the supply of rental housing in Canada. About one-third of all Canadians rent their homes, but the number of available rental units has failed to keep pace with demand.

Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which received royal assent on December 15, 2023, and the federal component of the HST on the cost of newly purpose-built rental housing introduced a 100% rebate on the GST. Bill C-59 would extend the eligibility for the GST rental rebate to co-operative housing corporations that provide long-term rental accommodation. Our objective, as a government, is to incentivize the construction of even more rental units, and that is what is happening in the Canadian housing market.

We know that our growing, vibrant communities also require critical infrastructure, like public transit, modern water systems and community centres, which is all infrastructure that Canadians depend on daily in their lives. That is why Bill C-59 would establish the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities in the federal lead for improving housing outcomes and enhancing the public infrastructure.

The cost of living is weighing heavily on household budgets. Bill C‑59 would make life more affordable by strengthening competition to help stabilize prices in Canada. We have heard public concerns about increasing corporate concentration and the power of private sector giants.

Complementing the changes introduced in Bill C-56, which I mentioned a few moments ago, Bill C-59's suite of amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act would provide Canadians with more modern and effective competition laws.

As everyone knows in this House, I love capitalism and wealth creation, which lead to higher standards of living, but what I do not like is corporate concentration and measures that are introduced that are anti-competitive by organizations and companies, and that is why we need guardrails. That is why it is smart for us to introduce amendments to the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, which the opposite party had ignored for the years that it was in power, and it can remain in opposition for many more years.

Together, these amendments would represent generational changes to Canada's competition regime. More competition means lower prices, more innovative products and services and more choices for Canadians in where they take their business. The amendments are designed to empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public in its role as watchdog and advocate dynamic markets.

Bill C-59 would further modernize merger reviews and position the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. The legislation would also support Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner.

Our plan is also focused on Canadians' well-being. Therapy and counselling play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, our government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible and affordable. Bill C‑59 would eliminate the GST and HST from psychotherapy and counselling therapy.

Our government is also taking care of young families. EI parental or maternity benefits provide essential support to new parents. The legislation would bring in a 15-week shareable EI benefit and amend the Canada Labour Code so that adoptive parents who work in federally regulated sectors have the job protection they need while receiving the new benefit. The legislation would go even further by creating new paid leave for federally regulated employees with a view to supporting families in the event of a miscarriage.

Turning now to Canada's fiscal position, we do know that Canada's deficit-to-GDP ratio is number one in the G7 and G20: we have the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Our net debt-to-GDP ratio is also in the mid-30s range, which is top-notch. We are one of the few countries in the world with an AAA credit rating. These ratings were affirmed and confirmed after the budget was delivered by the rating agencies, one of which I spent several years working for, and covered many sectors that we talked about in this wonderful House, which continue to employ hundreds of thousands of Canadians and continue to grow our economy.

It has been an honour to rise in this House and, again, I wish all the residents of Vaughan—Woodbridge a wonderful Thursday morning and wonderful and safe travels to work.

Report Stage

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act of 2023. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act. I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, the landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, which is reflected in a number of important indicators. These trends have been exacerbated by the inflationary pressures our country is facing following a global pandemic and increasing geopolitical uncertainty.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The proposed amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-59 arose out of a comprehensive public consultation conducted from November 2022 to March 2023.

Having heard from stakeholders, the government introduced Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023.

Completing its response to the consultation, the government then presented a more extensive set of reforms by way of Bill C-59. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our laws and promoting competitive markets. The commissioner of competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59 are “generational.” I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors would be under increased scrutiny as the bureau would be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. Up until now, at worst the participants would be told to stop what they are doing. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability of the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties are also significant changes to our existing enforcement approach. By relaxing the requirements to bring a case and providing an incentive to bring matters directly to the Competition Tribunal, there would be greater accountability throughout the marketplace and more action on cases that the Competition Bureau may not be able to take.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing, such as applying requirements more broadly so vendors must present the full cost of a product or service up front without holding back mandatory fees, known as “drip pricing.” The law is further being refined to make it easier to ensure that advertised rebates are authentic when compared to a vendor's past prices. Businesses making environmental claims about their products would be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising their benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services in order to make informed purchasing decisions.

I would also like to highlight barriers to repair, which have been an issue of great importance in recent years. Where manufacturers refuse to provide the means of diagnosis or repair in a way that harms competition, remedial orders would be available to require them to furnish what is necessary. This could help a wider variety of service providers offer more options to consumers when choosing where to repair their products.

On top of everything I have mentioned so far, anti-reprisal provisions would also ensure that the system can function. These are included to ensure that workers and small businesses are protected from potential retaliation when they work with the authorities to address anti-competitive behaviour and violations of the act by other parties.

These reforms, along with various administrative changes, aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform. My colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. Nothing exemplifies this better than the enthusiasm shown by members of all parties to strengthen these provisions of Bill C-59 once it reaches the Standing Committee on Finance, especially in light of recommendations made by the commissioner of competition.

The amendments adopted in committee notably relate to merger review, deceptive marketing, and refusal to repair. The committee members were quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and these are the ones that I would like to draw attention to now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that could be excluded from the upfront price are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the product, such as sales tax. Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would now be required to be able to prove that regular price is authentic in order to publicize their discounts.

On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their businesses or business activities, not only specific products, must have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims. On refusal to repair, the committee added some helpful clarifications to ensure that the scope of provision was broad enough.

In sum, amidst the period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation, and improve affordability for Canadians.

Therefore, I would like to urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation.

[George Chahal, Liberal, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, which delivers on key measures from our 2023 fall economic statement. It is designed to make life more affordable, to build more homes faster and to forge a stronger economy.

This is a key part of our government's economic plan; since 2015, our plan has been squarely focused on improving life for the middle class and those who want to join it. From enhancing the Canada workers benefit to creating the Canadian dental care plan; delivering regulated child care for $10 a day, on average, in eight provinces and territories so far; and providing 11 million individuals and families with targeted inflation relief through a one-time grocery rebate in July 2023, our actions have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians depend on.

In fact, since 2015, our government has lowered the poverty rate by 4.6%, thanks to direct income supports and a strong economy that benefits all Canadians, all the while ensuring that we maintain the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7.

Compared with before the pandemic, we can proudly say that, today, over one million more Canadians are employed. However, we cannot refute that still-elevated consumer prices and looming mortgage renewals continue to put pressure on many Canadian families or say that there is not more important work ahead of us to address affordability.

When it comes to housing affordability, supply is at the heart of the major challenges facing Canadians. That is why we are taking real, concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-56 proposed to eliminate the GST on new rental projects, such as apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, built specifically for long-term rental accommodations. Bill C-59 goes even further by proposing to eliminate the GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement.

Swift passage of the bill would enable more people in every province and territory to find the types of rental housing they need at a price they can afford. The legislation would also help protect tenants from renovictions, which statistics show are displacing individuals and families, as well as increasing the rate of homelessness.

Our federal government also recognizes the clear link between housing and infrastructure, which is why the fall economic statement proposes to establish the department of housing, infrastructure and communities, currently, Infrastructure Canada. Bill C-59 would formally establish this new department and clarify its powers and duties as the federal lead on improving public infrastructure and housing, so our communities would have the infrastructure they need to grow and remain resilient.

Another important housing measure in the fall economic statement includes cutting the red tape that prevents construction workers from moving across the country to build homes, as well as cracking down on non-compliant short-term rentals, which are keeping far too many homes in our communities off the market.

Our government is also providing $15 billion in new loans through the apartment construction loan program, which accelerates the construction of rental housing by providing low-cost financing to builders and developers. As recently announced by my colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, we will be broadening this program by including student residences to help more students find housing across the country. This crucial change would relieve pressure on the housing market by freeing up housing supply that already exists in communities. Budget 2024 delivered a top-up to support the construction of even more units.

In addition, we have launched the Canadian mortgage charter, which “details the tailored mortgage relief that the government expects lenders to provide to Canadians facing a challenging financial situation with the mortgage on their principal residence. It also reaffirms that insured mortgage holders are not required under the regulations to requalify under the minimum qualifying rate when switching lenders at mortgage renewal.” Our goal is to protect Canadians by ensuring they have the support they need to afford their homes.

On a similar topic, I would be remiss if I did not also mention the new first-time homebuyer tax-free savings account, which allows Canadians to save up to $40,000 tax-free towards the purchase of their first home. We launched this account in April 2023, and to date, it has helped more than 750,000 Canadians, and counting, reach their first home savings goals.

A more competitive economy benefits all Canadians by offering more choice and greater affordability for consumers and businesses alike. Building on changes proposed in Bill C-56, Bill C-59 would amend both the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to modernize competition in Canada, thereby helping to stabilize prices across the entire economy. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair by preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repair of devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. It also includes modernizing merger reviews, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts in competition analysis and empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations. Finally, it includes broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful. These truly generational changes would drive lower prices and innovation, while fuelling economic growth, helping to further counteract inflationary pressures.

Today, I outlined just a few examples of how Bill C-59 makes targeted, responsible investments to improve affordability, build more homes and build an economy that works for everyone, all while taking care not to feed inflation. These are real solutions that, when combined with new measures announced in our recent budget and Canada's housing plan, will help us tackle Canada's housing challenge while improving affordability across the board. That is why I urge my fellow parliamentarians to continue to support this important piece of legislation.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and to the Minister of Innovation]

Madam Speaker, last November, the government introduced Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act. Among other measures, Bill C-59 proposed significant amendments to our Competition Act.

I am proud to share that the Standing Committee on Finance has recently completed its review of the bill and has made several amendments to further strengthen existing proposals. Before I get into some of the key details of this critical piece of legislation, I feel it is important to highlight the economic context in which this legislation is being introduced.

Countries around the world are dealing with higher inflation due to a global pandemic, further exacerbated by geopolitical uncertainty. Despite the fearmongering of the Conservative members opposite, Canada's economy is remarkably strong and resilient. That is truly due to the hard work of Canadians themselves. A few proof points demonstrate this: Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio is well below that of our G7 peers; our deficit is declining; and we are one of the only two G7 countries with an AAA credit rating from independent experts. Something that we can all be quite proud of is that Canada received the highest per capita foreign direct investment in the G7 in the first three quarters of 2023. Some may ask why those facts matter. These proof points show that Canada is in an enviable position when it comes to fiscal management. That position is exactly the reason our government can afford to make transformative investments in improving housing affordability and making life cost less.

Unlike Conservatives, who cut support for Canadians, we believe in supporting the middle class through growth and investment. I hear from my constituents often that their top concerns are being able to find an affordable place to live and wanting to find ways to make their day-to-day expenses cost less. This legislation addresses these two core issues head on.

For many years, Canada's markets have been described as overly concentrated and not competitive enough. In fact, a landmark Competition Bureau study last year, based on Statistics Canada data and analysis from a University of Toronto professor, made critical findings in this respect, showing that competitive intensity has been on the decline over the past two decades, reflected in a number of important indicators.

Bill C-59 was introduced to help build a stronger domestic economy through more competition and contestable markets, to bring lower prices, more choice and better product quality for consumers across all sectors. The measures in this bill include strengthening provisions with respect to merger review, enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, and broadening opportunities for private enforcement.

We should not underestimate just how critical these reforms are for modernizing our law and promoting competitive markets. The Commissioner of Competition has stated on multiple occasions that the amendments in Bill C‑56, the affordable housing and groceries act, which was ultimately passed by this Parliament in December 2023, and Bill C-59, are generational. I would therefore like to highlight some important reforms that have been proposed.

To begin with, anti-competitive collaborations between competitors will be under increased scrutiny, as the bureau will be able to examine and, if necessary, seek penalties against coordinated conduct that lessens competition. The expansion of private enforcement and the ability for the Competition Tribunal to issue monetary payment orders in cases initiated by private parties is also a significant change to our existing enforcement approach.

More competition is always beneficial to consumers, but the bill also takes some more direct approaches to protect consumers. These include strengthening provisions on deceptive marketing so that vendors must present the full cost of a product or service upfront, without holding back mandatory fees, which is known as drip pricing. Businesses making environmental claims about their products will be required to have undertaken adequate and proper testing before advertising those benefits. Together, these changes would ensure that consumers have accurate and complete information about products and services to make informed purchasing decisions.

We have also made strides on the right to repair. Thanks to the bill, a wider variety of service providers would be able to offer more options to consumers when they are choosing where to repair their products. These reforms, along with various administrative changes aimed at facilitating efficient enforcement of the act, are crucial to ensuring that Canadian markets remain competitive and in line with international best practices.

It has been acknowledged by all members of the House that our competition framework requires reform, and my colleagues have engaged in thoughtful discussion on ways to modernize the existing marketplace framework. The committee members were notably quite interested in enhancing protections for consumers and the environment, and I would like to draw attention to some now.

First, clarifications were made to ensure that in the Competition Act's various provisions on drip pricing, the only amounts that can be excluded from the upfront price, are those imposed by law directly on the purchaser of the products, such as sales taxes.

Next, with the committee's amendment, sellers advertising reduced prices would be required to be able to prove that the regular price is authentic to publicize discounts. On the topic of doubtful environmental claims, or so-called greenwashing, the law would also require that those who make environmental claims about their business or business activities, not only specific products, have adequate and proper substantiation in hand to support such claims.

This bill goes beyond making generational changes to competition in Canada. It also takes concrete action to build more homes faster, including new rental housing. Bill C-59 proposes to eliminate GST on eligible new housing co-operatives built for long-term rental, as outlined in the fall economic statement. This is just one of many measures our government is proposing to ensure that more people across all provinces and territories find the housing they need, at a price that they can afford.

Amidst a period of inflation and growing affordability concerns, it is crucial that our markets remain resilient and open to competition. Bill C-59 would reform Canada's competitive landscape, encourage greater innovation and improve affordability for Canadians. It would also get more rental housing built faster so that we can ensure housing is affordable for every generation.

I would urge my colleagues from all sides of the House to work together to expeditiously pass this crucial piece of legislation, instead of doing what we have seen in committee, which is to slow the bill down. We continue to see the Conservatives try to obstruct key pieces of legislation that are helping Canadians in their time of need, and that is not what we have been put here to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am fortunate to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. He always has a thorough knowledge of the issues and makes constructive suggestions.

I want to ask him about the amendment to the Competition Act. He referred to it in his speech. For years, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has been announcing a comprehensive reform. However, the reforms have come in bits and pieces, in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

The commissioner of competition told us it was not enough, that it would take this and that. Public officials replied that if we did such and such, it would affect something else that was not in the bill. In fact, we were supposed to have a bill to reform the entire Competition Act.

Does my colleague think that doing things this way amounts to incompetence on the part of the government?

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

Madam Speaker, I was not expecting such a lively debate tonight. I thank the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway for his speech, and I congratulate him on the six amendments that he was able to get passed in committee. He touched on them briefly. I would like him to tell us more about that, but I will ask my question.

There have been a lot of changes and improvements to the Competition Act, some of which were requested by the commissioner of competition. When it comes to the Competition Act, we know that Canada had a long way to go. Bill C-56 improved the act, and Bill C-59 and its amendments are improving it even more.

Does the member think that the system is now robust enough that consumers can expect healthy competition at all times, or is there still more work to do in that regard?

Alleged Inadmissibility of Amendment to Motion, Government Business No. 34

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your accommodating the timing of this. I apologize to the members who are involved in debate, but because the matter is currently under consideration by the House, I think giving the Speaker as much time as possible to consider it would be appropriate.

I am rising to ask that you rule the amendment made to the motion, Government Business No. 34, out of order, since according to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 541, it introduces a new proposition which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

The main motion proposes two things in relation to Bill C-62. Part (a) would establish committee meetings on the subject matter of Bill C-62. It proposes one hour to hear from a minister and two hours to hear from other witnesses.

Part (b) deals specifically with the time and management for each stage of the bill. Part (b)(i) would order the consideration by the House of a second reading stage and provides for the number of the speakers, length of speeches, length of debate and deferral of the vote at second reading. It would also restrict the moving of dilatory motions to that of a minister of the Crown. Part b(ii) would deem that Bill C-62 be referred to a committee of the whole and be deemed reported back without amendments, and it would order the consideration of third reading on Thursday, February 15, 2024.

Nowhere does the motion deal with the substance or the text of Bill C-62; it is a programming motion dealing with process, not substance. While this can and has been done by unanimous consent, it cannot be done by way of an amendment. The consequence of an amendment to allow for the expansion of the scope of Bill C-62 and, at the same time, proposing to amend the text of Bill C-62, is that it would, if accepted, expand the scope of the motion.

The process to expand the scope of the bill outside of unanimous consent is to adopt a stand-alone motion after the proper notice and procedures were followed. Page 756 of Bosc and Gagnon describes that procedure as follows:

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as...expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

Alternatively, a separate, stand-alone bill would suffice to introduce the concept of the subject material that is under the amendment for MAID. It is not in order to accomplish this by way of a simple amendment to a programming motion dealing with the management of House time on a government bill.

If you were to review the types of amendments to programming motions, and I am not talking about unanimous consent motions, they all deal with the management of House and committee time, altering the numbers of days, hours of meetings, witnesses, etc. As recently as December 4, 2023, the House disposed of an amendment that dealt with the minister's appearing as a witness and the deletion of parts of the bill dealing with time allocation. This was also the case for the programming motions for Bill C-56, Bill C-31 and Bill C-12.

Unless the main motion strays from the management of time and routine procedural issues and touches on the actual text of the bill, an amendment that attempts to amend the bill is out of order. For example, on May 9, 2023, the House adopted a programming motion for Bill C-21, the firearms act. Part (a) of the main motion then stated that:

it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, that during its consideration of the bill, the committee be granted the power to expand its scope, including that it applies to all proceedings that have taken place prior to the adoption of this order...

The motion went on at some length, instructing the committee to consider a number of amendments to the act. This in turn allowed the Conservative Party to propose an amendment to the programming motion and offer its own amendments to the bill itself, which addressed illegal guns used by criminals and street gangs and brought in measures to crack down on border smuggling and to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals and gangs in Canada, to name just a few.

The point is that if the main motion does not address the text of the bill, an amendment cannot introduce the new proposition of amending the text of the bill to the programming motion, which should properly be the subject of a separate substantive motion.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be able to resume where I left off back in December.

Just to refresh the memory of everyone in this place, we were discussing the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.

I have been a proud member of that committee for six years now and I would say that it is the best standing committee out of any committee of the House, because we often arrive at our decisions on a consensus model. We certainly have our differences, but the collegiality stems from the fact that, no matter what political party we represent, we all represent farmers in our respective ridings and have a great deal of respect for the work they do.

This particular study is unusual, if we look at the long list of studies the agriculture committee usually embarks on, in that we are dealing more with a retail issue, which of course is the subject of food price inflation. I am happy to say that this 10th report was the result of a unanimous vote on my motion for a study. The study was also backed up by a unanimous vote in the House of Commons when the NDP used our opposition day to move a motion backing up the committee's work.

Given the brutal food price inflation rates that many Canadians have been experiencing over the last couple of years, the political and public pressure of the moment, I think, really helped focus parliamentarians' efforts on this important issue in making sure we were paying it the attention it deserved, given what many of our constituents were telling us they were suffering through. Therefore, it was nice to see that unanimous vote and the fact that we were able to get into this study.

If we look at the news these days and the experts who research this particularly brutal problem, we already know that a record number of Canadians are having to access food banks. I certainly hear from my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford that they are having to make those difficult decisions every single week. It has affected not only the quality of food they have been able to buy, but also the quantity of food.

I think that is an enduring shame on our country, given that we pride ourselves on being an agricultural powerhouse. If we look at our standing vis-à-vis other nations around the world, we are a very wealthy country, but what we have seen over the last number of decades is that wealth is increasingly being concentrated in fewer hands, and too many of our fellow citizens are struggling to get by on the basic necessities of life.

I think this is a call to action for all parliamentarians. It is obvious that the policies we have put in place over the last 40 or 50 years and this sort of obscene corporate deference we have seen from successive Liberal and Conservative governments and the neo-Liberal orthodoxy that exists are not serving our fellow citizens right. We need to take a critical look at why that is.

This report contains a number of recommendations. I want to focus on a few of them, particularly on recommendations 11 and 13. Recommendation 11 is something that we heard not only in the course of this study, but also in other studies. It deals with the fact that many people who work in the food value chain, particularly the ones on the other side of the ledger from where the retail grocers come into play, have long been calling for a grocery code of conduct.

Initially, the calls were for a voluntary code. I think there was a tremendous amount of goodwill and a bit of leeway given to the industry to figure this out on its own and to come up with something whereby all players could develop the issue and have faith in it. However, what we have seen recently is that some of the big grocery retailers, namely Loblaws and Walmart, are now indicating they are uncomfortable with the direction the code is taking. In my humble opinion, this code simply cannot work if it is going to exclude major players like Loblaws and Walmart, so we may be arriving at a point at which the government needs to step in and enforce a mandatory code. That way, the rules are clear, concise and transparent, and all players in the food supply value chain can understand what they are and abide by them.

What we are seeing is that there is a complete lack of trust in the grocery retail sector, and for good reason. Grocery retailers have been accused and found guilty of fixing the price of bread. They have engaged in practices that, on the surface, look a lot like collusion. They have often followed each other's leads in setting prices and so on. Recently Loblaws was forced to climb down from its decision to reduce the discounts. There used to be a 50% discount on items that had to be sold that day. Often people are looking for those kinds of bargains. Loblaws was going to reduce that to 30%. That company consistently shows that it is unable to read the room and that it is completely tone deaf to the public environment in which it is operating.

Not only have consumers lost trust in grocery retailers, but on the other side, the suppliers, the food manufacturers and the hard-working men and women who work in primary production and farming have also lost trust, because when they are trying to get their goods put into a grocery market, and let us understand that 80% of Canada's grocery retail market is controlled by just five companies, which is a brutal situation and a totally unfair stranglehold on the market by those five companies, they were often subjected to hidden fees and fines for which they had no explanation.

As such, I am glad to see that recommendation 11 calls for a mandatory and enforceable grocery code of conduct.

I am also happy to see in this report recommendation 13, which asks the Government of Canada to strengthen the Competition Bureau's mandate and its ability to ensure competition in the grocery sector. The first two bullet points were about giving the Competition Bureau more legislative muscle through the Competition Act and making sure the competitive thresholds the Competition Bureau uses to evaluate mergers and acquisitions ensure that competition does not suffer.

I think, based on the hard work of this study and the recommendations of this report, we have actually seen legislative change come to this place, and it was great to see, in particular, Bill C-56 receive a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. It has passed the Senate, and it has now become a statute of Canada by virtue of the Governor General.

There are more measures contained in Bill C-59, and our leader, the member from Burnaby South's private member's bill also includes a number of very important changes. Of course members of Parliament are going to have the opportunity tomorrow, after question period, to vote on that bill, and Canadians will be watching to see which members of Parliament are serious about stepping up to fix that particular problem.

I also want to talk about the supplementary report that I included as the New Democratic member of the committee, because committee reports reflect the majority view of the committee. In the case of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, that is almost always the unanimous view of the committee. I do not think I have ever really seen a dissenting report, but sometimes some recommendations that some members would like to have seen added to the report do not get in there.

I agree absolutely with the main thrust of the report. I think the recommendations were very strong. There were some additional ones, some supplementary ones, that I would have liked to see added. We heard from a number of witnesses who asked our committee to recommend that the government embark on legislative recognition of the right to food, so one of our recommendations would have been:

that the Government of Canada acknowledge its obligation as a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights to respect, protect, and fulfill the human right to food by adopting a framework law that would enshrine this right in Canadian law and require the federal government to legislate binding, specific, and measurable targets toward realizing the policy outcomes it set out in 2019 in “The Food Policy for Canada”.

Again, when so many in our population are going hungry, it is incumbent upon us as legislators and policy makers to really step up to the plate and meet that need in the moment with specific action. I think that, given that this recommendation came from people who are directly involved in the national food bank network and are dealing with this issue every single day, we would do well as policy makers to listen to that on-the-ground expertise and follow through.

I also want to take some time in the final four minutes that I have to really recognize two witnesses who appeared before our committee. They are both economics professors who go against the prevailing orthodoxy of corporate deference that so many economics professors practise. They are, particularly, Professor D.T. Cochrane and Professor Jim Stanford, who I think offer a refreshing and alternative view to the dominant orthodoxy, to look critically at why systems are the way they are.

I just want to quote Dr. Jim Stanford:

Greed is not new. Greed long predates the pandemic, but greed has had a good run in Canada since the pandemic. After-tax profits in Canada during the pandemic or since the pandemic have increased to their highest share of GDP in history. Amidst a social, economic and public health emergency, companies have done better than they ever have.

In response to one of my questions, he went on to say:

At the top of the list, there's no doubt about it, is the oil and gas sector. The excess profits earned there since the pandemic account for about one-quarter of the total mass of profits across the 15 sectors I identified in that work. The increased prices that embody those huge profit margins then trickle through the rest of the supply chain. Food processors have to pay that, so they have higher costs, nominally, but then they add their own higher profit margin on top of that. The same goes for the food retail sector. By the time the consumer gets it, there's been excess profits added at several steps of the whole supply chain. That magnifies the final impact on consumer price inflation.

Two things have been true over the last number of years. Canadians have been suffering through brutal inflation. They have seen the cost of almost everything rise to almost unsustainable levels, in fact, to unsustainable levels for too many of our fellow citizens. That is one truth of which we can see empirical evidence.

The other truth we are dealing with is that since 2019, many corporate sectors have been raking in the cash. Those two facts exist side by side, and we know for a fact that when profits are increasing in many different corporate sectors that Canadians rely on, that money has to come from somewhere, and it has been coming directly from the wallets of the constituents that I represent, the constituents that every MP in this place represents from coast to coast to coast.

I will wrap up my speech there by saying that this was an important report and these are important recommendations. I am glad to have been a member of the committee that produced this report. Of course, I will be voting to concur in it. With that I will conclude my remarks.

Lowering Prices for Canadians Act

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to address the chamber with respect to Bill C-352, which would amend the Competition Act.

I think we all agree in the chamber that a stronger competition enforcement regime would be good for all Canadians. The bill proposed by the New Democratic Party, while receptive to the need for change in competition law, and generally aligned with the government's overall direction to date, must, however, be examined in light of the vast number of changes that overlap with and have already been introduced by Bill C-56 and Bill C-59.

Bill C-56 became law in December 2023, while Bill C-59 remains under consideration by Parliament at the present time. Bill C-56 implements, and Bill C-59 would implement, an overhaul of the Competition Act following the extensive consultations undertaken in 2022 and in 2023. The government received a great deal of input throughout its consultations, bolstering the knowledge gained over the years of stewardship over this law. The amendment packages assembled in its two bills address most of the issues identified in the law that historically made it weaker than regimes of Canada's closest partners. That would no longer be the case.

Modernizing the Competition Act is a necessary step in making Canada's economy more affordable for consumers and more fair and accessible to business. The government's extensive commitment to competition law reform was led by Bill C-56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, followed by Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. Both of these bills are directed at enhancing affordability and competition, and together they represent the most comprehensive reform package to the Competition Act in decades. They respond to the submissions of hundreds of very different stakeholders, including businesses, legal experts, academics, non-governmental organizations and the commissioner of competition himself.

Bill C-56 implemented a set of targeted but critical amendments, following especially from the Competitions Bureau's market study on Canada's retail grocery sector. As members already know, Bill C-56 brought much-needed changes such as allowing information to be compelled under court order in the course of a market study, helping to remove barriers when diagnosing potential competition issues.

Bill C-56 also repealed the efficiencies exceptions for anti-competitive mergers and collaborations, and in so doing eliminated what many observers consider to have been the single biggest contributor to corporate concentration in Canada. The bill further allowed for better prevention and remedy of the abuse by larger players of their dominant position by requiring only proof of anti-competitive intent or effects to prohibit certain forms of conduct. This more appropriately allocates the burden of proof, as compared to the previous test, which significantly limited the number of instances where the bureau could intervene.

Finally, Bill C-56 addressed harm from collaborations between non-competing parties that are designed to limit competition. Once this provision is in effect, the bureau would be able to review any type of collaboration whose purpose it is to restrain competition and seek a remedy, including an order to prevent the activity where competition is being substantially harmed or is likely to be. This would be especially impactful on restrictive covenants between grocers and landlords, allowing more grocers to set up shop near competitors.

Bill C-56 was, of course, amended in committee through a multi-party effort, incorporating several of the elements in Bill C-352 that now no longer require consideration.

Bill C-59 represents an even more substantial overhaul in our competition enforcement regime, addressing a large variety of aspects of the Competition Act. The amendments would give the Competition Bureau a longer period to detect and address anti-competitive mergers that are not notified in advance, helping to address “killer acquisitions” in the digital market. The bill would broaden the bureau's review of competitor collaborations to include those that harmed competition in the past, and would allow for financial penalties to be sought when necessary.

Importantly, Bill C-59 would facilitate private actions against a broader range of anti-competitive or harmful practices and empower those affected to seek financial compensation in many cases. This improvement would complement the bureau's work in protecting the marketplace. The bill would also ensure that costs awards would not be ordered against the commissioner of competition in the vast majority of circumstances, another element addressed by Bill C-352.

The bill also includes anti-reprisal provisions, which would ensure that co-operation with the bureau or participation in legal proceedings could not be punished by stronger businesses. Additionally, it is worth mentioning that Bill C-59 would strengthen the law's testament of greenwashing the false advertising of sustainability claims while also facilitating environmentally beneficial collaborations that would not harm competition. Moreover, it would ensure that a means of diagnosis or repair could not be denied in a way that would harm competition.

All in all, little remains in Bill C-352 that has not already been addressed. On the contrary, Bill C-59 includes several elements missing from this private member's bill. The government's consultation saw over 130 stakeholders raise over 100 reform proposals. All submissions made by identified groups are publicly available, and the government published a “what we heard” report synthesizing them. This public process has been a key source of input to help us develop reform proposals. We are confident that the measures included in government bills comprehensively address the needs expressed by Canadians.

In conclusion, I think it is fair to say that the ambition of Bill C-352 correctly reflects the importance Canadians place on having a strengthened competition law framework. However, all of the major issues it raises have been or are being substantially dealt with through Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. As such, I would encourage members of the House interested in advancing competition reform to prioritize the rapid passage of Bill C-59.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, happy new year. I appreciate the opportunity to rise today and to speak in the House on behalf of the good people of Waterloo to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

Since 2015, the federal government's economic plan has invested in the middle class, strengthened Canada's social safety net and worked to build an economy in which everyone has a real and fair chance at success. A key pillar of the government's plan has been a focus on making life more affordable for Canadians, because when people have the support they need to thrive, they can contribute to the economy, build a better life for themselves and their families, and play an active role in their communities.

Regardless of what the Conservative Party of Canada members say, our plan is having a positive impact on Canadians. I recognize that when Conservatives speak of Canadians, they speak of the people who are doing well financially and therefore would benefit from their typical non-refundable tax credits.

People ask, what does that mean? Conservatives are classic for their gimmicks. The people who benefit from their non-refundable tax credits are often the wealthiest. The most vulnerable do not benefit, and I have dozens of examples in the riding and region of Waterloo. They know that if they are not in the economic situation to be paying additional taxes, they do not benefit from Conservative gimmicks of non-refundable tax credits.

I have heard lots of stories and had lots of conversations. People speak about the sports credit and the textbook credit, and the list goes on. They did entertain what Conservatives had to say, and then tax time came and their financial situation did not allow them to benefit. They asked me, what is the difference? I said that the difference is really understanding the way the rules in our tax system work. When the Conservatives speak of non-refundable tax credits, they are speaking about their wealthy friends. They are speaking about the people who would benefit from their financial situation and often not the most vulnerable in our community.

Then people refer to the most recent issue that Conservatives are having. We all know Conservatives are riled up about the price on pollution, or the carbon tax, as they call it. The majority of Canadians agree that pollution should not be free, and the reality is that eight out of 10 families benefit from the climate action incentive that the Conservative Party of Canada wants to remove from Canadian purses.

The Conservatives continue on about this price on pollution, but they do not talk about the fact that 80% of Canadians, eight out of 10 families, are actually receiving more than they pay. They are concerned about the very people they will continue fighting for day in and day out. When they speak, they relate to the average person. The average person hears them, and they say, “Oh, they are talking to me.” However, we all know that at the end of the day, they are not fighting for that average person. Therefore, let me repeat that 80% of Canadians receive more than they pay, and the wealthiest, who do not benefit, are the ones who would benefit from the Conservative plan on the backs of the most vulnerable.

Canadians want to undo the efforts that we have brought forward to make sure that we prioritize the environment, and I believe that the price on pollution is the reason we should continue recognizing the importance of fighting for the environment. The price on pollution is another excuse the Conservatives use as to why they have turned their backs on Ukrainians. Ukraine has had a price on pollution. Ukrainians recognize the importance of fighting for the environment. They know that the environment does not see borders, yet the Conservatives will take any opportunity for partisan gain.

When we have a world and a country where there are many people with a diversity of opinions, we need to recognize the importance of why we are here.

I think about why I ran in 2015. I ran in 2015 because of the government of the day under the leadership of Stephen Harper. Because I did not vote for his government, I was told that my voice did not matter, and I did not have a say. I remind Conservatives and I remind all Canadians that when people sacrificed their lives and fought for our rights and freedoms, they fought for our rights and freedoms regardless of whether they agreed with us or not.

Tough conversations are tough. Governing is tough. Every member of Parliament in this House has a really important role to play, and I recognize the value of it. Listening to people who are like-minded and who agree with us is really simple. Reaching out and listening to opinions and perspectives that do not match our own is tough, and that is something that I will continue to do in the riding of Waterloo.

When I ran in 2015, I committed to my constituents that I would represent their voices in Ottawa. I promised them and I reassured them that, regardless of my personal opinion, as their member of Parliament, their voices would be heard in this chamber, and I will continue to ensure that this is the case.

[Lena Metlege Diab, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023.

This legislation, which would deliver on key measures from our fall economic statement, would advance our plan to make life more affordable, build more homes faster and develop a cleaner economy that works for everyone.

This is the next step in our economic plan that, since 2015, has supported people in Halifax West and across the country through the Canada child benefit, enhanced benefits and pensions for seniors, stronger public health care and a Canada-wide system of affordable early learning and child care. These investments have helped bring us to today, when we have seen a strong recovery with a million more jobs in Canada than before the pandemic, a record number of working-age women in our labour force and, just last month, wages growing at the fastest pace in three years. In fact, wage growth has outpaced inflation for 11 consecutive months now, but we are not out of the economic woods yet.

Inflation is still high, higher than where we would like it to be. Elevated prices continue to put pressure on Canadian families. I hear about that every day from my constituents.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken more steps to make life more affordable for people in this country who need it.

It is no secret that we need to do much more.

This bill is part of that work.

There are a number of things I can talk about that Bill C-59 would do for Canadians. It would remove the GST and HST on counselling and psychotherapy services to make mental health care more affordable. It would extend employment insurance benefits to parents who adopt, better supporting those families.

Right now, adoptive parents are entitled to EI parental benefits, but not to the 15 weeks of maternity benefits.

It would create new, paid leave for federally regulated workers to support families who experience pregnancy loss.

A truly strong economy and labour force are built upon compassion and an understanding of the difficult situations some families encounter.

Bill C-59 would also introduce new measures to further our economic plan and continue supporting a strong middle class. It would achieve that by enshrining our suite of clean investment tax credits in law, all while providing businesses with an incentive to pay a prevailing union wage. That is huge.

This is the first time in Canada's history that investment tax credits are contingent upon such labour requirements.

Let us bring this back to my own community in Halifax West. The two things I hear about most these days, especially since we signed our transformative health care deal with Nova Scotia, are affordability at the grocery store and the need for more housing. This bill would introduce both.

On housing, Bill C-59 would remove the GST on new rental home construction for co-op housing, complementing the action we took in the fall and spurring new construction. Let us recall just how much we have done to increase housing supply over the last several months, because it is major. We are investing $1 billion more in affordable units like non-profit, co-op and public housing. We are helping build 30,000 more rental units by extending $15 billion in additional low-cost financing to builders. We are reforming the apartment construction loan program to offer low-cost loans to build more student housing on and off campus, a move that I know Dalhousie, Mount Saint Vincent and St. Mary's universities are all looking at closely.

We are launching a home design catalogue so pre-approved designs, including modulars, that can benefit Atlantic Canada specifically can be used to build more homes faster. We are funding 222 new units of public housing in Nova Scotia, the first expansion to our public housing stock in decades. We are unlocking 9,000 more units in HRM over the next decade by funding Halifax's housing action plan through our housing accelerator.

While Conservatives pick fights with elected mayors and councils, we work with them, providing the right incentives and getting major changes made so we can build homes faster in Canada. That is the way forward: collaboration.

We are going to get more homes built for Canadians, and we are also tackling the problem of high grocery prices head-on through a generational change to competition law in Canada. Bill C-59 is part of that. How is it? By amending the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, building on changes we have proposed in Bill C-56, we would help stabilize prices and improve consumer choice. This includes supporting Canadians' right to repair; further modernizing merger reviews; enhancing protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including improving the focus on worker impacts and competition analysis; empowering the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations; and broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and receive payment if they are successful.

I know I welcomed this week's news that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is calling on the Competition Bureau to use its new powers to take another look at the cost of groceries in Canada. This is how we crack down on tactics that big corporations use to raise costs for Canadians.

Is there more we need to do to act on these two top voter priorities? The answer is yes, absolutely.

On this side of the aisle, we are going to stay focused on them both, fully in solution mode.

All members will have the opportunity to take part in this work, and that starts by supporting Bill C‑59.

Let us support the swift passage of Bill C-59, and let us keep working together on solutions to the challenges Canadians are facing at this time.

[Majid Jowhari, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Charlottetown.

I am thankful for the opportunity and privilege of rising in the House to participate in today's debate on Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, 2023. The legislation would deliver key measures from the 2023 fall economic statement, as well as budget 2023, to help the middle class by stabilizing consumer prices and making housing more affordable by supporting the construction of homes that Canadians very much need.

Our approach to tackling the housing crisis is multi-faceted. On that note, the federal government is collaborating with the provincial and territorial governments across Canada to do a number of things, such as cutting red tape, speeding up permitting approvals, lifting zoning restrictions and, consequently, building more homes much faster. This collaborative effort has already yielded substantial results, as evidenced by the following. There is the construction of more than 71,000 new rental homes through the allocation of over $25 billion in low-cost financing via the rental construction financing initiative. This is an initiative on which I received a lot of calls in my constituency from the developer, who is very interested in participating in it.

We are targeting the construction of over 12,000 affordable homes for those with severe housing needs or those experiencing homelessness through the rapid housing initiative. There will be 12,000 more homes for those who are homeless and 71,000 new rental homes for those looking to rent. We are also providing housing providers with low- or no-cost options to build 4,500 new homes by utilizing over $200 million through the federal lands initiative by repurposing surplus federal lands and buildings. We are now getting involved by providing those surplus federal lands and allocating and working with partners to build homes. In addition, we are investing $6.7 billion in housing for first nations on reserve, as well as Inuit, Métis and first nations self-governing and modern treaty communities.

To maintain pace with our expanding communities, we recognize that rental housing supply must also increase. Builders need access to low-cost financing, which would enable the construction of more new rental units much faster. The federal government has already made significant strides in this direction, but, naturally, there is more to come.

The 2023 fall economic statement announced an additional $15 billion in new loan funding for the apartment construction loan program starting in 2025-26. This supports the construction of an additional 30,000 new units across Canada by bringing the total loan funding to over $40 billion. By 2031-32, this program will have contributed to the support of over 101,000 new apartments for people to live in.

Affordable and community housing also plays a critical role. We were talking about providing housing and rentals and now we are talking about providing affordable and community housing for the most vulnerable Canadians that they can call home. To build more affordable housing for the most vulnerable Canadians, an additional investment to support non-profit co-op and public housing providers has been announcement in the 2023 fall economic statement to build more than 7,000 new co-op homes.

To help build more homes faster, the 2023 fall economic statement also removes the goods and services tax from new rental home construction for co-operative housing corporations providing long-term accommodations, as well as apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences. This move, alongside the formal establishment of the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities, underscores our commitment to support the construction of homes across Canada.

I am particularly proud of the recent initiative in my riding of Richmond Hill. On Monday, November 27, I joined my hon. colleague, the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities; my neighbour, the member of Parliament for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill; and the mayor of Richmond Hill, His Worship Mayor David West, in announcing an agreement to fast-track over 780 housing units over the next three years in my riding.

This initiative is part of a broader vision to create over 41,500 new homes in the next decade, supported by a $31-million investment from the housing accelerator fund for Richmond Hill.

I am also proud to witness the government's substantive investments in our community that demonstrate what can be achieved with innovation, collaboration and a steadfast resolve to address the housing needs of Canadians in Richmond Hill and across Canada. I congratulate the Municipality of Richmond Hill for its innovative housing action plan and the broader community in Richmond Hill, as well as other municipalities within the York Region that are the recipients of this fund.

In addition to addressing housing needs, the government is acutely aware of the challenges posed by global inflation, particularly the high cost of food, and is actively working to alleviate the burden on Canadians. Recognizing the importance of affordability in daily life, we implemented new measures last fall to make groceries more accessible and more affordable. Key among these initiatives is the amendment of the Competition Act, through Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. This amendment aims to enhance competition in the grocery sector, thereby helping to lower costs and offering Canadians more choices in their grocery shopping.

Furthermore, we are actively working on securing commitments from Canada's five largest grocery chains, which constitute 76% of the market, to assist in stabilizing prices for Canadians. The establishment of a grocery task force further bolsters these efforts. This task force is not only supervising the efforts of major grocers to stabilize prices but also actively monitoring and investigating other practices in the sector, such as shrinkflation. As we move forward, the government remains vigilant and committed to ensuring that Canada's largest grocers uphold their promise to stabilize prices.

The bill would also advance the government's fiscally responsible plan to build a cleaner, stronger economy. It would introduce measures to create well-paying jobs, generate growth and build a cleaner economy that works for everyone by advancing Canada's competitiveness through the implementation of investment tax credits. The government has been in the position to be the third-largest recipient of foreign investments, which is the envy of the world. Investment tax credits are a key part of the government's broader plan to work with industry toward the goal of decarbonization, which includes the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit.

It is evident that Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act, represents a comprehensive approach to some of the most pressing challenges facing our nation, namely affordability, the environment, housing and security. In essence, supporting Bill C-59 means endorsing a strategy that balances economic growth with environmental stewardship and social responsibility. It is a step toward not only addressing the immediate needs of our citizens but also securing a healthier, more prosperous future for Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, good afternoon to you and to all my hon. colleagues in this wonderful and esteemed House. It is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Before I begin my formal remarks, I will say that it is really great to share our thoughts and be the voice of the residents of our ridings, whom we get to represent with much privilege and honour.

When we look at Canada today, the country we are blessed to call home whether we were born here in this generation or prior, like our parents and grandparents, however we ended up here, we are very fortunate as Canada is a land of opportunity for its residents, our constituents and our children. We are going to keep it that way. All 338 members of the House aspire for this country to be the best it can be, and to provide opportunity and fortune for our children and our prosperity.

Today the International Monetary Fund came out with its economic growth outlook projections, and the growth outlook for Canada looks quite impressive. In fact, in 2025, out of all of the G7 countries, Canada will have the fastest economic growth rate forecast for real GDP. We will grow at almost 2.5%. It is 2.3% to be exact. In 2024, we will be a snick behind the United States and will be the second fastest-growing country in the G7.

That does not happen by accident; it happens through the hard work of all our residents and entrepreneurs. It also happens through collaboration with government, labour and industry. That is how we grow an economy. That is how we create prosperity, by collaborating and working together.

As I was reading through the fall economic outlook today, it was great to see that the choices we have made and continue to make as a government are creating economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Canadians, not only the wonderful residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge but also those across this country.

In the fall economic statement there is talk of the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister of Canada and my mayor, the Hon. Steven Del Duca, to announce a $59-million investment into the city of Vaughan to streamline the processes to build housing to ensure that we prioritize housing near transportation infrastructure, much like is being done at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and all along the Highway 7 corridor along York Region in the city of Vaughan.

We will continue to make those strategic investments in our communities. Why will we? It is because we believe in Canadians, and a confident government invests in its people, its entrepreneurs and its country. That is what we continue to do.

There is one measure I think we must all look at and applaud, which is the first-time homebuyer savings account. This account has been taken up by over 500,000 Canadians. It combines the best of the tax-free savings account and an RRSP account. It puts them together: tax-free in, tax-free out. People get a tax deduction for investing in the account, and when they use it to purchase a home, it is tax-free: tax deduction in, tax-free out. It is a powerful measure that 500,000 Canadians have taken advantage of.

On the building side, we put in place a 100% GST rebate with respect to new purpose-built rental housing. I know this is something that, for many years, rental builders across this country have asked for, and we have delivered that.

We brought in the Canada child benefit and an early learning and child care plan, which I know the Province of Ontario, under a Progressive Conservative government, is celebrating day in and day out, but the opposition apparently criticizes.

I would say “shame”, because we know, and the member opposite knows, that my riding, York—Simcoe, and all the ridings across this country are benefiting from the agreement we have signed with the provinces.

We know that Canadians are facing high consumer prices, which is putting pressure on their families.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken other measures to make life more affordable for those who need it most in our country. Those measures include doubling the GST credit for six months in the fall of 2022 and providing a new one-time grocery rebate in June 2023, which enabled us to deliver hundreds of dollars in targeted inflation relief to 11 million Canadian households.

On July 28, 2023, the government began distributing the first quarterly payments of the enhanced Canada workers benefit, a measure designed to help Canada's lowest paid but often most essential workers. A family could receive up to $2,461 this year.

The Canada workers benefit is like the unsung hero, the grinder on the ice, doing its job. This benefit has lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty. Almost two and a half million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since 2015. The poverty rate has been reduced by more than half, 650,000 children. We will continue doing what is right. When the government does what is right, when a parent does what is right, when an entrepreneur does what is right, they know they are going in the right direction. We are certainly doing that.

These are just a few examples of how our government continues to support Canadians at a time when some prices are still too high.

Bill C-59 builds on these efforts by introducing new measures to further the government's economic plan and continue to support a strong middle class. We are seeing it. We have a AAA credit rating, and that is not by fluke; it was by hard choices made many years ago to keep that under all governments. We celebrate it. We maintain it. We have a strong fiscal foundation.

Our deficit-to-GDP ratio, across the board, is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in all the G7 countries, and it continues on the right path. We know that Canadians are feeling elevated prices, but we have made the right choices to support them, and we will continue to do so.

We will support Canadians' right to repair, preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repairing devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. We have further modernized merger reviews and enhanced protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including putting the focus on worker impacts and competition.

We empowered the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations.

Finally, we are broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and to receive payment if they are successful.

Bill C-59 and Bill C-56 would provide generational changes to the competition laws for Canadians.

Again, on competition, I love capitalism and I love the creation of wealth. That is what creates jobs. That is what drives prosperity, not only here in this beautiful country but across the board. However, we can do that only when we have a regulatory regime in place that ensures that anti-competitive practices, abuse practices on pricing, collusion and drip pricing, and all those of types of measures are looked at and examined, and folks are held to account.

We need to do that, whether there are circumstances like a few years ago with bread or in any circumstance today. We need to ensure that the commissioner of competition and the Competition Tribunal have teeth. We need to ensure that the law with regard to competition is on the side of Canadians, not on the side of corporations. Believe me, I want all companies and corporations to succeed, whether it is a limited partnership, whether it is a CCPC, whether it is publicly listed or a family business, or whether it is one of the 18,000 or 19,000 small businesses that exist in the city of Vaughan, literally the economic engine of York Region, the largest economic centre, with almost 1,300,000 residents.

Our government also recognizes the importance of enabling Canadians to access the mental health services and support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

For example, therapy and counselling services play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, the federal government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible.

We removed the GST-HST when an individual needs to go see a therapist of any sort. We know how important the mental health of our friends, families and loved ones is, especially in this world today, where we are so interconnected yet millions of people still feel alone. They need the help.

I see I have about a minute or 30 seconds left. I would like to say that I look forward to answering questions or comments from my hon. colleagues. I hope they and their families are doing well. Let us make sure that all the climate action incentive payments are received by all Canadians out there, including all the wonderful seniors in my riding, who I know are better off for receiving the climate action incentive payments.

I look forward to receiving and answering questions from the hon. opposition, as well as my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today to speak to this latest budget implementation act by the government.

I have been listening closely to the debate, so I would like to start by offering some comments on it so far. Then I am going to talk a bit more about the bill.

I had occasion to ask the Conservative leader not long ago here in the House about the problem of inflation that Canadians are experiencing. We know they are experiencing it, as we all are. When we go into a grocery store, we see the rising prices. We know people are struggling to stay in their homes. We see it on the street in our communities. We see more people pitching tents in order to have a roof over their head at night, such as it is. We hear stories, unfortunately, of cities focusing their energy on clearing out encampments of people with nowhere to go instead of trying to figure out how to create better homes that provide more warmth and support in a challenging winter. We are hearing about it from constituents, for instance, who are having to choose to cut pills or pay the rent. There are all sorts of ways in which this really difficult economic time is affecting Canadians, so the question for us here in Parliament is what to do about it.

Certainly, the Conservative leader has a lot of opinions on that. My question earlier was why, when he talks about inflation and the hardship that Canadians are experiencing, he does not mention whether it is just in Canada. There have been some incredible studies here in Canada saying that price increases over and above the increase in costs for large corporations are responsible for 25% or more of the inflation that Canadians have experienced, so I want to be really clear that those are not price increases. We know that, particularly, a lot of small and medium-sized businesses in our communities are experiencing higher costs and have to pass them on to their consumers. Even some big corporations are experiencing higher input costs, and some of that gets passed on to consumers. However, we are talking about price increases that go above and beyond that increase in costs.

It is no excuse to say that they are simply passing on those costs, because they are not. If 25% or so of inflation is attributable to price increases above the additional costs, it means corporations are taking that 25% home in profits. When we look at the profits of oil and gas companies, which increased by 1000% from 2019 to 2021, as an example, those were not increases of passing on costs. Some increases contributed to inflation by being additional price increases just for the purpose of paying higher dividends to corporate shareholders and bigger wages to corporate executives. Therefore, how can the Conservative leader pretend to be serious about addressing the problem of inflation when he is completely silent about the corporate greed that is driving a quarter or more of that very inflation? I would submit that it is not possible. It is not credible.

I am proud to be part of an NDP caucus in which the leader is willing to name that problem here in the House of Commons and acknowledge that we will not have a solution to the inflation problem in Canada if big corporations continue to feel they can increase prices with impunity. That is a major driver of inflation and hardship for Canadians. I think it speaks to the electoral choices that Canadians have. We have a Conservative opposition here that would frame itself as an alternative to the Liberals. However, if we actually look at this blind spot, the corporate-controlled Conservatives are not willing to acknowledge it, or do not see it, whichever it is. I will not speak to the question of intention here, but I will just say that it is a blind spot, whether wilful or not. What this means is that, if they were in government themselves, they would continue to do what the current government does. They would be prone to saying that the problems will go away if we just trust the market to deal with them. They would refuse to acknowledge the role that unbridled corporate greed is playing in creating the economic problem that Canadians are facing today.

One example of the ways this has manifested with the current government is with respect to housing. The real meat of its housing proposal in the fall was all about “creating more room for the market to solve the housing crisis”.

I do not really think we are going to get market solutions to the housing crisis. I do not think that is a revelation. I do not think that is particularly controversial. I know that the market, since the federal government, in the mid-90s, stepped away from producing non-market housing, has had 30 years to solve our housing problems. Instead of solving them, it has created a crisis that is accelerating and getting worse.

Simply freeing up Crown land and handing it off to developers to do what they will is not going to solve the problem. The same motive of corporate greed has been driving this housing crisis for decades now and has become particularly acute in the last few years, and nothing about that basic structure will have changed if we are still just expecting market players to solve this crisis.

We heard at the finance committee, from home developers, financiers and real estate people, that the market is not going to solve this problem. That is not to say that we do not need more market housing. It is not to say that there would not be more housing built by the market; of course there will be. That is not where we need the attention of government, though. The attention of government has to be on the part that the market will not do and has not been doing, and that is non-market housing.

To say that we want to see the government focus specifically on non-market housing is not to discount the role of the market and market housing; it is just to say that the public policy attention of the government does not have to be there. In fact, the virtue of the market is supposed to be that the government does not have to get involved, so let them do their thing, but let us have the attention and the investment focus of our federal government be on addressing the very real problem of non-market housing, which has been neglected for 30 years and absolutely must return, in a significant way, in order for us to solve the housing crisis. It is a problem with the current government, and it will be a problem with any future Conservative government, because they share the same blind spot.

What are some of the other things we could do if we acknowledge the role that corporate greed is playing? That is where I think the NDP has played an important role in twisting the arm of the Liberal government to do some things, like a 2% share buyback fee, so that companies cannot just go ahead and, for various kinds of maximization of profit strategies for their shareholders or for the corporation itself, buy back shares as a way of transferring wealth to their shareholders without paying any tax at all.

It is of note, and something that New Democrats have been arguing for for a long time, well before this Parliament, that this legislation creates the possibility of implementing a digital services tax, which means a tax on the revenue of large, Internet-based companies, like Netflix and others, who, right now, are paying no tax in Canada at all. This does not make sense. They are not paying any corporate tax on the revenue that they raise in Canada. They get to walk it all out of the country for free.

That does not make sense, and it puts traditional broadcasters at a disadvantage. We are seeing the effects that is having on our media market and the ability to hire journalists and pay them to do the work that they do, which plays an important part. However much we may disagree sometimes with the way that news media outlets frame certain issues, their work is, nevertheless, important to a well-functioning democracy. The fact that their competitors have not had to pay any tax at all does a disservice not just to them but to Canadians, who rely on news content for the functioning of our democracy.

We have been pushing the government already in Bill C-56, and now again in the budget implementation bill, to make meaningful changes to the Competition Act that would allow for the Competition Bureau to play a greater and more effective role in ensuring that big corporations are not using their market power and their market position to pull one over on Canadians, to make the economy less competitive, and to have those outsized, excess price increases that I was talking about earlier, which are a significant factor in driving inflation.

Another thing we can do is to be willing to let corporations know, to the extent that they want to invest in Canada and create jobs in Canada, particularly in the natural resources sector, that there is an expectation that they are going to create good union jobs here in Canada in order to do it. That is why I am very proud of the labour conditions that are attached to the investment tax credits. This legislation would implement those labour conditions for the companies that are investing, with the use of this tax credit in clean technology, in carbon capture and storage. I am not actually that happy to hear about that technology, because I do not think that is the basket we should be putting our eggs in when it comes to emissions reduction; it's technology that has not been proven at scale. However, this government is determined to move ahead, and we hear a lot of positive comments about carbon capture and storage from Conservatives as well. Again, it is another shared blind spot of these two parties, the Liberals and Conservatives.

Nevertheless, if that investment is going to be taking place in Canada, I want it to create good union jobs, and I want companies to know that they have to be paying the prevailing wage of the collective agreements in the trade union sector. That means those companies are not going to come in competing on who can pay Canadians the least to do that work. They are going to come in and have to compete on the things we want them to be competing on: How efficient is the technology? How efficient are they at building it? What are their production techniques? That is the way they should be competing. When they are earning a contract, it should be on that basis and not on the basis of how little they are prepared to pay their workers.

Too often, in Canada, we have accepted a situation where we are happy to have companies come in and compete on the cost of labour and have a competition about who can pay Canadians the least to do a job that deserves a fair wage, good benefits and a proper pension. I am very proud that with this legislation we are going to be implementing, for the first time ever, conditions on an investment tax break that centres workers in the middle of it and has an apprenticeship requirement. Sometimes it can be a challenge to employers to hire apprentices. I have been an apprentice myself, and when I walked on the job site the first day, I did not know what I was doing. That is what an apprenticeship is like; it is meant to teach people. It is not always a profit maximization strategy for the employer in the short term.

In the long term, employers with foresight see the value of passing on that training and knowledge and creating a workforce they can avail themselves of, but we know there are employers for whom that is not their strategy. They have a short-term focus and want to bring on the journeypeople. They want someone else to train apprentices, and then they want to poach them later.

However, these tax credits will say that we, as a country, value training the trades workforce of tomorrow, and that if companies want a tax break on the investment, they have to be part of a culture of building that workforce and creating good jobs for Canadians, not just for today but also into the future, giving them the tools they need in order to be able to do that.

We saw a Conservative government in Ontario use bankruptcy laws to shut down a post-secondary education institution. My colleague for Timmins—James Bay did a lot of work on raising awareness about what was wrong with that; it should never be done again. New Democrats have spearheaded the effort to get that done, and in this budget bill what we see is a provision that says that the bankruptcy and insolvency laws of Canada and the CCAA will not be able to be used again in the future to perpetrate that kind of nasty closure on a public institution. I am very proud of the work my colleagues have done on that, and it is something that I think ought to go forward.

I want to come back to the housing question, because it is an important one. I said earlier that I thought in the fall that the Liberals' focus was on market solutions and that that is not where the focus of the government really needs to be, certainly not to the exclusion of working on non-market solutions. In this bill, what do we see? Well, the only thing that is really happening on the housing front is the creation of a new department of housing infrastructure and communities, which is just merging two departments that already exist. This is not what we do in the face of a crisis. This is not an administrative crisis; it is not that people are not pushing enough paper. It is that there is not enough housing getting built, and changing the name of the department without prioritizing things like recapitalizing the coinvestment fund, one of the few federal funds that is actually building non-market housing, does not make sense. It does not make sense to prioritize shuffling the words in the department name around over advancing that funding.

In the fall economic statement, the recapitalization that was much touted by the government as its action on the urgent housing crisis was back-loaded in the budget tables, meaning it will not be coming for another two years. This is particularly shameful when we consider that the territory of Nunavut alone has been asking, on an urgent basis, for $250 million to address the housing crisis that it is seeing and to meet the needs that the territorial government is being asked to respond to.

We did not see a mention in the fall economic statement, and there is nothing in the bill, around the Kivalliq hydro link, which is a project that will help deliver power into parts of Nunavut. I hope it will also be accompanied with more broadband access in order to set the stage for more economic development in parts of Nunavut, as well as to try to reduce the reliance in Nunavut on diesel in order to power communities instead of bringing hydro up or, in the long term, perhaps, being able to produce enough electricity in a sustainable way that it could become a seller and bring own-source revenues to Inuit communities in Nunavut. That is the kind of long-term infrastructure investment that would make a lot of sense and that we do not see.

Another important investment would be to upgrade the Cambridge Bay airport, which is an important hub for Nunavut. When we talk about Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic, we know that the best way to enhance it is to invest in the people who live there and provide them the tools and resources they need in order to have a strong economy, live in appropriate housing and have access to the services that people rightly expect in the 21st century.

Instead, the rumour we have been faced with now for at least a month on Parliament Hill, a little longer if we go back to early December, is that the government is contemplating deep cuts at Indigenous Services Canada. New Democrats certainly want to know more about what the government is contemplating and the effects it will have on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across the country. It is an area of significant concern for us and something that is not addressed here but that we expect to see addressed in the budget in terms of what the government's plan is and how we are going to ensure that indigenous communities are not once again left holding the bag when a government decides it wants to save money and continue a culture of corporate tax cuts.

I want to come back to the question of the role that large corporations are playing in driving inflation. A report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as recently as December 2021 said that just 1% of Canada's population owns and controls 25% of all of the wealth of the country, and the bottom 40% of income earners in Canada share just 1% of all of the wealth that is produced in Canada. If we think about it, that 25% number is 5% higher than it was at the turn of the century.

What has happened since the year 2000 is that the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1% increased by those five percentage points. I do not mean it increased by 5%; I mean that it went from 20% of overall wealth to 25% of overall wealth. In the same time, the corporate tax rate came down from 28% to just 15% today.

We talk about Canadians feeling the squeeze and about the middle class being expected to pay more in taxes to make up for government spending, but the big hole in government revenue comes from the people in that 1%, who are walking away with that much more of Canada's overall wealth than they used to because they pay significantly less tax than they used to.

That is why people wonder why it is that government cannot have a robust housing strategy. We used to be able to do it, and we did it coming out of the war. Well, yes, the marginal tax rate that the richest Canadians paid coming out of the war was way higher than it is today, and the corporate tax rate was way higher than it is today. Those things provided the revenue to invest in the middle class that then became the foundation for economic prosperity that lasted for decades. The reason that economic prosperity is drying up and the middle class is feeling the heat so much is that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let the people at the top off from having to pay their fair share.

That is what is making the difference in Canada. The fact that the Conservative leader will not name it means he will not fix it, and that is what Canadians need to know heading into the next election.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member takes the time to actually read the report that was brought forward in the form of a concurrence motion, he will find out that it is about affordability. That is, in fact, how I started my comments. I was talking about the issue of affordability in Bill C-56, the affordability act, and how that legislation was being filibustered by the Conservatives through a concurrence motion. The reason for this is that the Conservatives do not care about the issues of the day that Canadians are concerned about. Then I started to explain it.

Maybe members on the other side do not all fully understand it because they are following the lead that is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party's office and that House leadership team over there. Canadians have a right to know that the pattern we are witnessing in terms of the behaviour, the issues that are being brought up and the manner in which they are being brought up definitely deal with the issue of MAGA politics. The member across the way might disagree. Maybe he should talk to his leader, and his leader can explain exactly what the Conservative agenda really is.

When we think of affordability, let us think in terms of what the member for Foothills said. He tries to give an impression about the cost of food and inflation. He cites a report and says there would be a 34% increase in the next couple of years. Then he tries to say that this is a report that he was kind of quoting from.

I will tell members what the Conservatives are very, very good at, which is the same thing that Donald Trump is very good at: sending out information that is misleading. I am very kind when I say that. I could think of a lot of other words to use, so I am being generous. Let me suggest the reason. Let us think about it: The member is trying to plant the seeds of fear that the price on pollution is costing huge amounts of money toward the issue of food inflation.

Some of the members across the way actually believe the leader of the Conservative Party. I understand there is an obligation to listen to the leader because, after all, he is their leader. However, that does not mean they have to believe everything he says. I do not want to get into personalities, but it is like a snake oil salesperson. Let us think about this. Let us think in terms of—

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House.

Obviously, what is taking place today is no surprise whatsoever. It is interesting that, on Monday, I was standing up and actually being critical of the Conservative Party. It is hard to believe, but I was critical because Conservatives had brought in a concurrence report to talk about Afghanistan and foreign affairs.

By doing that particular concurrence report, they prevented government legislation from being debated. Interestingly enough, the legislation that they prevented from being debated, which members could have stood up and talked about, was Bill C-56, the affordability legislation. Every word that the Conservative Party has actually said already this afternoon could have been said during that debate.

That is why I argued back then, as I will today, that the Conservative Party is very much out of touch with the realities of what Canadians are actually facing. They are more concerned about how to cater to the extreme right.

We hear the term “MAGA Conservatives”. I would suggest that, more and more, it is becoming something that all Canadians should be very much aware of. It is creeping out, coming from the south. It is that Donald Trump, “make America great again” theme, and the catering to the far-right there that is coming up—

Official Report

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent from the House to change my vote from last night on Bill C-56, Division No. 606, from nay to yea. I ran out of time and was unable to make that change then. I hope the House will allow me to change my vote.

Justice and Human Rights

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see no reason for this to have been brought up for discussion. I came to the House prepared to debate Bill C-56. I have my own views on the competition clause in that particular bill. I had certain suggestions to make for the bill, such as how to improve competition while not allowing 100% foreign ownership in the Canadian banking sector, as well as how we can use the regulatory tools that are available to give credit guidance to the bank to increase competition within the banking sector. This would lead to economic advancement and economic prosperity, for the growth of the manufacturing sector in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member shared some of her personal stories on the issue, especially those from when she was a teacher.

I think a number of people would be offended by how this concurrence motion is being used as a tool to filibuster and prevent members from being able to speak to Bill C-56, which is all about affordability. When we take into consideration that the member made reference to international aid and how Conservatives intentionally and collectively voted against that money flowing, there seems to be a lot of irony there. Could she expand on that point?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member asked the question on the process and the process is such that there are many motions of concurrence on the Order Paper that could be introduced, not just this motion. The member would know that. The member would also know that the legislative agenda today was to deal with Bill C-56. The member would also know how many times the Conservatives will cry because they do not have enough debate time—

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

Madam Speaker, I think the most appropriate place to start off is the line of questioning that I just asked the member opposite. Prior to question period getting under way, we were having a healthy discussion at the third reading stage of Bill C-56. I know I was not the only one prepared to come to the House to debate Bill C-56.

What I would like to talk about for the next number of minutes is the purpose of moving concurrence reports such as this particular report. It is not necessarily to have the focus of the House of the Commons on debating the issue the member has attempted to bring forward. As we saw in a number of questions, issues aside from Afghanistan were raised. Rather, it is about a rationale and reasoning that I believe, as many others believe, we see from this particular member: He stands in his place time and time again in order to prevent debates of the government agenda. One only needs to look at the timing of when the member brings forward concurrence debates. They are all on the government's legislative dates when we are going to be debating substantive legislation.

This morning, as members would know, we brought forward Bill C-56. Prior to question period getting under way, I was the one speaking to it. Bill C-56 is very important to Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is about an issue that Canadians are very much concerned about from coast to coast to coast. To amplify that, all one needs to do is take a look at the last remarks, because as we were getting to question period, I had to stop speaking on the legislation because we were entering into members' statements, followed then by question period.

It is interesting that a big focus of question period was in fact the issues I was talking about in the lead-up to members' statements. Also, if we go through members' statements, we will find that these were the issues being amplified. Members of the House, outside of the Conservative caucus, came to the House believing that we would be debating Bill C-56. That is not to say that what is happening in Afghanistan today and what has taken place since 2001 are not important issues. We recognize many of the horrors that have taken place in Afghanistan. We understand the important role that Canada has to play in it.

However, we also need to recognize at this point in time the types of tactics and efforts from the official opposition, the Conservative Party, a minority inside this chamber, today to prevent debates and legislation from passing. A very good example of this is in a question raised by the New Democrats. We talk about Canada and its role in Afghanistan, and the member talked about the alliance that seems to be out there, indirectly referring to Russia, Afghanistan and like-minded countries. Then he posed a question about the Conservative Party with respect to Ukraine. I think it was a legitimate question to be asking the Conservative Party. Again, we saw the tactics it used last Thursday and Friday. The response was laughable. The question was why the Conservative Party not once, not twice, but I believe three times in total voted specifically to deny Ukraine funds. One of those funds was with respect to the—

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

Madam Speaker, as many would know, very few if any members have brought forward concurrence reports as the member opposite has. That, as the member knows, prevents debate on government legislation. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-56, and the member has chosen to bring forward another concurrence report.

Does the member not recognize or have any sort of desire to see government legislation? Why does he consistently want to bring forward concurrence reports to try to frustrate the legislative process here in Ottawa?

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague knows that the Senate is independent. If he really has questions as to why that amendment passed, he should ask the one-third of Conservative senators who sit in his caucus and did not show up for the vote. I will note that the amendment only passed by one vote, so he should not take out the entire Conservative Party of Canada's frustration with its own caucus on the House of Commons or on Canadians.

I would also remind the member that, when it comes to the price on pollution, we learned this week, in fact, that 94% of low- and middle-income Canadians are better off with the rebate than without it. Again, in typical Conservative fashion, they are looking to take from the poor and give to the rich; the only folks who would benefit are the highest income earners, but that is typical Conservative policy.

However, I would be delighted to answer the usual Thursday question, because that was slightly out of character. Normally, this is not something we debate.

As we approach the adjournment for the holiday season, our priorities during the next week will be to complete second reading debate of Bill C-58 on replacement workers; Bill C-59, the fall economic statement implementation act; and Bill S-9, which would amend the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

We will also give priority to the bills that are now in their final stages of debate in the House, including Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement; I would remind the House and, indeed, all Canadians that the Conservatives have obstructed this bill at every single opportunity. We will also put forward Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-29, which provides for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation.

We will consider other bills reported from committee, such as Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. Moreover, I would invite any Canadian to watch the shameful proceedings of the Conservative members of Parliament at the natural resources committee last night. The House deserves better respect, but we will be here to stand up for Canadians every single day and to stand against bullies.

Grocery Industry

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, we are monitoring the measures the grocers are taking to provide relief, including commitments to harmonize prices, freeze them, and give discounts on basic necessities.

We are also working on long-term solutions to improve competition in the grocery sector. Bill C‑56 will allow the Competition Bureau to hold grocers responsible and give priority to consumers' interests.

We are closely monitoring what the CEOs are doing.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑56 will enable us to further strengthen the Competition Bureau and put consumers' interests first. I hope our colleagues will support this bill, because it is important. It will help harmonize and freeze prices and bring down the prices of basic goods.

Veterans Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, I will just pick up on the member's concluding thoughts in terms of the government's not necessarily being an expert. I think it is safe to say that is, in fact, the situation. The government is very much consulting with Canadians on the whole issue of the monument and its conceptual design. It is important to recognize that we are talking not about hundreds of people but thousands of people who provided input. The ones we need to be very sensitive to are, in fact, the veterans and family members of the veterans. I believe that the decision that was made was weighted in their favour. I think that is an important aspect to recognize.

Before I go into more of the details, I would like to put things into proper perspective. It would be wrong for me not to recognize that I do not necessarily agree with the timing of the debate itself and the decision of the Bloc to use a concurrence motion in order to raise the issue, given that there are only days left in the session and there is so much that still needs to be done under the government agenda. For example, many members who would have come to the House today would have been thinking about the affordability legislation, Bill C-56, I think, that was supposed to be debated at this point in time. I know that members, at least on the government benches, very much want to hear debates and discussions on those issues, because they are the ones Canadians are facing today. Canadians are looking to the government and responsible opposition parties to recognize the issues of affordability. The legislation that we were supposed to be debating today, I would suggest, should have been allowed to continue to debate.

I am a little bit disappointed and somewhat surprised that the Bloc used this particular opportunity to raise this specific issue, when the Bloc does have other opportunities to do it. Even given the discretion that is often used with respect to relevance to legislation, the member could have raised the issue he is raising right now in the fall economic statement, not to mention even during this legislation. He probably could have found a way to raise it, to suggest a take-note debate or to wait until there is an opposition day opportunity. In other words, I would suggest that there would have been other ways. However, that is not to underestimate the importance of the issue.

I will give a bit of a background. Prior to getting involved in politics, I served in the Canadian Forces. I had the privilege to march side by side with World War II veterans. I had the opportunity of visiting the legions with many veterans, especially when I was a member of the Canadian Forces, serving in Alberta and doing my training in Ontario and a portion of it in Nova Scotia. I gained a very genuine appreciation of the horrors of war when I saw people at the legions who had the odd drink, if I can put it that way, and would, in tears, try to get through Remembrance Day. There have been many different awkward moments when discussions have become very emotional. Even though the actions of the war were decades prior, to talk about it and relive it would bring tears, along with a wide spectrum of emotions. It was not necessarily from those who fought on the front lines; I could see it at times even with family members.

I appreciated every opportunity I had, especially while I was in the military, to have those talks and express my gratitude and appreciation to those who returned from war abroad. I understand and value the importance of war monuments. It is important that we never ever forget. Like members across the way, on November 11, I too participate in recognizing the sacrifices that have been made in order for us to be here.

I recall an occasion when veterans were present in the Manitoba legislature. I remember very distinctly being in a chamber of democracy where I could turn my chair around and touch the knees of war veterans. That is profound, much like when veterans sit in the gallery of this chamber. It is very touching because it speaks volumes about the sacrifices that have been made so we can do the things we do and can have a society based on freedom and liberty, and that operates on the rule of law. We have been blessed by the many men and women who have served our country and served in the allied forces, who have ensured that we have the benefits today as a direct result of their efforts and sacrifices. It is important we recognize that. It is one of the reasons I find it difficult to say we could have had this debate at another time. I still believe, having said what I have said, that we could have, because of where we are in the session.

There is a lot more we could be doing and saying in dealing with our veterans. As a member of Parliament, I have been aware of many issues in the veterans file. When Liberals were in opposition, we opposed, for example, the number of veterans offices being shut down across the country. Many members at the time raised questions on the issue and challenged the government of the day as to why it would close down offices. There have been concerns with regard to how services are provided to our veterans in a very real and tangible way.

Over the last number of years, a great deal of attention has been focused on Canadian veterans, whether it was the reopening of veterans offices that were shut down by the previous government or the reinvesting and topping off of hundreds of millions of dollars to support veterans. We do that in different ways, whether through direct financial compensation in overall budget increases or through the services provided.

We also recognize, as previous governments have, that we need to do what we can to support veterans when they come home, particularly veterans who have experienced the horrors of war. We need to support those who have returned because of the impact that has on them. I think of Lieutenant-General Dallaire, a former senator, who highlighted many things for Canadians—

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, we will debate the Senate amendments related to Bill C-48 on bail reform.

Tomorrow morning, we will call Government Business No. 31, which concerns Bill C-50, an act respecting accountability, transparency and engagement to support the creation of sustainable jobs for workers and economic growth in a net-zero economy. Tomorrow afternoon, we will call report stage and third reading of Bill C-57, which would implement the 2023 free trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine.

Next week, priority will be given to the motion relating to Bill C-50. We will also call report stage and third reading of Bill C-56, the affordability legislation, and second reading of Bill C-59, an act to implement certain provisions of the fall economic statement, which was introduced earlier today. Thursday will be an opposition day.

For the following week, I will circle back to the member opposite.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 12th report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on Wednesday, November 1, be concurred in.

I am very pleased to have occasion to bring this important matter to the floor of the House of Commons, because there is an important decision pending for the Minister of Finance, which is whether to approve the RBC-HSBC merger. What we are debating today is a very concrete and simple recommendation of the finance committee of the House of Commons in its 12th report to the House. It was very clear that a majority of finance committee members do not support that merger going ahead.

There are at least a couple of main reasons why New Democrats are concerned about this merger going ahead. The first is that, as we know, right now Canadians are living through very difficult circumstances. Their household budgets are under severe stress because of rising interest rates and because of the rising costs of all sorts of necessities of life, whether that is housing, home heating or groceries. Every little thing right now means a lot to Canadians who are struggling to make ends meet.

We know that even before the pandemic, something like half of Canadian households were only $200 away from insolvency at the end of the month, and that has only gotten harder. We see the effects in our communities, whether that is the longer and longer lines at food banks for people struggling to feed their families or the fact that more and more folks are homeless and living on the street. I just had the opportunity to travel with the finance committee to many different cities across the country, and that was a common theme, no matter whether we were on the east coast or the west coast. There are tons of folks right now who are no longer housed, and the problem of homelessness is increasingly visible as more and more Canadians cannot make their rent payment at the end of the month or cannot make their mortgage payment and have nowhere to go.

Indeed, some Canadians who are gainfully employed cannot find a place to live that they can afford. It is no longer the case that it is just folks who are not able to get a job or who have a disability and are not able to work who are finding themselves homeless. We are also hearing from folks who do have a reasonable monthly income, what would have been considered reasonable just a few years ago, that they cannot afford a place to live. They have to figure out how to work a full day and go back somewhere to a tent or a spot they found under a building with a bit of shelter, feed themselves, go to sleep, wake up and look presentable in the morning to go back to work, which is certainly a real challenge and not one that I would wish on anyone. That is why we need a government that is going to act with a much stronger sense of urgency in respect of the housing crisis.

One of the other things Canadians have struggled with for a long time is the fees that banks impose to do business at their institutions: to hold deposits and write cheques, or, more and more, to withdraw from ATMs and do e-transfers. We know that in Canada, Canadians pay high fees for that. One of the reasons they pay high fees is that we do not have a competitive banking sector in Canada. We pretty much have five big banks with over 90% market share when it comes to banking in Canada. Think about that. That is not a lot of players in the market. In economics they call that an oligopoly, and while it may not be an oligopoly on paper, it is certainly an oligopoly in practice.

Now what we have is one of Canada's largest banks, RBC, proposing to eat up the seventh-largest bank in Canada. The difference between those two banks is considerable. HSBC is not a huge player, but it is a scrappy player. If we were to look up mortgage rates right now, I think it is offering mortgages at over 70 basis points lower than what RBC is offering them at. Historically, HSBC has offered mortgage rates that are considerably lower than those at RBC.

The government, in the fall economic statement, rightly announced something the New Democrats have been calling for: Folks with insured mortgages will be able to shop around and transfer their mortgage without having to undergo the stress test again. This is exactly the kind of move that Canadians would be looking to make. If they have a mortgage with RBC, they may well want to go to an institution like HSBC that is offering over half a percentage less in the rate for a mortgage. Clearing the way so they would not have to do a stress test is important, but it is not going to matter if HSBC gets gobbled up by RBC and then offers the same rate as RBC. That means Canadians will have won the right to transfer without having to undergo the stress test, but would no longer have somewhere to transfer to that is offering a better rate.

That is why New Democrats think it is important that the government say no to this merger to preserve one of the few players not in the big five in Canada, particularly when they have a track record of exactly the kind of effect we would hope to get from competition, which is competitive pricing on mortgage rates and other services. We know the big five have been relatively unchallenged, and Transcona went through this since I was elected. The TD branch on the corner of Regent and Bond shut down. There are not a lot of bank branches in my community anymore.

Thankfully, Manitoba has a strong credit union movement that I am very proud of. I am a proud member of a couple of credit unions. There are many in Manitoba. I know a former board member of one of those credit unions is in the House today. It is a wonderful thing. It is really only because of the credit unions in Manitoba that we continue to have local branch banking available in my community. The big banks have all but fled in an attempt to reduce costs. That leaves consumers wanting the kind of traditional relationship they had at a local branch, but they are unable to get it. Why is it that the big banks can get away with that? It is because they do not have sufficient competition.

As I said, I am glad I live in a province where the credit union movement is filling an important void with respect to banking services. I am also glad to say that I get my banking services at a credit union. That was in jeopardy not that long ago when the government was looking at changing the Bank Act to outlaw talking about banking at credit unions. I am glad that common sense prevailed and people can say they bank at a credit union. The banks did not get their way on that, just as I hope that the big banks are not going to get their way with this merger, because competition will provide lower rates for Canadians.

I do not want to mislead anyone. It is not that HSBC is some kind of second environmental coming or something, but it was the first bank to offer green bonds. It has made some pretty serious commitments and backed them up with investment plans to lower the emissions profile of its investments. That is exactly the kind of thing we need to start seeing in the financial sector if Canada is going to meet the legal climate commitments we have signed on to in the Paris Agreement and elsewhere.

RBC, on the other hand, is the bank that does the most fossil fuel-heavy investment in Canada today. It is an important player, for instance, in the government's TMX project and put up a lot of capital for that. It is very invested in growing fossil fuel infrastructure in Canada, despite the fact that the oil and gas sector in Canada is extracting more barrels of oil today than at any other point in our history, which is easy to forget in the kinds of debates we have about the oil and gas sector on the floor of this place.

For those who say that the industry is in distress or on the verge of extinction, let us take a deep breath and look at the facts. The fact is that the oil and gas industry in Canada is more prolific today than at any other point in our history. That does not necessarily mean that it is employing more people than it has ever employed, because as technology advances, jobs for workers and the profitability and productivity of the oil and gas industry are on separate paths.

The truth is that oil and gas companies are able to extract more and make more money than ever with fewer workers. The continued advancement and increase in extraction are no longer tied in the same way they used to be to the creation of jobs for people in Canada, which is not to say that there are not a lot of jobs in the oil and gas sector or that this is not important. It is to say that we need to find the right level of extraction that is sustainable for the planet and that provides a strong economic basis for Alberta and other parts of the country where that industry is really important.

All of that is to say that RBC is being driven to grow and grow, with no sense of sustainability or what would be a sustainable rate of extraction. Therefore, both on the environmental front and on the consumer protection front, there are strong reasons to oppose this merger. It is why opposition parties on the finance committee sent a very clear message by working together that this was not a good idea.

I do not know that the Conservatives would endorse some of the environmental concerns I have raised on the floor today. I wish they would. I think Canada would be a better place if we could talk more about these issues in a serious way and about how to get Canada's emissions under control. I know that is not a conversation we want to have, but I am glad we can at least agree on the need for more competition and financial services and what that would mean for Canadians. It is an important signal the government should not ignore that so many parties in this place, for their own reasons, do not think this merger is a good idea.

We are going to hear at some point from Conservatives on this matter, and Canadians should take what they have to say with a grain of salt. They talk a lot about the Competition Bureau these days and the importance of competitiveness. Of course, this merger was looked at by the Competition Bureau, but not under the new framework that is on its way both through Bill C-56, which just passed in committee last night and is going to make some important changes to the Competition Act, and through, if we look at the ways and means motion, the budget implementation act the government will be tabling presumably after a vote on the ways and means motion. More changes to the Competition Act are coming there.

This merger was not reviewed with any of the new powers that would be afforded to the Competition Bureau. It was reviewed under a regime at the Competition Bureau that even the federal government itself recognizes as being deficient.

We know in the past that, for instance, Conservatives have talked about wanting to have independent officers doing work without political interference. I have certainly heard that at committee. I am glad to hear that, but I remember them setting up the Parliamentary Budget Office under Stephen Harper in the early days. It was a good thing they did that when they did.

Then the Parliamentary Budget Officer started saying things they did not like, and shockingly, the campaign of character assassination began. Kevin Page, who was the Parliamentary Budget Officer, came under direct attack by the Harper government. It was not that great an outing for the Harper government after all. Conservatives did the right thing initially, but they could not stay the course because they cannot stand any criticism and react badly as soon as someone starts calling them out for things they would prefer to get away with.

Canadians should be taking some of the remarks the Conservatives are making today as an opposition party with a grain of salt when it comes to their desire for an independent Competition Bureau. I certainly hope that in the future, if we have a Conservative government, we will not see that government decide to attack the competition commissioner if he starts telling them things they do not want to hear. The whole point of having those independent offices is to be able to do that.

We saw it again with David Johnston, who is someone they held up at one point. They held him up to the point that they were willing to appoint him as Governor General of the country. Then, when he started saying and doing things they did not like, a campaign of character assassination began. That was unfortunate because it detracted from the important point, which was that, when it came to being a special rapporteur on foreign interference, that was not the right way to proceed. Making it about David Johnston detracted from the important point, which was that it was a bad process and what we really needed was a public inquiry.

I am proud to say that New Democrats stayed the course and finally put that process on track. I do not think the personal attacks against David Johnston were helpful in that regard because they detracted from the main issue. Conservatives were so concerned with attacking David Johnston that it took them a long time to work with us in the right way to get that process back on track.

This is just another example of Conservatives claiming they want certain people in positions of authority to be able to make pronouncements on what the government of the day is doing, but then as soon as those pronouncements are not in line with their partisan lines, all of a sudden it is a problem and an affront to democracy, and the character assassination begins.

It is important we take this moment when Conservatives are prepared to do the right thing. Those moments are few and far between. We should not waste the opportunity. The government itself should be listening and taking the opportunity to do the right thing and say no to a merger that would both set the private financial sector back in green financing, potentially, and maintain and reinforce the lack of competition that Canadians have already been suffering under for too long. They have had to pay some of the highest banking fees, even as those same banks reduce services in their communities and close local branches.

Those are some of the reasons we think it is really important that the government take this opportunity and not do what it did on the Rogers-Shaw deal, which was to ultimately cave to those big corporate interests. We talk a lot in here, rightly, about corporate-controlled Conservatives, but we should not forget that the Liberals do their fair share of corporate service here in this place. After all, that is the true coalition in Parliament: Liberals and Conservatives serving Canada's corporate sector.

We have a real opportunity here, one of those few and far between moments, when the Conservatives are prepared to do the right thing in opposition. Let us seize the day. With the Rogers-Shaw merger, and the minister likes to say he put conditions on it and everything else, some of the things we would expect to happen did happen.

Somebody from B.C. called me up and said that he had been a Shaw customer. When the merger happened, Rogers sent him a new SIM card, and he had to figure out how to put it in his phone and everything else. He had not done it yet. It took him a couple of months, as household administration sometimes does, and I am sure there are many Canadians listening who are sympathetic to the fact that sometimes it is hard to stay on top of all those things, particularly if there is a technological component one is not familiar with.

What happened is that, with this merger that was not going to have any negative consequences for Canadian consumers, he started getting a bill from Shaw because he had not changed the SIM card yet, and he was getting a bill from Rogers. He was getting two bills from the same company for one cellphone, if members can believe that. Unfortunately, I can because I know what it is like to deal with some of these big telecom companies and other corporate oligopolies, whatever the sector. The fact is that it is very hard to get justice as a consumer.

That has been true for Canadians in respect of the big five banks, and this merger is not going to help. It is going to take a smaller player out of the market that is doing its work to be scrappy and to offer competitive rates. That is not what Canadians need, especially not in a time of economic and financial strain.

What they need is more competition to be able to deliver lower prices and take a bit of that strain off their household budget, just as the government is bringing in new rules to make it easier to transfer one's mortgage. When one's term is up is not the time to take competitors out of the market that are offering lower rates. HSBC is one of those very banks, with its lower offering, that Canadians will be looking to in order to save money in their monthly household budget. Let us make sure those options are there, just as Canadians get the freedom to transfer their mortgage, without having to undergo another stress test.

Carbon Pricing

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that might have been a more credible question if it had not been for the fact that the Conservative Party delayed the implementation of our affordability act, which would bring in more competition on groceries. It is moving forward to stabilize grocery prices and support Canadians through this difficult time.

The Conservatives have also stood against other initiatives we are supporting Canadians with, like dental care for young Canadians and for seniors, which is coming in the coming months. They have stood against supports like our grocery rebate. They have stood against the investments we are busy making to support Canadians right across the country because they stand for austerity and cuts.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition actually cared about Canadians being able to afford their food, the Conservatives would not have dragged their heels on the passage of Bill C-56, which would increase competition in the grocery sector.

Indeed, there are a lot of factors that deliver higher food prices not just for Canadians but for people around the world. One of the key ones is Russia's continued illegal invasion of Ukraine. On this side of the House, we can affirm clearly that we will stand with Ukraine with everything necessary for as long as necessary. As we saw last week, no Conservative politician can say the same in the House.

Finance

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming a bit hard to believe what the opposition leader is saying, because instead of speeding up passage of Bill C‑56 to help Canadians by increasing competition in the grocery sector and others, he has stalled and found ways to slow down the passage of this bill, which is there to help Canadians.

We will continue to be there to help Canadians by investing in the economy and in support for them and by staying on a responsible financial path.

Opposition Motion—Passage of Bill C-234 by the Senate

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

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to rise in this most honourable House. I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Steveston—Richmond East. It is great to see everyone this afternoon. I hope that all my colleagues and their families are doing well on this Tuesday.

I am pleased to take part in today's debate. Rather than indulge in Conservative partisan attacks on the pollution price, let us talk about what matters most to Canadians: making life more affordable and ensuring that Canadian families have good jobs and good futures for themselves and their children. That has been the focus of our government since day one and we will continue to be on that tangent.

As Canadians continue to feel the effects of global inflation, our government understands that it remains difficult for too many families to make ends meet.

We are seeing very strong indications that global inflation is rolling over. We have seen that in Europe where inflation is at 1.8% or so. We have seen that in the United States where some indicators have it down below 3%. We have seen rent inflation in the United States actually roll over to the downside. We have seen that in recent indicators in Canada. I strongly believe, as an economist and someone who worked on Bay Street and Wall Street for many years, although I grew up in small-town Canada, we will see that in the months ahead in Canada. When we look at the price of containers or look at leading indicators of the TRI index and so forth, inflation is rolling over to the downside. That is the way our economy is going. It will be a benefit to all Canadians.

Since 2015, our government has taken many actions to make life more affordable for Canadians who need it most, but we understand that some Canadians still need more support.

That is why, last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance introduced new measures to support Canadians in the 2023 fall economic statement.

Of course, we are undertaking this while continuing to deliver the government's economic plan, and while also making important progress on the government's existing commitments that are helping to make life more affordable across the country.

It is clear that our measures are having a very real impact on Canadians' budgets.

I would like to give a few concrete examples.

A family with two children in British Columbia, with an income of $88,000 in 2023, could benefit from about $17,700 as a result of reduced child care costs, the Canada child benefit, the Canada dental benefit and tax relief from the increased basic personal amount, which we raised to $15,000 in 2023-24. That will provide Canadians $6 billion of tax relief from coast to coast to coast. This is money in the pockets of Canadians.

For my family, my little daughter is at day care. The families that use that day care in the province of Ontario have saved 50%, which literally means up to $8,000 in after-tax dollars, while before-tax dollars it is over $10,000. Going into 2024, they are going to see a further reduction in their day care costs, which means real savings for families across Canada. That, again, will make life more affordable for all Canadians.

In Nova Scotia, low-income students could receive more than $5,800 in additional support in 2023, thanks to increased Canada student grants and interest-free Canada student loans, the grocery rebate and pollution price rebates, known as the climate action incentive payments.

If students have a disability or dependants, they could receive an additional $12,800 in specialized student grants, plus an extra $640 per dependant and up to $20,000 toward devices that support their learning. After graduating, all their federal student loans will remain interest free. Again, student loans to youth or older folks going to school are interest free, with full repayment assistance available until their income surpasses $40,000 per year.

A 78-year-old senior in Quebec with a maximum GIS entitlement could receive more than $2,000 in additional support in 2023. That is $2,000 in seniors' pockets thanks to the grocery rebate, the GIS top-up increase for single seniors, and the 10% old age security increase for people 75 and up.

However, we know that more needs to be done to support Canadians, especially through these times when global inflation has had an impact on all economies throughout the world. That is why our government has taken further action in the 2023 fall economic statement to support the middle class and build more homes faster.

To help Canadians with mortgages, our government is moving forward with the new Canadian mortgage charter, which details the relief Canadians can expect from their banks if they are in financial difficulty.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, there is an important issue on the supply side. There is simply not enough homes for Canadians. We have known this for years. We know that we need to increase the supply of homes. We have no choice; we need to do it. There are many reasons for this. We are attracting newcomers from all over the world, whether it is in the global high-tech stream, family reunification, express entry or firms putting forward LMIAs.

We are a magnet for talent from all over the world wanting to come to live, work and invest in Canada, which is a foreign concept for the official opposition. Foreign companies wishing to invest in Canada is a great thing. We need to champion it. Literally millions of Canadians work for foreign companies that have invested in Canada, and I cannot believe the official opposition does not like that.

We also understand that when it comes to housing, we need more supply. That is why we are accelerating our work to build more homes faster. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister announced last week in the 2023 fall economic statement that we would introduce billions of dollars in new financing to build more homes faster.

To make housing in this country more affordable, we will put forward measures to crack down on short-term rentals. We really want homes to be used for Canadians to live in. We will also take steps to increase the number of construction workers from coast to coast to coast.

I have been talking about housing measures, but cost of living challenges also include basic needs, such as groceries. Obviously, we see that as a major problem, so we are putting forward concrete measures to tackle it.

For example, we are going to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act to ensure Canadians have more choice, through competition, in where they take their business. The Competition Tribunal is something I hold dearly. We need to modernize it, and we are. We have done this with Bill C-34 and with other bills, as well as measures in Bill C-56. We need to move forward on that.

Capitalism is a wonderful thing, but capitalism only exists when there are rules and regulation and competition is encouraged, which fosters innovation, choice and lower prices. The more competition we have, the better our economy functions and better jobs happen. I am a big believer in new processes and new industries being created, and that is what is happening in Canada, whether it is in artificial intelligence, fintech or the many sectors across our beautiful country.

Together with Bill C-56, we will strengthen the tools and powers available to the Competition Bureau to enable it to crack down on abuses of dominance by bigger companies, including those intended to keep out competition, such as predatory pricing. Companies should pay for predatory pricing.

We will further modernize merger reviews, including by empowering the Competition Bureau to better detect and address killer acquisitions and other anti-competitive mergers. This is very important. Canadians deserve better, always—

Finance

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question. I even have an idea for her. Christmas is coming. If she is so concerned about affordability, she can give Canadians a gift by voting in favour of Bill C‑56.

Why? With this bill, we are going to reform competition. This is a reform that has been needed for the past 30 years. We are going to have fewer mergers, more competition and better prices.

My colleague should convince all of her colleagues to pass this bill as soon as possible to help Canadians before Christmas.

Grocery Industry

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we have the NDP's support on Bill C-56. As we know, there are competition measures in it that would hold grocery chains to account.

On the question of housing, the more we build, the more we ensure that costs come down. I have good news for the member. Right across the country, we see residential construction up. In Manitoba, it is up 34%; in Saskatchewan, 25%; in New Brunswick, 23%; in Alberta, 11%; in Newfoundland, 10%; in Quebec, 9%; and in my province of Ontario, 7%.

It is working. We have a plan. We are going to get it done, as I said.

Official Report

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday, I gave a speech when we were talking about Bill C-56.

After doing so, I received the Hansard emails and there was one word that I caught off the top, so I tried to correct it using the draft blues. The draft blues had an error message. I tried another device and got the same error message. I called the blues; nobody answered, so I left a voice mail. I called the emergency number; nobody answered, so I left a voice mail.

All that being said, I am told it is too late. It does change the meaning when the interpreter mishears a word, for example, “hole” instead of “hold”. I was talking about a black hole. That really does make a difference. It is rocket science, as I understand, and that is why I want to get it right.

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C-56

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just three words to conclude: He should know.

In terms of Bill C-56 and Motion No. 30, the important thing for Conservatives to remember is that, rather than blocking this bill, which is what they have been trying to do, they should be looking to support it. They say they are concerned about affordable housing. Their record shows the contrary; they have a deplorable record on affordable housing. However, if they really believe in ensuring there is more construction in this country of affordable housing, they should be supporting this bill, which, of course, has been inspired and pushed by the NDP. Like many of the other good things that have happened in this Parliament, it is because of the member for Burnaby South and a very dedicated NDP caucus that this is happening.

Canadians should have more consumer protection, and more weight should be given to the Competition Bureau to crack down on the food price gouging we have seen from corporate CEOs, the gas price gouging we have seen from the very profitable oil and gas sector, with profits of over $38 billion last year, and all of the other ways that Canadians are being gouged, like through cellphones and Internet, which Canadians are paying the highest fees in the world for. If the Conservatives truly believe in that, they should be supporting this motion, which would enhance the Competition Bureau and would ensure that Canadians finally get some protection.

For 17 years, Conservatives and Liberals have not protected consumers at all in this country, and the NDP and the member for Burnaby South are standing up and saying that enough is enough. They need to make sure we have protection for consumers in this country. That is what the NDP is fighting for. If Conservatives really believe in all the things they have been saying, they can make up for their past track record, which is absolutely deplorable, and vote for the motion and the bill.

We are not going to stop fighting for Canadians. The 25 members of the NDP caucus have had a huge weight in pushing the government to do the right thing. We are very proud of our record. We expect all members of Parliament to adopt the bill and adopt the motion. Then, of course, we will move on to anti-scab legislation that all members of Parliament should be supporting as well.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for bringing that up.

I will remind folks that we are speaking to a specific motion, Government Business No. 30, on Bill C-56. I want to make sure we all do that.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on Bill C-56 and on Motion No. 30. I think that these are important initiatives that the NDP has brought forward.

I want to start off my speech by expressing my disappointment in the fall economic statement. There are two things that I believe need to be highlighted.

First off, and this is something that the NDP will continue to fight for, the fact that in the fall economic statement, there was no money allocated to the Canada disability benefit, to provide supports for people with disabilities, is a profound disappointment. It is disrespectful to people with disabilities.

We know that half of the people who go to food banks to make ends meet and half of the people who are homeless are Canadians with disabilities. The government has a responsibility to put the Canada disability benefit in place immediately. That is something that the member for Burnaby South, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam and the entire NDP caucus is not going to stop fighting for.

Second, we have all, across the country, heard from small businesses that are concerned about the fact that there is not an extension of the CEBA loans. Small businesses are struggling. I know that in New Westminster—Burnaby, many small businesses have been approaching us, needing that extension for that repayment.

I am reminded by my colleague, the member for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, that businesses in her riding as well are raising those concerns, including Dan Osborne from Gore Bay, who has said that the NDP needs to keep fighting to have that CEBA loan extension. New Democrats are committing to continue to fight for the CEBA loan extension for Dan Osborne, for businesses in New Westminster—Burnaby and right across the country, to ensure that this is in place. There is no doubt that we are going to keep fighting.

When we talk about this bill, I think it is important to talk about the last 17 years and what we saw first under the corporate Conservatives and now under the Liberals, in terms of what has actually happened in housing. Housing costs doubled under the Conservatives. We saw this during the dismal years of the Harper regime. They doubled again under the Liberals. Between the two of them, both the Liberal government and the Conservative government lost over a million homes that were affordable, homes that people could live in, homes that were based on 30% of income or a little bit more, homes that Canadians could afford.

I had a press conference last week with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, where we talked about rents in our area.

In New Westminster, it is $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom, on average. In Coquitlam, it is $2,600. In Burnaby, it is $2,500. These are all costs that are simply too heavy for Canadians to pay. The idea that we would put into place immediate measures to help housing is why we are supportive of some of the measures that we forced to be in Bill C-56.

Motion No. 30 helps to improve that and includes, as well, important issues that help to support the Competition Bureau and the fact that, as a federal government, there is a responsibility to crack down on food price gouging, as my colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has been so outspoken on, as well as the member for Burnaby South.

As for the food price gouging and the fact that the Competition Bureau does not have the powers that it needs, this is absolutely essential. That is why we are very supportive of this bill and of the motion as well. It is NDP-inspired, because New Democrats stand up for their constituents.

When we talk about the years of the Harper Conservatives and what they did to housing, losing over 800,000 units across the country, we have to really think about what planet the member for Carleton is on when he talks about the golden age of the Harper regime. I remember something quite different. I remember the erosion of affordable housing units.

The average Conservative MP, of course, is a proud owner of having lost over 2,400, on average, affordable housing units in their constituencies, as housing costs rose under the Harper regime and as affordable housing units disappeared, were either sold or converted to corporate landlords.

We think of the member for Carleton now in Stornoway. He lives a gilded-age life, with the French cravat and everything. It is so clear to me that he is out of touch with Canadians when he pretends that somehow the housing crisis is going to magically be solved just by giving more leeway to corporate landlords. That is the way it was under the Harper Conservatives. It certainly did not, in any way, make a difference.

In fact, it was the contrary. We saw a deterioration right across the country of housing stability and housing affordability. When the Conservatives say we do not have to do anything and we just have to give corporate landlords more leeway, we see what Doug Ford in Ontario has brought. He has brought the destruction of the Greenbelt, the unbelievable selling out of the public good for private profit. It is simply not a solution.

If we want to bring it home for people in this country, we need to make the kinds of investments the NDP is calling for, some of which are reflected in Bill C-56. Some are reflected in the improvements that we have made, that we forced the government to put into place.

The reality is, on this side of the House, the NDP absolutely believes that every Canadian has a right to have a roof over their head each night and that they should have the ability to put food on their table every day. It is more than that. We actually believe that Canadians have the right to a universal health care system and that they have a right to universal pharma care.

We should not have constituents struggling, as some of mine are a few blocks from my home. It is a thousand dollars a month for heart medication and families have to make that tough choice between whether they keep a roof over their head by paying their rent, or whether they pay for that life-saving heart medication. In a country as wealthy as this, there should be no Canadian who has to make the choice between life-sustaining medication, putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their head. Not a single Canadian should have to face that choice every day, and that is the reality.

That is why we are here in this House. There are 25 New Democrats who are fighting, along with our leader, the member for Burnaby South, to change that situation and to make a difference for people so that we actually take that enormous wealth that we have in this country and ensure that we are actually providing essential needs for every single Canadian across the length and breadth of this land.

Conservatives and Liberals, as they are wont to do, usually ask at this point who is going to pay for it. If people heard the response of our finance critic, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, to the fall economic statement, he raised the issue that we have the lowest corporate taxes in the OECD. We should actually be thinking potentially of raising business taxes by 1% or 2%. It used to be 28% and now it is 15%. For every percentage point rise, there is $3 billion available for essential needs for, for example, affordable housing in this country.

Let us talk more about the Harper record because the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an independent, non-partisan officer of Parliament, who does objective work, evaluated the total cost of the Harper tax haven treaties just a few years ago. How much did we give away in Harper tax haven treaties, these sweetheart deals that the Harper government signed in order to allow billionaires and wealthy corporations to take their money offshore?

Members know how it works, or they may not, so let me explain it. If someone takes their money offshore to a tax haven treaty holder, like the Bahamas that has a 0% taxation rate, and declares income there, then they do not have to pay taxes in Canada.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at all of that and made the conservative estimate that the Harper tax haven treaties, and the fact that the Liberal government sadly signed more of those treaties after it came into power, costs Canadians over $30 billion each year in taxpayers' money. This figure is profoundly disturbing.

What is the cumulative impact of that over the eight years the Liberals have been in power? Members can do the math. A quarter of a trillion dollars was handed over to billionaires and wealthy corporations and then to overseas tax havens. Now let us look at what the Conservatives did over the same period. This is a conservative estimate. The PBO was very clear that the estimate could go well beyond the figures in its landmark study on the impact of the Harper tax haven treaties, back in 2019. Over a nearly 10-year period, it was $300 billion.

If we put the two figures together, we are talking about over half a trillion dollars that has been spent not on housing, not on pensions, not on health care, not on pharmacare, not on providing clean water for indigenous communities and not on providing for reconciliation or indigenous-led housing developments. No. It has gone to the wealthy. It has gone to billionaires. It has gone to corporations that are extraordinarily profitable and not paying their fair share of taxes.

When Conservatives and Liberals ask how to pay for it, our response to them is to ask how they have paid for the massive tax breaks they have given to wealthy Canadians and profitable corporations over the course of the last 17 years. How did they pay for that? They paid for it by depriving seniors of their pensions. They paid for it by forcing students to go into debt. They paid for it by not putting in place a Canada disability benefit. They paid for it by not having affordable housing in place. They paid for it by undermining our health care system.

It is time that wealthy corporations pay their fair share, that wealthy Canadians pay their fair share and that Canadians stop paying for the incredible largesse of Conservatives and Liberals. It is profoundly disappointing to me that the resources of our country are mobilized for the very rich when they should be mobilized to pay for the needs of Canadians right across the length and breadth of this land.

I only have a few minutes left, so I want to come back to the vote that took place on the Day of Dignity and Freedom, on Tuesday, to be in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, commemorated in Ukraine, of course, and around the world in the Ukrainian diaspora. Tuesday was the 10-year anniversary of the fight for freedom and democracy in Ukraine.

This is an important symbolic date because of the force of the violence of the Putin regime. The Putin regime is violent, of course, domestically. There are human rights' violations, as we have seen, and hatred. We have seen the defenestration of political opponents. However, the violence that has been reaped on Ukraine, the Ukrainian people and Ukrainian democracy is profoundly sad to freedom-loving people, the people who stand for democracy and human rights.

That day, the Day of Dignity and Freedom, was being commemorated around the world because Ukrainians could not celebrate. They are defending their homes. They are defending their farms. They are defending their communities. They are trying to keep their hospitals open. They are trying to avoid their schools from being attacked by missiles and bombs. They could not commemorate it, but it was that day that every single Conservative MP chose to vote against Ukraine and vote against the principle of having a trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine. Not a single Conservative member stood up and said to the member for Carleton that this was wrong, that his obsession with the price on carbon is unhealthy, that this unhealthy obsession doesn't make any sense when we're talking about supporting people who are fighting for their liberty. However, every single Conservative MP stood in their place and voted down the Canada-Ukraine trade deal.

That was profoundly sad to me. It was shocking, I think, to Canadians of Ukrainian origin, one and a half million strong, who were calling on Conservatives to do the right thing and support Ukraine. Not a single Conservative was willing to do that.

It was shocking to the Zelenskyy regime, his government. President Zelenskyy was here in this House asking Conservatives to vote for the deal, to vote for that agreement, that symbolic and important support for the Ukrainian people, yet every single Conservative MP said no.

This is tragic. I want to say how profoundly disappointing it was to all the other members of Parliament in this House who heard President Zelenskyy's call and who responded appropriately. All the other parties, all the other members of Parliament, voted in favour of the principle of a trade agreement with a people who are fighting for their democracy, their lands, their cities and their freedom. However, because of the extremism of the member for Carleton, the Conservatives were all forced to vote against it.

I know they are hearing from constituents—

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 30, which is designed to unlock the support for Canadians laid out in Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. I feel compelled to share that I met with many constituents from Ottawa—Vanier who asked me to support this bill, and I will explain why in the next few minutes.

It is unfortunate that the urgency of delivering on these priorities for Canadians has been pushed aside by the delay tactics employed by members of the Conservative Party. Despite members of their own party saying they support the measures, as the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon has done, they have spent over 20 hours of debate across five days filibustering this important legislation. While the opposition is focused on delays, our government is focused on pushing for results.

We know that the challenges of securing affordable housing persist. That is why, in addition to Bill C-56, the fall economic statement unveiled by the Minister of Finance earlier this week underscores our commitment to the middle class by introducing measures to mitigate the impact of high prices and impending mortgage renewals, offering targeted relief to make life more affordable for Canadians.

In addition, the fall economic statement focuses on accelerating home construction as a critical solution to the housing crisis. The need for more homes across Canada is acute, especially with young individuals and newcomers finding home ownership increasingly out of reach and the rising cost of rent straining household budgets. This is a priority that Ottawa—Vanier residents have compelled me to work on. One of my focuses is to make sure that this measure, along with all the other measures we have been bringing forward in the national housing strategy, works to accelerate home construction.

Moreover, the fall economic statement proposes significant funding increases to bolster home construction efforts. The infusion of $15 billion in new loan funding is expected to support the creation of over 30,000 additional homes throughout the country. These initiatives, combined with removing the GST on new co-op rental housing and tightening regulations on non-compliant short-term rentals, signify our dedication to fostering a more accessible housing market for Canadians.

It is important to note the stark contrast between our government's proactive stance on housing and the lack of substantive proposals from the opposition. While Conservatives offer slogans and rhetoric, we remain steadfast in our commitment to building a fair and accessible housing market for all Canadians. This year, federal investment in housing is $9 billion higher than it was in 2013-14. Since 2015, the average annual federal housing investment has more than doubled compared with that of the previous government.

Bill C-56 plays a pivotal role in these ongoing efforts. It introduces enhancements to the goods and services tax, the GST and the rental rebate, encouraging the construction of purpose-built rental housing. This measure aims to alleviate the housing shortage by incentivizing the development of rental properties, including apartments, student housing and residences for seniors.

Earlier this week, the Leader of the Opposition actually described our plan to deliver more homes for Canadians as “disgusting”. What is disgusting is Conservatives delaying this important bill. While Conservatives provide nothing but slogans, the bedrock of our economic blueprint is yielding results. With over a million more Canadians gainfully employed today compared with the prepandemic era, coupled with a downward trend in inflation, as we witness wage increases outpacing inflation rates, the resilience of our economic policies is unmistakable.

This year's fall economic statement zeroes in on two paramount challenges: supporting the middle class and expediting the construction of more homes. These pivotal actions are aimed at stabilizing housing prices, extending support to Canadians, navigating mortgage challenges and rendering life more affordable for all. In parallel, our commitment to accelerating home construction is underscored by the injection of billions in new financing. Furthermore, we are taking resolute steps to curb the disruptions caused by short-term rentals, ensuring greater accessibility and affordability in housing across Canada.

Building on the measures outlined in Bill C-56, the fall economic statement seamlessly aligns with our sustained effort to elevate the lives of Canadians with an intensified focus on housing. Our unwavering commitment to affordable housing is emphasized by the substantial increase in federal investment, paving the way for the creation of more than 30,000 additional homes across Canada through new funding. Notably, the removal of GST from new co-op rental housing and protective measures introduced via the Canadian mortgage charter serve as a crucial step in our ongoing mission to make housing more accessible and affordable.

While the federal government is leading the national effort to build more homes by bringing together provincial, territorial and municipal governments in partnership with home builders, financiers, community housing providers, post-secondary institutions and indigenous organizations and governments, we are also doing more work to stabilize prices.

A point of critical importance about Bill C-56 is that it would make changes to the Competition Act to ensure more effective and modern competition law. This would promote affordability for Canadians and help our economic growth. That is why we are introducing amendments that would stop big business mergers with anti-competitive effects, enabling the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and stop anti-competitive collaborations that stifle small businesses, especially small grocers.

Our government recognizes the fundamental role that housing plays in fostering economic stability and societal well-being. The efforts outlined in Bill C-56, supported by the fall economic statement, reflect our dedication to both ensuring that all individuals and families have a place to call home and stabilizing prices for Canadians. Again, I have been knocking on doors and talking with residents of Ottawa—Vanier, and they have told me time and time again that we need to continue to bring those measures for housing.

In closing, I urge all members to support Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, as a crucial step forward in our mission to create an economy that works for everyone.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Ottawa—Vanier.

Today I had the honour of participating in the discussion on Motion No. 30 and listening to remarks from our Conservative friends, which sort of made my hair stand on end. Our goal is to put an end to Conservative obstruction of this bill. That is what we are working on.

Bill C-56 is about affordable housing and groceries. It is most unfortunate that the Conservatives have resorted to filibustering and delay tactics to stop such a critical bill. This has led to over 20 hours of debate in five days in this chamber. I confess that I would rather be with my family tonight than here in the House debating this with the Conservatives.

They obviously have no intention of letting this bill to get to a vote even though some of their own members support it. For example, the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon told the House he would vote in favour of the bill over a month ago. On October 5, he said, “I will be joining my Conservatives colleagues in voting to move this bill forward to committee”.

That sounds great, but 49 days have passed since then, which is why I am looking forward to hearing where my Conservative colleagues stand now. Before they share that with us, though, I want to emphasize the importance of this bill and why passing it is crucial for Quebec, for Canada, and for the people of Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation.

We are all well aware of the toll that rising food prices and the lack of affordable housing are taking on Canadian families. I am very pleased to clarify the measures set out in Bill C‑56 to address these urgent problems.

As far as affordable housing goes, home ownership is clearly slipping beyond the reach of many Canadians, especially young people and newcomers. I have two daughters who are about to buy their first home, and even buying a small house under the current conditions is very difficult for them. I have never been so proud of our government, which is trying to introduce these measures to help young people buy their first home.

Bill C‑56 proposes improvements to the rebate on the goods and services tax, or GST, for new purpose-built rental housing. This improvement encourages the construction of more rental housing, including apartments, student housing and seniors' residences. The bill will also facilitate tax relief. For example, a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000 will deliver $25,000 in tax relief.

These measures seek to create conditions that are conducive to building housing tailored to the needs of families, which is sorely lacking. What is more, the bill removes restrictions on the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations, can claim the GST rental rebate, which has increased to 100%. We are also asking the provinces and local governments to buy in to our new rental housing rebate and to make it easier to have housing built near public transit and services.

At the same time, the rising cost of food is cause for concern. We have already provided targeted inflation relief to millions of modest- or low-income Canadians through a one-time grocery rebate in July.

To further stabilize the cost of groceries, Bill C‑56 amends the Competition Act. These amendments allow the Competition Bureau to conduct in-depth market studies, eliminate the efficiencies argument to stop anti-competitive mergers and take measures to block collaboration efforts that undermine competition and consumer choice, especially those that put small competitors at a disadvantage compared to large grocery chains.

What is the next step in our government's economic plan? It is very simple. We will continue the government's work to support Canadians. The 2023 fall economic statement presented by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance earlier this week is directly connected to the initiatives outlined in this bill.

My colleague opposite just clearly stated in his speech that all responsibilities should fall to the private sector. I would like to remind him that, during the pandemic, we were there for businesses, for citizens, for workers and for organizations. We were there for the arts, for culture and for seniors. He voted in favour of our measures every time. Now he is saying that we should not have taken on all those responsibilities. Once again, we support our communities. My colleague's main argument seems to be that we should not be doing what we are doing for Canadians. He believes that we should make cuts to affordability and housing measures.

The foundations of our economic plan have produced encouraging results. We have seen that over one million additional Canadians have jobs today. We have recovered all the jobs lost during the pandemic, and more. Inflation is down, and wage increases are outpacing inflation, which is a testament to our resilient economic policies. This year, the fall economic statement focused on two key challenges: strengthening support for the middle class and accelerating the construction of new housing. When new housing is built, it directly helps families in need. It stimulates the economy, helps families and helps send young people to school to support them in their everyday lives.

We recognize the need to stabilize prices and ease the burden of imminent mortgage renewals for Canadians. Our government responded with targeted measures in the fall economic statement.

These strategic measures seek to stabilize prices, help Canadians overcome mortgage difficulties and make life more affordable for everyone. Similarly, we are injecting billions of dollars in new funding to support our commitment to accelerate the pace of housing construction. What is more, we are cracking down on disruptive short-term rentals in order to make housing more accessible and affordable across Canada.

The fall economic statement is fully in keeping with our ongoing efforts to improve the lives of Canadians. We have a strong record when it comes to providing benefits, as demonstrated by our historic investments in affordable child care, the quarterly carbon tax rebates, the enhancement of the Canada workers benefit and the increase in Canada child benefit payments.

Our government is also proposing crucial amendments to the Competition Act to make groceries more affordable by eliminating junk fees and to remove the GST on essential services, such as psychotherapy and counselling.

This statement is not just a plan for economic growth. It is something we are genuinely excited about. It is a testament to our commitment to a cleaner, more sustainable future. The key measures it outlines, such as tax credits for investing in Canada's clean economy, the Canada growth fund's carbon contracts for difference, and advancing the indigenous loan guarantee program, demonstrate our commitment to supporting a robust economy that can stand up to global changes.

Crucially, the fall economic statement builds on our ongoing commitment to making housing more affordable.

In conclusion, we believe that passing Bill C‑56 is essential. I hope all members of the House will vote in favour of it.

[Randy Hoback, Conservative, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, what a great presentation that was from my colleague from of British Columbia. The common-sense ideas that he presented just reflect the common sense of a young Conservative Party that is ready to take over the reins here in Canada and bring about some new ideas to help Canadians as it progresses, goes forward and brings back the Canadian dream of home ownership.

When I first read Bill C-56, I thought that it was not that bad and that there were some things in it that looked pretty good. Then I remembered: I know why they look good; it is because they are actually Conservative ideas. They are actually things the Conservatives talked about six years ago, and I am glad the Liberals copied them. I am very flattered they copied our ideas. That is great.

Then I looked at it and thought, “Wait a minute, the bill is regarding GST on rental properties.” If we are really looking at this and at affordability across Canada, we are dealing with such a small part of where there are affordability problems. Let us take, for example, the young family who owns a house. Let us say they have a mortgage of $250,000. They bought their house three or four years ago. The mortgage is coming up for renewal now, and they are going from a 1.9% or 2.5% interest rate to roughly an 8.5% or 8.7% interest rate. Their monthly mortgage payment is going from $1,200 a month up to $1,800 or $1,900 a month. They have to find another $700 a month, so that is $8,400 a year of after-tax dollars just to pay the interest increase. That is an affordability problem. Is there anything in the bill that would address that? No, there is not. Is there anything in the Liberals' ideas they talked about yesterday, moving forward, that would address helping those people out? Have there been any ideas to work with the banks to say they could extend things out? Have there been any ideas to work with institutions to say that we could actually help people manoeuvre so they could actually afford to stay in their house?

I can see why the Liberals talked only about rental properties in this piece of legislation, because what will happen is that people are going to give up their house because they cannot afford it, and they are going to have to have a place to rent. Let us look at the legislation again. Okay, we would build lots of apartments. When would they be done? Would it be two years or three years from now? People lose their house next month, and they have to wait three years for an apartment? Where do they go? What do they do?

There has been no imagination in the government. The Liberals are out of ideas. They are old and tired, and they have no concept of what is actually going on in this country. They have done nothing to work with the municipalities and the provinces to ask how they can make things more affordable and whether there are things they can do together and leverage among themselves to make life easier for Canadians. There is nothing. We have a few examples where maybe they worked with one city here and one city there, but generally, across Canada, have they worked with anybody? No, they have not. They have picked a targeted approach based on political will and political expedience.

We saw it with home heating when the Liberals removed the GST on oil. Did they apply that to propane? Did they apply it to natural gas? Did they apply it to wood or coal? I come from Saskatchewan. We still use coal; that is way worse than diesel. We still use wood; that is probably still worse than diesel. Was there any relief for that? No, there was not. We use propane and natural gas, which are better than diesel, but the cost has gone up so much because of the carbon tax that it is really hurting. People are saying to us all the time, “I cannot pay my bills.” They are going into winter now and are asking what they will do. They are saying, “My mortgage is going to go up. My heating is now going up. My property tax is going up. What do I do?” What does the government say to them? It says crickets. It tells them to pay it, and if their wallet is empty, to borrow more money at a higher interest rate and pay it. Is there any relief there? No, there is not. Has there been any compassion shown? No, there has not.

That is the reality of what the government has done, and do members know why? The government is tired. It is out of ideas. It has no imagination. It does not understand economics. The reality is that this is very true, because if the Liberals understood economics, they would have realized five years ago, when they started borrowing money like drunken sailors, that it was not a good idea. When they started putting money into things that did not have any type of return on GDP or efficiencies, that was a bad idea.

When we look at things now, we have to pay those interest rates. It is a tremendous amount of interest we are now paying on our debt. It is more than what we pay in health care. I was around before, when people had to wait two years to get surgery. My mother had cancer. She had to wait before she could get diagnosed, because those were the days when we were paying a higher amount in interest than we were paying for health care. It took a Liberal government, in co-operation with a Conservative government and the Reform Party in opposition, to get that tackled and under control.

Did we learn from history? No, we did not. What did the Prime Minister do? He started borrowing, not just a small amount like he promised in 2015, not just $10 billion, but $40 billion, $60 billion and $100 billion. The numbers are staggering, and now, we cannot get that back. How do we get back to a balanced budget? It is going to take a tremendous amount of effort.

Not only did we spend more, but we also brought in legislation that starves businesses. We brought in legislation that kicks people out of Canada so they invest everywhere else. We kept our natural resources in the ground. We did not defend our forestry sector when it was unfairly hit with tariffs out of the U.S. What has the government done? It has done nothing. It has shown no imagination. When we talk to it about this, it blames everybody else.

Affordability is the basis of what is going on here. Let us look at things in a more macro and holistic sense. Let us break it down to a family that buys groceries. Groceries are more expensive. The inflation rate for groceries is tremendous. There is the war in Ukraine and a variety of things that have brought commodity prices up through the roof, no question about it, but there are things the government could do to alleviate some of the pain.

I have no issues with change to the Competition Bureau. I have a few concerns, but no issues. Again, when would we get the results from the changes? Would they help us next week or next month, or a year, two years or 10 years from now? There are no deadlines. There are no time frames for allowing us to see any type of reduction in prices based on the changes. There is nothing there that would immediately help the family that needs the help today, so has the government done anything on affordability in the legislation? No, it has not. It has laid out some good targets to move forward in the future, four years or five years down the road when it is no longer in government, but what has it done today? What it has done is spend more money on things Canada cannot afford. It has put money into programs that do not help Canadians at this point in time. It has taken money out of their pockets that they need in their pockets.

This is why we asked the government to just freeze the GST. Never mind the quadrupling, even just freezing it would alone at least help Canadians. If the government reduced it, it would show compassion. If it reduced it for all Canadians, it would show that it genuinely cared about this country and did not pick favourites on one side or the other based on political expediency. If you showed some consistency, we would be in better shape and in a better position in this Parliament, but you have not; you have divided Canadians by region, by different sectors—

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member is one hundred per cent right. We are going through a housing crisis, and it is because municipal gatekeepers, right across the country, have held tight to old ideas such as zoning that basically keeps municipalities as they are. As our immigration grows, and as our population grows, we see there are just not enough places for everyone.

In Bill C-56, the government's solution is a Conservative one, and it is to take the GST off and create more demand for something by lowering the cost of it. However, the problem is the speNDP-Liberal government's continued obsession with spending at any cost, any time, anywhere and any place, and we end up seeing much higher inflation.

As I said in my speech, the Scotiabank report said that up to 40% of the basis points of the Bank of Canada have gone up. We will not see significant market investments or significant government investments go forward unless we have lower interest rates. It is the economics that are a pressure here. Maybe Bill C-56 would allow some Venn diagram where everything falls into place of some projects now being viable, but I am already seeing in my area of the Okanagan projects dropping. We are seeing, in the Statistics Canada numbers, a drop in permits. That is inevitable until the economy turns around, and it will not do that if the government keeps spending like there is no tomorrow.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to join the debate. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member of Parliament for Prince Albert.

Bill C-56 is an interesting bill, and I must give the Liberal government some credit for taking a page directly from the leader of the official opposition's affordability plan and proposing to remove the GST from purpose-built rental housing. This is something that Conservatives support.

I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the Liberal government admit that removing a tax, in this case, the GST, is a good way to increase affordability, much as I was shocked to see the Liberal government admit that removing its carbon tax on home heating oil is also a good way to increase affordability. If only it would remove its carbon tax on propane and natural gas to increase affordability for all Canadians and not just those in certain regions of the country.

Back to the bill, I also support the proposed amendments to the Competition Act, just as I supported my colleague from Bay of Quinte when he introduced his Bill C‑339.

It is refreshing to see a Liberal government adopt Conservative solutions. I even have to give the Prime Minister a little credit. Removing the tax on goods and services relating to the construction of rental housing means that builders and developers will save money. It means that less money will end up here in Ottawa. We all know how much this Prime Minister likes spending other people's money. Despite reduced revenue, our perennially spendy Prime Minister did not label this an austerity bill—not yet, anyway. Maybe he will change his mind when he reads the bill and realizes he is endorsing Conservative ideas.

Regardless, the Prime Minister has demonstrated remarkable restraint by introducing a bill that will reduce Ottawa's revenue and not calling it an austerity measure.

I pause for a moment, though, to ask this place a question. If the Liberal government is capable of understanding that removing the GST from rental housing increases affordability and that removing the carbon tax from home heating oil also increases affordability, why does it still refuse to remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to increase affordability? Do Canadian families who heat their homes with natural gas and propane and who cannot pay their bills not matter?

I have heard the Liberal excuses around this. Home heating oil is expensive and the carbon tax makes it more expensive, so that is why they are giving them a carbon tax break, but the same is also true for those who heat with natural gas and propane. Basically, this government is telling them that they do not matter. This is a Prime Minister who once said, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, but that is no longer true if one heats one's home with natural gas or propane. Sure, one might be on the verge of bankruptcy or hitting the food bank every day, but this Liberal government just does not care.

I know some members would say that I am getting a bit off track, that we should be debating what is in this bill. That is my point. The things in this bill would help, but the things we could do to most help Canadians right now, such as removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels, we are not doing solely because the government is punitive.

This morning, we read about the Liberals' so-called affordability retreat, where taxpayers got stuck with a bill for $160,000, including rooms that cost anywhere from $1,200 to $3,200 apiece. The very Liberals who stayed in those rooms have the audacity to tell those who can no longer afford to heat their home at the end of the month that they will get no help. Worse, their carbon tax bill will actually be quadrupled. I would simply ask the obvious: Why not do more?

Why not offer Canadians who heat their homes with natural gas and propane the same carbon tax relief as those who heat their homes with home heating oil? Why does this Prime Minister always have to divide Canadians? This time, he is dividing them based on their heating fuel. Canadians have had enough of this.

Every poll sends the message loud and clear about where the Liberals stand, yet the Liberal government ignores that message. To what end? I know there are good people on the government side, but the arrogance of the Prime Minister and his powerful group of unelected insiders is hurting many Canadians.

Yes, the proposals in this bill will help. It is a start, but we seriously need to do more. That is why I talked about doing more. That is why the leader of the official opposition listens to Canadians every day. They are asking us to do more. Polls show they want relief from the carbon tax on their home heating bills.

Farmers want and need a break as well. Here in Canada, we introduced something called “marked gas”. The idea was that farmers could buy gasoline and diesel at lower costs, without additional taxes, because all of our predecessors from all political parties recognized that keeping farmers' costs low was in the public interest. Now the Liberal government is literally driving up the costs for farmers for ideological reasons.

I will share a story of a local small business owner. This small business owner is a value-added food processor. It is very important to this small business owner that, when his goods arrive at local grocery stores, they proudly say that they are 100% Canadian. Here is the thing: When he gets his raw goods, they come from Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and when he has them shipped out via transport truck, he now pays a carbon tax surcharge on the bill.

He must raise his prices to offset the extra carbon tax that he pays. If he were to get the same raw goods out of the United States or overseas, he would not have that same large carbon tax surcharge from goods being shipped across Canada. He might be at that point where the only way he can lower his prices and remain competitive would be to switch because many of his competitors in the same grocery stores cannot say that they are also made in Canada. They are made in other jurisdictions where there is no carbon tax. When times are tough, as they are right now, fewer people can afford to pay extra for goods solely because they are made here in Canada.

I hope the government realizes the long-term structural damage its carbon tax is creating. It would be a different story if our largest trading partners had the same carbon tax and it was a level playing field. The Liberals like to say that they are taking a leadership role with the carbon tax. However, when no one else is following, they are not leading the way.

Some may think that I was not objective in this debate, but when I go home and my constituents ask me what we are doing in Ottawa to make life more affordable for them, I would like to have more to offer than simply saying that I supported this bill. At least I can tell that small business owner and others like him that I shared their stories.

Unfortunately, however, we have a Prime Minister and a Prime Minister's Office who do not care about any of them, unless they use home heating oil, of course.

That said, yes, I will support this bill and I will continue to ask this Liberal government to adopt and better support our Conservative ideas. Let us put all home heating fuels on a level playing field and suspend the carbon tax.

Let us ensure that the carbon tax on farming is gone. Let us all read the Scotiabank report that tells of how government spending at all levels has created over 40% of the rise in basis points from the Bank of Canada. It is not austerity to think like a taxpayer and deliver value for money. What a concept. It is not an app that costs over $54 million or funding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. How about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does not deliver any infrastructure?

Literally every day, we read about a new spending scandal from the Liberal government and appointed insiders funnelling money to their own companies. How could someone not know that was wrong and unacceptable? How are people such as Laith Marouf on the government contract list? Why is there never any ministerial accountability?

Instead of fiscal waste, we should be doing more with what is here. I urge all members of the House of Commons to consider doing more and adopting our Conservative ideas to provide Canadians a carbon tax break on home heating, and let us have a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, time is of the essence right now.

These are powers, legislative fixes that the Competition Bureau was asking for months ago. I cannot control when the government decides to schedule Bill C-56 for debate. However, I do know that many members in this place have already had the opportunity to give their thoughts at second reading.

This is a vote on the principle of the bill, and I think everyone agrees on the principle, getting the GST off new rental housing construction and making sure the Competition Bureau has the powers to go after that corporate stranglehold that we have in so many critical sectors. It is something that we should be voting on.

I am proud that through Motion 30, we have taken the work that was put in the bill by the member for Burnaby South, and we are going to add those provisions to Bill C-56. I see this as an opportunity where the NDP has rolled up our sleeves, has put our heads down and are getting to work to make sure the changes are happening in this place, unlike my Conservative colleagues.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-56 has a fairly narrow focus, but that is why we were hoping, not only through the fall economic statement but in the budget next year, to start to see measures that would address this.

I will remind the member that we got to the rates we are at today precisely because of the corporate profits that have been driving inflation. If Canadians want to understand why rates are so high, it is because we are trying to cool down a market that was caused by corporate greed. It was caused by oil and gas companies having net profits go up by over 1,000% in three years. It was caused by grocery CEOs digging in their greedy hands, off the backs of working families.

If we want to truly calm inflation down, we have to stop the policies that are championed by both the Conservatives and the Liberals. We need to swing the pendulum back in favour of working families, and stop the corporate deference that both of these parties love to champion whenever they are in government.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will respond to the member's first part of his intervention on small businesses.

The email I read was received today. I acknowledge that, yes, during the pandemic we were there with supports, collectively, the whole House was there, but small businesses are saying that the measures announced by this government are not enough; they need a further extension, otherwise one out of five are going to go out of business. It does not make sense to be holding the line, and I think the government needs to extend it to the end of 2024.

On the second part of the member's question, when I was at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we were doing an in-depth dive into food price inflation, and based on a study that I moved at committee, some of our witnesses were from the Competition Bureau of Canada. They expressed a sincere wish to have not only more human resources but I think a little bit more of a legislative flex in the Competition Act. Bill C-56 would deliver that. There was a significant improvement made to the bill, thanks to the efforts of the NDP and particularly our leader, the member for Burnaby South. New Democrats are here to work. We are delivering some constructive changes, and we are looking forward to seeing this legislation progress.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say what a privilege it is for me to be able to speak in what is an important debate for all parliamentarians and to again speak on behalf of the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For their benefit, I will explain that we are debating essentially two things today. Nominally, this is about Motion No. 30, the programming motion, but it is also about Bill C-56, the actual bill that the motion is seeking to get through the House to committee, where important work has to be done.

I will start with Motion No. 30, because it has to be put in the context of what the NDP, with our 25 members, has been able to do in this Parliament. I want to give particular thanks to my leader, the NDP leader and member for Burnaby South. We have to make mention in this place of his private member's bill, Bill C-352, because important elements of that bill were adopted in Motion No. 30. I will highlight some of the relevant parts of Motion No. 30 for the benefit of constituents back home.

Essentially, the really important part of Motion No. 30 centres on a number of things that would include some of the elements of the private member's bill from the member for Burnaby South in Bill C-56. I think this would strengthen the bill through a number of measures, such as increasing maximum penalty amounts for the abuse of dominance so that whenever we have market concentration and some corporate entities are abusing their dominance, we would have increased fines to make sure they are brought into compliance. Another measure is allowing the Competition Bureau to conduct market studies and inquiries if it is either directed by the minister responsible for the act or recommended by the commissioner of the Competition Bureau. Another is to revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged either in a practice of anti-competitive acts or in conduct other than superior competitive performance.

In other words, these are three important measures in the motion that are basically lifted out of the PMB from the member for Burnaby South, showing once again that, as New Democrats, we are here to strengthen government bills, respond to the needs of our constituents and make sure we are passing laws that would address the serious issues of today.

I will now move to Bill C-56, which is not a very big government bill in the scale of things but one that essentially seeks to do two things: remove the GST from construction costs on new rental units and enable the Competition Bureau to better conduct investigations, while removing efficiency exemptions during mergers to improve competition. That is the specific section of the bill we would be improving through Motion No. 30.

Before I go on, I think we need to place the conversation around Bill C-56 in a larger context. I want to go back to when this Parliament started. Canadians are very familiar with the fact that in both the 2019 and the 2021 elections, Canadians, in their wisdom, decided to return minority Parliaments. I think that was the voice of the Canadian people saying that they did not trust all of the power in this place to any one party. It was a resounding message that parties had to come here and find ways to work together.

At the start of this Parliament in 2021, we as New Democrats essentially had two choices. We could have chosen to stay on the sidelines, like my Conservative friends, and just complain while achieving nothing, or we could have realized that Canadians expected us to roll up our sleeves, put our heads down and get to work. We chose the latter option, and that is why, thanks to New Democrats, we are achieving some incredibly concrete things for Canadians.

Dental care is a massive program that is going to really help so many Canadians. We know that millions of Canadians are unable to afford to go to the dentist. Thanks to New Democrats, we are pushing that forward so the most disadvantaged people from coast to coast to coast are going to be able to afford and get proper dental care.

We forced the government to double the GST credit. Of course, something I am personally very proud of having done, both here in the House and at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, which does specifically relate to the conversation we are having today, is that we also started an investigation into food price inflation. I think it was the public and political pressure of that moment that led us to where we are today, talking about Bill C-56. Not only did I get a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, so I believe that all parties unanimously recommended that this was an issue of great concern to their constituents, but we also got a unanimous vote at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to really put the issue of food price inflation under the microscope and to do a deep dive into the real causes. I will be happy to talk about that a little bit later in my speech.

We also forced the government to come up with a grocery rebate and anti-scab legislation that is going to help unions realize the collective bargaining power they have. When we are talking in this place about helping the working class, we need to make sure we are actually standing up for legislation that would do just that. For far too long in our country's history, working men and women who belong to the trade union movement have been at a disadvantage when it comes to the relationship with their employers. Employers have considerable financial resources. They have been able to wait out workers. They have been able to use replacement workers. In some cases, they have just waited for Liberal and Conservative governments to come to their rescue with back-to-work legislation. It is time, thanks to the NDP, that someone in this place truly stood up for the working class, not just with words, like the Conservatives are fond of doing, but with real action, actually changing our laws so an employer, with all of their resources, would no longer be able to undermine working-class men and women with replacement workers. One of the most powerful things the working class has at its disposal is the guaranteed freedom to withhold its labour in order to fight for a better deal.

Thanks to the NDP, we are going to change federal laws so we have the backs of workers in federally regulated industries, whether they work in the train system, in shipping, in the banking industry, etc. We are going to make sure the legislation before us gets over the finish line and serves as an example right across the country for all provincial jurisdictions. I am also very proud that, thanks to the NDP, we are leading the way in developing a sustainable jobs act. It was thanks to the NDP that we got labour at the table with the government and brought in those changes to the law before it was finally introduced. Again, this demonstrates that when it comes to defending working people in Canada, the NDP is the party that is pushing the ball here, not just with words but also with sincere action.

Something I am incredibly proud of, as we work toward the end of the 2023 year, is that we are actively working with the government on bringing in pharmacare legislation. Again, the cost of living crisis is something that Bill C-56 is inherently trying to deal with. We have to make sure we deal with the economic shortfall that so many working-class Canadians are experiencing. In addition to lack of dental care, one of the biggest challenges for families is their inability to pay for expensive medication because they do not have the benefit of a workplace plan. Often, I have spoken to constituents who are skipping their medications altogether or are cutting them in half, and that can lead to extremely poor health outcomes later on. Yes, it might seem like a significant investment, but we have to put it in the context of the billions of dollars of savings that would result, not only for working families' budgets as we are trying to help them get by, but also for our health care system as a whole. When we look after people and establish methods whereby they can seek preventative health measures, this is how we save our health care system money, and it is how we look after families' budgets.

I am proud to be a member of a caucus that is standing up for all of those measures. I think there are days when my Conservative friends must be incredibly frustrated that they are being outworked and outdelivered by a party with a quarter of the number of their seats. I want to highlight a few examples because I listen to Conservatives talk every single day about the cost of living crisis, and I want to highlight a few of the hypocrisies we hear in this place from that particular party.

Number one is the carbon tax. I do not think that the oil and gas industry actually needs to spend all of that money on lobbying the federal government, because it already has a political party that does it for free. The Conservative Party's members stand in this place and, at every single opportunity, rail on the carbon tax while completely ignoring the oil and gas profiteering that has been happening over the last three years. It is a real disservice to the substance of the debate.

We only need to look at the evidence. We have seen this at committee, not only when we were dealing with food price inflation but also in a whole host of other committees. The evidence is there for everyone to see. If someone wants to see the real driver of inflation, they only need to look at some key industries and how much their profits have increased over the last three years. The most notable example is oil and gas. Since 2019, the industry's net profits have increased by over 1,000%. The Conservatives want to concoct a fairy tale that the carbon tax is the root of all evil, when we know that the wild price fluctuations we see on the cost of fuel are the result of market pressures and of corporations' gouging our constituents. However, there is not a word from my Conservative friends.

I have to single out the member for Carleton, the Conservative leader, because he has the temerity to stand in this place and vote against dental care for his constituents, for my constituents and for people from coast to coast to coast while having enjoyed taxpayer-funded dental benefits for the last 19 years as a member of Parliament. I guess the Conservative motto is “It is okay for me but not for thee.” That is essentially the message I am getting from him.

Of course, there was a vote earlier this week on the Ukrainian free trade agreement. The Conservatives were absolutely grasping at straws to find a way to vote against it. At a time when Ukraine needs solidarity from the people of Canada, it would have sent a strong message if we could have had a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to show the Ukrainian people that we stand firmly with them. That is something President Zelenskyy wanted, yet one party decided to vote against the free trade agreement, and that was the Conservative Party. The shocking thing is that a vote at second reading is a vote for the principle of a bill. The principle of the bill is free trade with Ukraine. Someone may have problems with the bill, and that is fine, but do they agree with the principle of the bill? I do not always agree with bills that I vote for at second reading, but I do it under the condition of getting better results at committee. It is a strong message. Does one agree with the principle of the bill? Unfortunately, I think the Conservatives scored on their own net with that vote.

Let us talk about the housing crisis, because a significant part of Bill C-56 would be the removal of the GST for new rental units. There is a fairy tale being concocted in this place by my Conservative friends. They want people to magically believe that the housing crisis started just in the last few years, or eight years ago in 2015. That is absolutely false. The housing crisis we are seeing today is the natural conclusion of over 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy that has been pursued with glee by both Liberals and Conservatives. It did not start just with the current government and the current Prime Minister. It was happening over Stephen Harper's time, Paul Martin's time, Jean Chrétien's time and Brian Mulroney's time. We could not get to the shortfall we have in affordable housing just overnight. It is the result of a systematic abandoning of the federal government's role in building affordable housing, and the chickens are coming home to roost right now.

Again, we do need serious action, and Bill C-56 would be a small measure, removing the GST to spur on more housing development. If we look at the recent fall economic statement and at some of the spending items in the next few years for affordable housing, the Liberals have decided to delay spending on critical areas until the 2025 fiscal year. It is a totally shameful response and extremely inadequate to the crisis moment so many Canadians are facing right now.

With food price inflation, I think Canadians are sick and tired of both parties taking potshots at each other when, for 20 months now, we have seen food prices rise at such a high rate, a rate far higher than the general rate of inflation. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry made that grand announcement in October, when he said he was going to summon the grocery CEOs to Ottawa for what amounted to a stern talking to. What did we learn today? We learned from Metro's CEO that discussion had zero impact on food price inflation.

This is why the agriculture committee is again examining this issue. It wants to hear from the minister and the grocery CEOs. It was my motion that sent for the corporate documents, which are now under lock and key at 131 Queen Street, so we can see what the corporations have agreed to and what their plan is. We also want to hold the government to account to see exactly what promises the minister tried to extract.

We are facing a situation where Canadians have been playing by the rules and doing everything right. However, there is corporate gouging in multiple sectors. In the housing market there are increased rents and renovictions and the buying-up of affordable housing stock. Grocery and fuel prices are constantly going up. It is all a result of corporate profits driving inflation, and there is only one party in this place that is daring to call it out.

I think back to the old tale, Mouseland. Canadians are being asked to pick between the black cats and the white cats, but they are both cats. They are both going to pursue the same economic policies. I think, at their heart, Liberals and Conservatives believe in the same thing. They believe in market-based solutions, which is what have gotten us into the mess we are in. They like to show the differences between the two, but I fundamentally believe those two parties are but two different sides of the same coin. If we want something different, we cannot keep doing the same thing. Trading Liberals for Conservatives is simply going to continue us down the path that we have been on for the last 40 years.

Canadians deserve a break. I am proud to say that through New Democrats' efforts on Bill C-56 and Government Business No. 30, we are delivering concrete results. We have rolled up our sleeves to get to work to improve this bill and insert some language that I believe is going to make the bill stronger and finally give the Competition Bureau the muscle, resources and legislative flex it needs to tackle the extreme marketplace concentration that we see in so many sectors, whether it is the grocery sector, telecommunications, oil and gas, name it, it is time.

I believe, Madam Speaker, I am getting a signal from you that—

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

Madam Speaker, I would just like to check something with my colleague. The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-56. We support the elements of Bill C-56 amended by the motion, but we oppose the super closure motion, which limits all debate and committee study.

Take, for example, the elimination of the GST on new housing construction. Once again, this government is passing laws and saying that it will decide everything in the regulations. Right now, contractors are asking us questions, since they are entitled to a GST rebate if they started their work after September 14. What if they started laying the foundation before September 14? What if the first floor will be zoned commercially and there will be housing above it? Are they entitled to this rebate or not? We do not know.

I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will no doubt pick up roughly where my colleague from Mirabel left off. He painted a good picture of the political context. He concluded by speaking to the bill. I will go a bit deeper into the bill.

The government proposal grants the Standing Committee on Finance the power to expand the scope of the bill by incorporating three substantial changes.

First, there is the amendment seeking to increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. The amendment changes the Competition Act and will render several of its elements obsolete once Bill C-56 is passed. The two other amendments, which deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies, although subject to the wording of amendments to come, appear to have limited scope. Their inclusion seems to be rather intended to give the New Democrats a symbolic victory in order to paper over a major concession on their part. Let us review these three amendments.

The first aims to increase penalties for abuse of a dominant position to $25 million for a first offence and $35 million for subsequent offences. This is taken directly from Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. Currently, the maximum penalty that can be levied by the bureau and the tribunal is $5 million for an offending company, along with prison sentences of 14 years for directors who breach the act. This proposed revision is therefore significant, dispelling the idea that penalties are just an inherent cost of doing business. They could now have a deterrent effect comparable to that of European or American legislation. Again, as my colleague asked, if it is already in force elsewhere, why has it taken so long for Canada to wake up? I believe the explanations in the last speech were very powerful.

The second amendment, which gives the Competition Bureau the option of conducting market study inquiries at the direction of the minister or on the recommendation of the commissioner of competition, while requiring prior consultation between these two officials, is quite significant. Currently, the bureau has strict investigative powers, but only if there is a clearly defined infringement. This adopts a quasi-criminal approach. The amendment proposed seeks to address this shortcoming when market studies are conducted in order to ensure greater effectiveness in assessing the dynamics of competition.

The third amendment, which reviews the legal grounds prohibiting abuse of dominance, aims to prevent anti-competitive practices that impede or significantly decrease competition in a relevant market. Even though the current legislation prohibits various restrictive practices, it does not address predatory pricing by businesses in a dominant market position. The NDP's Bill C‑352 sought to fill this gap by specifically prohibiting the imposition of excessive prices. Despite the provision's obvious value, the government still seems resistant to passing it, offering instead a procedural amendment to the existing legislation through Bill C‑56, without really reinforcing consumers' defences against such practices.

Although it makes positive changes to the Competition Act, Bill C‑56 hardly seems an appropriate response to the housing crisis and soaring food prices. An in-depth review of the national housing strategy remains essential, as does redefining abuse of dominance to prevent price increases resulting from a lack of competition. These critical areas persist, independently of whether Bill C‑56 is passed.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion and the bill, recognizing certain positive measures and the absence of any downright harmful elements. However, we should point out that it is only a drop in the bucket in terms of current needs. With respect to housing, there is no reason to believe that Bill C‑56 will help reduce rental costs.

At the briefing offered to members on September 21, officials were specifically asked to provide the studies on which the Minister of Finance based her claim that Bill C‑56 would impact rents. To give credit where credit is due, the question was asked by my colleague from Joliette. Their response to my colleague's question was evasive, suggesting they did not have these studies. That suggests an uncertain future as to the supposed effectiveness of the measures.

It is not very likely that landlords will decide to lower their rents simply because they did not pay GST on the purchase of a new building. Furthermore, the increase in interest rates, affecting all real estate and leading to higher mortgage rates, is a major factor influencing future costs. With or without Bill C‑56, tenants might very well have to live with them.

In the best case scenario, eliminating taxes on rental buildings could encourage some builders to choose that type of construction over condominiums, potentially providing a glimmer of hope in this growing housing crisis. However, though it will not have a direct impact on prices, Bill C‑56 could still help alleviate the housing shortage, which may get worse in the years to come.

Right now, the Société québécoise des infrastructures says that only 14% of new housing units built by 2030 will be rentals, despite the fact that almost 40% of Quebec households are renting. This growing imbalance foreshadows a terrible national tragedy, and three times as many new constructions will need to be rental units if we want to resolve the housing crisis.

If Bill C‑56 manages to increase the proportion of rental housing, even slightly, it would be a modest step forward, but that will not be enough to meet the crying need. However, we note the lack of specifics regarding the types of dwellings or buildings, and the absence of accessibility requirements to be eligible for reimbursement, which hands the government the power to regulate those factors.

During the information sessions for parliamentarians, which my colleague from Joliette attended, we asked officials why the act contained no eligibility criteria, which is an unusual exception in tax matters. Their answer clearly conveyed a sense of urgency and poor preparation, which definitely suggests an off-the-cuff approach.

We can all agree that it would be difficult to impose affordability criteria on builders. They are not the future owners of the buildings under construction. However, the GST could be imposed on buyers if the housing units were rented out at sky-high prices; this is a measure that could be examined in committee to improve the bill's effectiveness, which so far is pretty limited. That might be a good idea.

While amendments to the Competition Act deserve the Bloc Québécois's support, to suggest that they will have any impact on grocery bills is wishful thinking and a misrepresentation of reality. We support the bill, but we have no pats on the back for Ottawa.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to remind the member of the bill we are talking about today. It is Bill C-56. I believe he is talking about Bill C-57, which was passed—

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge and his Conservative colleagues are asking Canadians to believe in a fairy tale. They want people to believe that all these problems with housing magically started over the last several years or at least since 2015. In fact, it goes on a lot longer, with the current government, the Harper government before it, the Chrétien government and the Mulroney government. What we are seeing today is the natural conclusion of 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy. This did not happen overnight.

Similarly, when the Conservatives go after the carbon tax but completely ignore the fact that corporate profits are at the highest level ever, which is a key driver of inflation, it is a shame to their constituents and a shame to the political discourse in this chamber.

I have a question on Bill C-56. Does the member at least agree that these measures strengthen the Competition Act and remove the GST? Will he support them? Will he agree that the motion today is thanks to the hard work of the NDP driving the Liberal government to do better, and in fact that the Conservatives have been, again, sitting on the sidelines doing nothing?

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will first say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge.

I am honoured to speak to this programming motion, Government Business No. 30, and its amendment today.

Before I start, I would like to pay tribute to a great constituent by the name of Dot Thompson, the spouse of the late member of Parliament Myron Thompson, whose funeral I attended this past weekend. The two were inseparable and always had the community of Sundre in their hearts. Myron was an unforgettable MP who served on town council, was the high school principal and, through his athletic prowess, taught many youth how to play ball. Sundre was lucky to get him as his New York Yankees professional ball career was put on hold as he played backup to Hall of Famer Yogi Berra.

I am sure that Myron Thompson would have seen many pieces of legislation over his time with bills like Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, as well as motions that would have found their way to the floor of Centre Block for discussion. During his 1993 to 2005 era, there were many “suggestions” that the official opposition had lifted by the Chrétien and Martin Liberals in order to minimize the economic damage that had occurred from the era of stagflation caused by Trudeau, the elder.

Sadly, that Liberal government chose to drastically cut the transfers of health funding to provinces, which has haunted our provincial health care services for decades. Handcuffing the provinces was an easy fix to change the federal government's bottom line, but downloading the costs onto other levels of government simply took the heat off the feds and pushed it onto the provinces and their local authorities.

I am well aware of how federal neglect and financial shell games work because I was a hospital board chairman during those dark days. The federal Liberals of the 1990s artfully joined with the Friends of Medicare to back provinces into a corner when they were forced to rationalize services. There is no better example than the daily attacks on former premier Ralph Klein when he was faced with the economic reality of federal cuts to health transfers. The effects of that federal action are still evident, but, thankfully, no government has returned to the era of cuts to health care transfers since the Chrétien era.

The reason that I give this historical reference is that there are different paths governments can follow when trying to work their way through, or out of, a crisis. They can download the problems onto other levels of government; they can analyze policies of other parties in the House and, as is usually the case, claim them as their own; or they can at least acknowledge that the official opposition takes its responsibilities to Canadians seriously and that by usurping the learned advice, the government is ignoring the views of a large number of Canadians.

I will get to some of the specifics in the legislation in a minute, but, as many have stated, it is the heavy-handedness of the government and its inability and unwillingness to work with other partners, unless they are willing to rubber-stamp initiatives in exchange for propping up a minority government, that are at issue here.

What we are seized with today is the government's programming motion, Government Business No. 30. Programming motions have the effect of not only limiting debate in the House, which to many is an affront to democracy in itself, but also dictating instructions to the committee as to how it will deal with this legislation once it gets to committee. Issues related to Government Business No. 30 have to do with the expanded scope that the committee must consider. I will read from Government Business No. 30, which says:

(c) if the bill has been read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance,

(i) it be an instruction to the committee, that during its consideration of the bill, it be granted the power to expand its scope to,

(A) increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse...,

(B) allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries...,

(C) revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct....

If those points were important, perhaps they could have been in the bill in the first place.

Also, we will then start with a marathon sitting of two days, after the motion's adoption, to gather witness testimony, with amendments to be submitted within 12 hours at the end of the marathon sitting. Then, at the next meeting, once that time is up, no further debate or amendments will be entertained. Finally, after a few other points, we will have closure after the bill is reported, which will once again be guaranteed.

The Conservative amendment tries to infuse some credibility by at least ensuring that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities will be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each. At least some level of accountability will be salvaged if this amendment is adopted.

By forcing Motion No. 30 to the committees through the House process, the Liberals avoid the other option, which is to force a programming motion through the committee. They always say that committees are masters of their own fate, which is true, until, as we see with Motion No. 30, it is not. Programming motions are usually enacted when the government knows it has messed things up royally.

Our responsibility as legislators is manyfold. First, we must thoroughly analyze legislation to minimize potential unintended consequences. As a country that boasts six time zones, the need to have regional voices heard is paramount in order to head off such negative consequences.

Second, it is important that Canadians get an opportunity to have input as well. Those who live in the real world understand how legislation will, good or bad, affect them.

Third, and this is so evident presently at our natural resources committee, once federal legislation has been challenged, once the regions take on their responsibilities to protect their citizens through such initiatives and once such legislation has been deemed unconstitutional, the government must stop using the challenged parts of legislation in its development of new legislation. This procedural motion, Motion No. 30, is to be determined through a vote in the House. Since the Liberal government has found various willing dance partners, that has been virtually assured.

The only time I saw this process sidetracked, ironically, was when the Liberals had a majority government. It became quite evident at the time that the Liberals never really showed up for duty on Monday mornings. The Mulcair NDP managed to create a second reading vote on a prized Liberal bill. It was quite the scramble, but the vote ended in a tie. Because it was at second reading, the Speaker voted with the government so it would live to fight another day, and, oh my, it did fight. It produced a motion that would have stripped the opposition of all tools to do its job of holding the government to account. That motion dictated how things would transpire in the House and would have been one of the most egregious motions ever moved in our Westminster system of government.

When the vote on that motion was to take place, once again, the members of the NDP were milling around and were in the path of our whip Gord Brown. There is a tradition we see all the time where the whips walk toward the mace, acknowledge each other and then, once their members are settled, take their seats to start the vote. The confusion in the aisle caused one of the most unhinged actions I have seen anywhere. The Prime Minister rushed through the crowd, grabbed our whip by the arm and told him to get the “f” in his place. As he did that, he swung around and hit a female NDP member in the chest, which forced her to leave the chamber. That bizarre action caused a question of privilege that continued for days, whereby the juvenile actions of the PM were constantly on trial by his peers. In order to prevent the continued series of questions of privilege, the government relented and withdrew the egregious motion.

Now, with voting apps being used, perhaps the Prime Minister can avoid such a conflict in the future. Of course, maybe by now the government is also aware that there is a time-out provision whereby the vote would take place whether the whips walk down the aisle or not. Hopefully this motion can be defeated without the theatrics.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-56, the Liberals' so-called affordable housing and groceries bill. I say “so-called” because nothing in the bill would make housing affordable or reduce grocery prices.

After eight long years of the Liberals, Canadians are facing an unprecedented affordability crisis. Let us look at the facts. After eight years of the Liberals, housing costs have doubled; rent has doubled and mortgage payments have more than doubled, up 150% compared to eight years ago. After eight years of the Liberals, Canadians have seen 40-year-high inflation. Meanwhile, interest rates are rising at the fastest rate in Canadian history and have reached a 22-year high. Interest rates are projected to be hiked even further. When it comes to essentials like groceries, prices have gone up a staggering 70%, resulting in nearly two million Canadians a month going to the food bank. What Canadians are facing after eight years of the Liberals is a dire situation in which Canadians are struggling to put food on the table and to keep a roof over their head.

This begs the question “Why is it that Canada faces an affordability crisis?” There is one person who bears primary responsibility, and that is the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister who has created an affordability crisis as a result of eight years of reckless spending. This is the Prime Minister who, in eight years, has run up the largest deficits and has managed to double the national debt. So reckless and so out of control is the spending on the part of the Prime Minister that he has managed to do the seemingly impossible: rack up more debt in eight years than all of his predecessors over the previous 150 years combined. This is the Prime Minister who thought it was a good idea to pay for his out-of-control reckless spending by printing, through the Bank of Canada, $600 billion. As a result, the money supply has increased eight times faster than economic growth. Is it any wonder that, in the face of that, Canadians have seen 40-year-high inflation and interest rates rising faster than ever before?

That is the record of the Liberals after eight years. That is what they have to show. They have manufactured a cost of living crisis, and everyday Canadians are hurting. In the face of that, what have the Liberals done and what are they doing to address the issue of affordability, the mess they have created? Earlier this week, Canadians got the answer, and that is based upon the finance minister's presenting the government's fall economic statement. What did we get from the finance minister? We got $20 billion in new deficit spending on top of the more than $100 billion of deficit spending that the finance minister has racked up in the three years that she has held the portfolio. There is $20 billion in new deficit spending that pours fuel on the inflationary fire and is sure to keep interest rates high. There is $20 billion in new deficit spending, notwithstanding the fact that even the Bank of Canada is calling on the Liberals to rein in their spending, and has made clear to the Liberal government that its reckless spending and money printing are contributing to inflation.

There is $20 billion in new deficit spending, notwithstanding Scotiabank's issuing a report recently that confirmed that a full 2% of interest rates is directly attributable to the government's inflationary spending. Canadians have been hit, after eight years of the Liberals, with a double whammy: high inflation and high interest rates. They are now also being hit with a third whammy by way of the Liberals' punitive carbon tax. It is a tax that the Liberals falsely sold as a means to reduce GHGs, but we know, after eight years of the Liberals, that GHGs have gone up and not down. I would remind Liberals across the way, who talk so much about climate action, that the COP27 rankings ranked Canada, after eight years of the Liberals, at 58 out of 63 countries.

However, I digress. The carbon tax is nothing more than another tax, but I qualify that because it is not quite that. It is, after all, a tax that disproportionately impacts lower- and middle-income Canadians. It is a tax that increases the cost of everything, including essentials such as food, fuel and heating. It is a tax that, according to both the Bank of Canada and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, is exacerbating inflation. Despite that and despite the fact that Canadians are facing an affordability crisis, with nearly half of Canadians $200 away from insolvency, the Liberal government's plan is to quadruple its punitive carbon tax for hard-working, everyday Canadians.

I say to the Liberals across the way that I would be keenly interested to see whether one of them can stand up in their place and explain to Canadians how the policies of the government, namely money printing, massive deficits and the quadrupling of the carbon tax, all of which are exacerbating inflation and increasing interest rates, are a policy prescription that is going to make life more affordable for Canadians. Very simply, those policies are making life less affordable. Canadians are paying a very dear price after eight years of the costly policies of the Liberal Prime Minister.

After eight long years of the Liberals, costs are up. Rent is up, taxes are up and debt is up. The government's time is up.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. As the Chair said, it is the most anticipated question of the week.

We are of course expecting unanimity on Bill C-56 tonight. Perhaps we can count on Conservative votes to help Canadians at this time. That is our hope.

This afternoon, we will continue with debate on the government business motion relating to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate of Bill C-58, relating to replacement workers. We will return to Bill C-58 debate on Monday. Tuesday will be an opposition day. On Wednesday, we will call second reading of Bill S-9, concerning chemical weapons.

I would also like to note that it is the intention of the government to commence debate next week concerning the bill relating to the fall economic statement that was tabled earlier this week by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is dark day. Although I have made several attempts to have Bill C-56 debated in the House, considering that it has not been on the agenda since October 5, we are currently witnessing a government manoeuvre to muzzle the House and limit debate on this bill.

Given that we will be sitting until midnight tonight and voting on Bill C-56, can the government House leader tell us what is in store for us tomorrow and next week in terms of business?

Grocery Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope he is going to vote for Bill C-56 to make sure we have more competition in this country.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to resort to rhetoric like my colleague. One thing is clear, however: I will always stand up for the millions of Canadians out there. That is exactly what I did.

For the first time in history, a minister called industry giants to a meeting, told them that 40 million Canadians were outraged and asked them to help us stabilize prices.

If my colleague wants to do something for Canadians between now and Christmas, if he wants to give them a Christmas gift, he should convince his colleagues to vote for Bill C‑56. We are going to reform competition and stabilize prices in Canada, and we are going to keep fighting for Canadians.

Finance

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent; he is an honourable man.

If he wants to convince his colleagues to do one thing for Canadians before Christmas, he must convince them to vote for Bill C-56. This is a bill that will help with affordability, reform the Competition Act after 36 years and allow us to stabilize prices in Canada.

I know my colleague is a man of influence. Will he be strong enough to influence his colleagues to do one thing for Canadians before Christmas?

Consideration of Government Business No. 30

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Calgary Midnapore. I will be splitting my time with a fellow Albertan, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

I am going to tell members something that they know, that their constituents know, that my constituents know and that all of Canada knows. Without question, Canada is in an economic crisis. We see record inflation rates. We have certainly seen this across all consumers products, most specifically food where we saw a 40% hike across Canada. All families need to put food on their tables. As well, the cost of clothing, home heating, all these things have increased.

We have seen horrific interest rates as a result of the government's out-of-control spending. Every single opportunity it has, it throws more fuel on the inflationary fire, as we saw this week with the fall economic statement. People who are currently trying to renew their mortgage, as was brilliantly pointed out by my leader, the member for Carleton, are now in a crisis as they attempt to get the best rate possible, as they attempt to hold onto their homes since mortgage rates have doubled, as have rental rates.

We are in a housing crisis. The government has a failed housing accelerator plan, which I believe built, at the last count, 15 homes in the last fiscal year. It is an absolutely shameful number. What did the Liberals do? They brought forward this bill, Bill C-56. We have hope when we hear there is a fiscal bill on the horizon. We hope that somehow the Liberals will get the message, that they will do something sweeping for Canadians, something that will move the dial, that will make even a small change in the lives of Canadians.

What did the Liberals do in the bill? They put forward two measures. We have inflation, interest and a housing crisis, and they put forward a bill with two small measures. The theme here is the same as it always is. The government could be doing so much more to help Canadians, but it consistently does the minimum. It consistently makes the choices that harm Canadians. This bill is another example of that, where it did the tiniest thing possible in the face of the economic crisis across the country.

I am sure members are aware that the most recent deficit this year was at $46.5 billion. The President of the Treasury Board and the finance minister were off by over $6 billion. Certainly, $6 billion is an absolutely incredible amount, but this shows the lack of respect they have for Canadian taxpayer money. Canadians work hard to bring home this money and the government cannot even get it right in a single year.

In fact, the deficit will be going up an average of $4 billion a year through fiscal year 2028-29. To put this into context, that is the year my son, who is now 12, will graduate from high school. He can only hope for the possibility that the government might balance the budget and get out of deficit by 2028. As we have seen, the government is incapable of that by putting forward Bill C-56 with two small measures.

Recently, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was at the government operations committee, and will be returning today to discuss the supplementary estimates. I am sure he will give us a lot of good information. Last time he came to the government operations committee, he did not have very positive things to say about the government and its fiscal management in this time of an economic crisis. I asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer if the government reduced spending, would it have to rely less on nominal GDP, which is another area that is suffering, the productivity of Canada. In addition to having a spending problem, the government has a productivity problem. As my leader said, Canadians just want to get to work. His answer was yes, if I was asking if the government spent less could it reduce taxation.

It is not surprising as we see the government's obsession with taxation, including the carbon tax, which has now quadrupled. It will go to any extent in an effort to support this carbon tax. We heard the Minister of Rural Economic Development admit that if other Canadians had just supported the governing party, they too might get this carve-out, the exemption from the carbon tax. This is the way the government operates. It cannot manage its finances and it cannot increase productivity for Canadians. There is this level of corruption, as is evidenced by the comment from the Minister of Rural Economic Development. The government could be doing so much more.

On August 15, the President of the Treasury Board, my counterpart, said that she would find $15 billion, which is a tiny drop in the bucket, by October 2. As we have seen, $15 billion is not even a quarter of the current deficit. October 2 came and went, and what was announced? Nothing. There was one thing. One billion dollars was removed from our defence budget, at a time when we have significant instability in the world, with the war in Ukraine, with what we see currently in the Middle East and with Taiwan continuously under threat from its aggressor, China. Even she was not able to keep her promise of finding $15 billion by her imposed date of October 2.

If the deficit is going up an average of $4 billion a year, that does not even negate the increase in the deficit. As I said, the President of the Treasury Board did not even meet her own target. Again, the government, with Bill C-56, had the opportunity to do something significant for Canadians and chose not to. It could be doing so much more.

We will have the Parliamentary Budget Officer at the government operations committee today. The government is seeking approval for another $20.7 billion of spending in the supplementary estimates, which is more than a significant amount. It is a horrific amount.

What has the government spent a huge sum of money on? Not surprisingly, and unfortunately, it was on consultants and consulting services. My Conservative colleagues and I tried to raise the alarm last year about McKinsey, not only with respect to the amount being spent on consultants but how the Liberals did not take their instructions from their constituents, as we do on this side of the House, but from their Liberal insider friends. The spending on professional and special services continues to increase and will be a record $21.6 billion in this fiscal year, in addition to the significant deficit I mentioned. Again, it will probably only increase based upon the spending request in the supplementary estimates.

We have seen a failure with the Liberal-NDP government over the last eight years and a failure with the supplementary estimates. Then, when we are looking for hope in the fall economic statement, it is not there. It is more disappointment, as we see another $20 billion worth of fuel poured on the inflationary fire. We have seen this time and again. The government has a spending problem. It has a productivity growth problem. It has no leadership in Canada or in the world.

The government could be doing so much more with Bill C-56, but it again chose to do nothing.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker:

Tuesday is a day where if you thought there was something wrong in this country you would have more evidence you are right.

If you sense the system and those in charge, the high-and-mighties thought to be smarter than the rest of us, have let us down big-time and without apology, you would be right again.

If you feel a general sense of unease, dissatisfaction, your gut telling you there should be a shake-up you would be far from alone.

I just quoted a passage from Rick Bell's column in the Edmonton Sun newspaper yesterday. Mr. Bell was commenting on Tuesday's fall economic statement by the finance minister, a speech she delivered that ties directly into the legislation we are discussing today, Bill C-56. I want my friends in Saskatoon West to hear what else Mr. Bell had to say:

Sunny ways have turned into darkening storm clouds....

If this was supposed to be a Hail Mary pass in the direction of [the Prime Minister's] political redemption, the pass was incomplete, under-thrown, hopelessly off-target.

The high cost of living. Groceries, mortgages, rents, the price of so many things. Up. Federal government spending. Up.

The ever-increasing carbon tax. Up.

It is true. After eight years of the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, Canadians are facing the worst affordability crisis in decades. Spending on the bureaucracy in Ottawa is out of control. The money supply has been severely increased to the detriment of consumers and wage earners. The Bank of Canada is strangling our economy with massive interest rate hikes. The NDP-Liberals keep turning the screws on Canadians with every increase of the carbon tax and with the introduction of a second carbon tax. This has led to massive inflation and grocery bills that families cannot afford. The fact is that everybody is spending more money. The uber-rich are the only ones who will be able to afford a house in the future. This needs to change.

The NDP-Liberals tell us not to worry, that they have legislation, Bill C-56 which we are supposedly debating today. I say “supposedly” because what we are actually debating today in the chamber is not Bill C-56 but an NDP-Liberal programming motion. I think it is important that the folks in Saskatoon watching this understand that while I want to be debating the legislation on its merits, the NDP-Liberal government is actually forcing us to debate what we colloquially refer to as a programming motion.

Motion No. 30 is almost 900 words long, and it would take me half of my time here to recite the whole thing, but here are the highlights. First, it would limit the amount of debate MPs are allowed on Bill C-56. Second, it would limit the amount of time the finance committee has to hear from witnesses on the legislation. Third, it would limit the amount of time and the capacity to make and then debate amendments to clauses in the legislation. Fourth, it would instruct the committee to accept amendments beyond the scope of the bill, which, under our regular procedures, would be out of order. Fifth, it would limit the amount of time for debate of Bill C-56 for report stage amendments and third reading to one day when it returns to the House.

This may sound complicated, but it is not. Each of these would override long-standing rules or procedures of the chamber that guarantee the rights of members of Parliament to represent their electors and to speak to legislation. In what is supposed to be, by design, a lengthy process of debate and a cautious and thoughtful examination by MPs, this motion would cut the committee process down to three days, and the remaining time in the House, between second and third reading, to a day and a half.

I know that defenders of the NDP-Liberals in the mainstream media will scream from the rooftops that we are approaching Christmas and that Bill C-56 was introduced in September, so Conservatives should just let it roll through. Is it really the job of Conservative MPs to roll over for a government that has so badly mismanaged its work calendar that it is in a panic to take its Christmas holidays? Does the average Canadian get the ability to ram their work through without any scrutiny just because Christmas is approaching, or does it wait there until they come back after their two or three days off?

Of course the Prime Minister does not know how regular people live. The National Post reported earlier this week that since he became Prime Minister in 2015, he has taken one-quarter of his days off. Would it not be nice if every Canadian could get one-quarter of their days off? That is the ridiculous nature of the programming motion. The NDP-Liberals are so inefficient and hopeless at getting anything done in the House that when faced with the upcoming Christmas break, they panic and go to extreme measures to get anything done.

Let me get into the legislation. Would the legislation work? Would it actually solve anything? The stated purpose of the legislation is to eliminate GST on rental builds and make changes to the competition laws that govern retail stores like grocers. It is meant to be a solution for Canadians who are stretched to their limits, but does it actually solve these problems? The answer is no. That is not my answer; that is the answer the Minister of Finance stated in her own fall fiscal update just two days ago in the chamber. She said, “The apartments that renters need are not getting built fast enough, in part because the builders who would like to build more currently don’t have access to enough of the financing needed to make rental projects financially viable.”

Whose fault is it that builders do not have access to the capital and the financing they need? It is the current government that has put in place economic conditions so dire that the Bank of Canada has increased interest rates to their highest level in 40 years. The central bank, in direct response to government actions, is cutting off the lifeblood of our economy: the ability to borrow and finance the building and buying of new homes.

John Ivison, in the National Post, succinctly put it this way: “[The finance minister]'s fall economic statement was bulging with statements that, if not outright whoppers, were certainly distortions....Growth is expected to be muted....Unemployment is forecast to rise to 6.5 per cent by the middle of next year, from 5.7 per cent now.” Conservatives agree with these damning indictments of the government’s economic policy, the fall economic statement and its failure to get housing built. It is a pattern of failure that the costly coalition repeats over and over again. The costly coalition claims that the legislation is the solution that Canadians are looking for.

Do members remember this time last year? The NDP-Liberals were singing the praises of their one-time GST rebate, which nobody even remembers now. Then, earlier this spring, the Liberals cooked up another scheme with the NDP, a one-time rent rebate for low-income wage earners that nobody remembers now. Now, they think this latest idea will take a bite out of inflation. Did they not say that of their toothless dental program last year? It was another failure, because all of these ideas are temporary and do not get to the root of the problem. Instead, the Liberals are always scheming to stay in power, never delivering tangible, real results for Canadians. It has been failure after failure.

Why is there this overwhelming record of failure? It is because with the current government, the underlying economic landscape is set to fail. It is no wonder. We only need to look back at what the finance minister passed off a couple days ago as an update to the government’s budgetary policy, the costly coalition’s fall economic plan. With $20 billion of costly new spending, the mini-budget can be summed up very simply: prices up, rent up, debt up and taxes up. Time is up.

The finance minister announced more than $20 billion in new inflationary spending that will keep inflation and interest rates higher than Canadians can afford. It is an NDP-Liberal mini-budget that proposes to increase taxes on the backs of middle-class people. It is an NDP-Liberal mini-budget that will spend more money on servicing the debt than on health care. The signature policy in this mini-budget was to pour $15 billion into a fund to build barely 1,500 homes a year, while we need 5.8 million new homes built by 2030.

Do members remember when the finance minister told Canadians that the budget would be balanced by the year 2028? Since then, the costly coalition of the NDP and Liberals has announced $100 billion dollars of additional debt. After eight years, it is clearer than ever that the costly coalition is not worth the cost, and this mini-budget does nothing to help everyday Canadians. The only way to undo the damage the Liberals have done is by reversing course and doing the opposite. The common-sense Conservative plan would axe the tax, balance the budget, and build homes and not bureaucracy to bring home lower prices for Canadians.

Despite warnings from the Bank of Canada and the Canadian financial sector that government spending is contributing to Canada’s high inflation, the Prime Minister ignored their calls for moderation and yet again decided to spend on the backs of Canadians, keeping inflation and interest rates high. These interest rates risk a mortgage meltdown on the $900 billion of mortgages that will renew in the next three years. High inflation means the government is getting richer while Canadians are getting poorer.

Under the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, here are the facts. There are a record two million food bank visits in a single month. Housing costs have doubled, and mortgage payments are 150% higher than they were before the Liberals took power. Canadians renewing their mortgages at today's rates will see an increase from 2% to 6% or even higher. The International Monetary Fund warns that Canada is the most at risk in the G7 for a mortgage default crisis. Over 50% of Canadians are $200 or less away from going broke. Business insolvencies have increased by 37% this year. Tent cities exist in every major city, including in Fairhaven in my community of Saskatoon. Violent crime is up 39%, and drugs are everywhere.

Instead of listening to common-sense Conservative proposals to reverse the damage, the NDP-Liberal government has introduced more half measures and photo-op funds that will do nothing to solve the problems that Canadians have. It is time for common sense to return to the Canadian government's decision-making process. It is time for Canadians to say to this costly coalition that enough is enough. It is time for a Conservative government. Let us bring it home.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saskatoon West.

I rise today to address Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act. This debate is crucial, as it concerns not only the legislative process but also the fundamental issues of housing affordability and market competition that affect Canadians nationwide. This bill, introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, demands our careful consideration and thorough analysis to ensure it meets the needs of the people we represent.

In discussing Bill C-56, it is imperative to address the manner in which it is being ushered through the House, specifically through Motion No. 30. This motion, a procedural manoeuvre by the government, significantly limits the time allocated for thorough debate and consideration of this substantial piece of legislation. By limiting parliamentary discussion and expediting the bill’s passage, Motion No. 30 undermines the democratic process that is fundamental to our legislative system.

Such a hastened approach is particularly concerning given the bill’s wide-ranging implications for housing affordability and market competition. These are complex issues that warrant detailed scrutiny and thoughtful debate, ensuring that every aspect of the bill is examined for its potential impact on Canadian society.

The use of Motion No. 30, in this context, suggests a Liberal government preference for achieving catchy headlines on affordability instead of democratic thoroughness. Such a stance risks overlooking critical nuances and potential shortcomings of the bill. As representatives of the Canadian people, we have a duty to ensure that legislation, such as Bill C-56, receives the comprehensive attention it deserves.

Turning our focus to the housing affordability aspect of Bill C-56, it is essential to analyze its proposed measures and compare them with the initiatives outlined in our Conservative leader's building homes not bureaucracy act. While Bill C-56 suggests removing the GST on new purpose-built rental housing, this approach is merely a fragment of what is needed to genuinely address Canada's housing crisis.

Our Conservative vision, as set forth in the building homes not bureaucracy act, offers a more comprehensive and robust plan. It aims not only to reduce the financial burden on housing construction but also to tackle the systemic barriers that hinder the development of affordable housing. This includes removing the gatekeepers who delay the building of homes, as well as all the other red tape and bureaucratic hurdles that are adding to the housing crisis. These aspects are notably absent in the government’s current proposal.

Our plan mandates significant yearly increases in housing construction, ensuring a steady growth in supply, and it proposes punitive measures for cities that fail to meet these targets. This strategy recognizes that the housing crisis is not just a matter of fiscal policy; rather, it also requires structural changes in the way housing projects are approved and developed.

Moreover, our proposal goes beyond the mere construction of housing. It includes incentives for municipalities that exceed their housing targets, promoting not only the quality but also the quantity and expedience of housing developments. In contrast, that Bill C-56 has a singular focus on GST removal, but does not address the broader regulatory and procedural challenges, demonstrates a lack of understanding of the complex nature of the housing crisis. Our approach also recognizes the importance of building communities, not just houses.

By tying transit and infrastructure funding to the construction of high-density housing around transit stations, we ensure that new housing developments contribute to the creation of sustainable, well-connected urban environments. This is crucial for improving the overall quality of life for residents and fostering community development. While Bill C-56 makes an attempt to address housing affordability, it falls short of offering a holistic solution.

The Conservative Party's building homes not bureaucracy act, in contrast, presents a detailed, actionable plan that addresses the root causes of the housing crisis and proposes viable, long-term solutions. It is a plan that not only addresses the immediate need for more affordable housing but also lays the groundwork for sustainable urban development and community growth.

In addressing the amendments to the Competition Act within Bill C-56, it is crucial to recognize their inadequacy in effectively tackling the real issues plaguing our market competition. The proposed measures, though seemingly progressive, fail to address the root causes of the problems they aim to solve.

The government’s approach to amending the Competition Act, as stipulated in Bill C-56, primarily focuses on empowering the Competition Bureau with greater investigative powers and addressing collaborations that limit competition. However, this approach overlooks the broader, more systemic issues within our market structures. For instance, the highly concentrated nature of certain sectors, such as the grocery industry, remains unaddressed. This concentration is a critical factor contributing to the lack of competition and the resulting high prices that Canadian consumers are forced to endure.

Moreover, the bill's omission of the efficiencies defence repeal is a significant shortcoming. The efficiencies defence, which allows certain anti-competitive mergers under specific conditions, has been a point of contention, undermining fair market competition and consumer interests. The Conservative Party has long advocated for the repeal of this defence, recognizing its role in facilitating monopolistic practices. By neglecting to address this defence, Bill C-56 misses an opportunity to make substantial, meaningful reforms to our competition laws.

In addition, the amendments proposed in Bill C-56 lack clarity regarding the specific entities they cover and the concrete standards for service. This vagueness creates uncertainty about the legislation's effectiveness in tackling market challenges. Effective competition law reform requires precise, targeted measures that directly address the issues at hand. Generalized amendments, without clear direction or focus, risk being ineffective in bringing about the necessary change.

While the amendments to the Competition Act in Bill C-56 represent a step towards addressing market competition issues, they fall short of offering a comprehensive solution. The Conservative Party's stance on this matter is clear: We need more than just surface-level changes. We need a thorough overhaul of our competition laws, one that addresses the deep-rooted issues within our market systems and ensures a fair competition environment for all Canadians.

It is important to emphasize that while Bill C-56 makes an attempt to address housing affordability and market competition, it falls short of the comprehensive, proactive strategy that Canadians desperately need in these challenging times. As Conservatives, we are unwavering in our commitment to implement solutions that tackle the fundamental issues affecting our nation's housing supply and the integrity of our market systems.

The Conservative leader's building homes not bureaucracy act offers a road map for real, tangible change, in stark contrast to the limited scope of Bill C-56. Our approach is about addressing the root causes of these critical issues with a long-term perspective. We believe in creating legislation that not only meets the immediate needs of Canadians but also sets the stage for sustainable growth and prosperity for future generations.

Conservatives call upon the government to look beyond short-term fixes and consider more holistic, impactful measures. It is time to move away from reactive legislation and towards forward-thinking policies that genuinely reflect the challenges of Canadians. We must acknowledge these challenges and address them rather than pursuing this legislation.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, regarding housing affordability, the ability to own a home or secure reasonable rental accommodations has become increasingly unattainable for many, especially for young people and newcomers. Bill C-56 proposes substantive enhancements to the goods and services tax, GST, rental rebate for newly constructed purpose-built rental housing. This initiative serves as a catalyst for fostering the development of rental properties encompassing apartments, student residences and homes for seniors. The proposed rebate system, offering significant tax relief, exemplifies our commitment to facilitating the creation of the much-needed housing inventory suitable for diverse family needs.

We urge provinces and local governments to work in tandem with this bill on rebate initiatives and actively support housing developments situated in close proximity to public transit systems, enhancing accessibility and promoting sustainable communities.

Concurrently, the government has taken concrete measures to mitigate the costs associated with groceries. The introduction of targeted inflation relief through the one-time grocery rebate in July represented a proactive step. Bill C-56 supplements these efforts by proposing legislative amendments to the Competition Act, augmenting the authority of the Competition Bureau to conduct comprehensive market studies. These amendments seek to eliminate the efficiencies defence for anti-competitive mergers and address collaborations that impede competition, specifically those disadvantaging smaller competitors in contrast to larger grocery entities.

The significance of Bill C-56 extends beyond its immediate implications. It complements a suite of measures aimed at enhancing the quality of life for Canadians. Since the beginning, our government's commitment to delivering meaningful benefits to Canadians has remained unwavering. The 2023 fall economic statement, delivered by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance earlier this week, is a testament to our dedication toward creating an inclusive and thriving economy that supports the middle class while striving to build more homes faster.

This year's fall economic statement serves as a blueprint to tackle the prevailing challenges of high prices and impending mortgage renewals. Our government stands resolute in taking targeted measures to stabilize prices, support Canadians with mortgages and enhance affordability. The comprehensive plan outlined in this statement introduces substantial funding for housing initiatives, cracking down on illegal short-term rentals and making significant advancements in making housing more affordable across Canada.

Continuing our legacy of delivering tangible benefits to Canadians, the economic statement reinforces our commitment to supporting Canadians. The government has taken proactive steps by introducing measures aimed at making groceries more affordable, cracking down on junk fees and removing GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. These initiatives underscore our dedication to fostering an economy that offers equitable opportunities for all Canadians.

Moreover, our economic plan is not merely in response to immediate challenges. It is also strategically positioned to propel Canada toward a cleaner and more sustainable future. Investments in Canada's clean economy, the introduction of the Canada growth fund and advancements in the indigenous loan guarantee program signify our unwavering commitment to fostering a robust economy that is sustainable and inclusive.

The robustness of our economic plan is underscored by the federal government's unwavering commitment to making housing more affordable across Canada. Federal investments in housing have witnessed a substantial increase, surpassing previous benchmarks. This year, the federal investment in housing is $9 billion higher than it was in 2013-14. Since 2015, the average annual federal housing investment has more than doubled compared to the previous government. The comprehensive strategy outlined in our economic plan allocates billions in new loan funding to support the creation of more than 30,000 additional new homes and dedicates a substantial portion to affordable housing projects, all aimed at enhancing the accessibility and affordability of housing options for Canadians.

Our government's responsible economic stewardship has yielded commendable results, reflected in the employment of over a million more Canadians compared to prepandemic levels. Canada's unemployment rate has remained consistently lower than in previous records, while inflation rates are on a downward trajectory. Moreover, our commitment to fiscal responsibility is reflected in maintaining the lowest deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratio among G7 nations.

In conclusion, Bill C-56 is a testament to our government's unwavering commitment to addressing the critical issues faced by Canadians today. It symbolizes our dedication to fostering an inclusive and prosperous Canada for all. As members of Parliament, it is our collective responsibility to prioritize the well-being of Canadians, ensuring equitable access to housing and essential goods. I would encourage all members to support the measures included in Bill C-56.

I am thankful for the opportunity to advocate for the passage of this crucial legislation.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to discuss Government Business No. 30 and the affordable housing and groceries act. It stands as a cornerstone of our commitment to building more homes faster and stabilizing prices.

Regrettably, the urgency and significance of this bill have been overshadowed by the repeated filibustering and delay tactics employed by the Conservative opposition, resulting in over 20 hours of debate across five days. It is evident that despite garnering support from within its own ranks, including commitments made by the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon over a month ago to vote in favour of this bill, the Conservative opposition remains committed in its attempts to hinder the bill's progress.

Bill C-56 is designed to address the challenges faced by Canadians, specifically in relation to the cost of groceries and the need for affordable housing—

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would save that debate for when the fall economic statement comes forward. Today we are discussing Bill C-56.

While I cannot speak to the impact of the GST, I can say that in my community of Newmarket—Aurora, there is one project that will provide us with 568 new units. These were ready to go, but the business model was not effective until the GST was implemented. In a community of 24,000 housing units, that number is quite significant, so we cannot take away from the fact that this is a progressive measure that will help many communities like Newmarket—Aurora.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, as usual, the Liberal members are awfully pleased with themselves. They are bragging about their government's achievements.

My colleague had a lot to say about housing. Unfortunately, the GST rebate in Bill C‑56 is not going to make much of a dent in the housing crisis in Quebec and Canada. It is a marginal measure, especially in Quebec.

The government tabled its economic update two days ago. Unfortunately, many of the measures in it will not take effect until 2025 or 2026. Quebec has 10,000 homeless people. I have seen them in Longueuil, Saint‑Jérôme and Rimouski. There are people on riverbanks. This is going to be very hard.

We asked the government to put an emergency fund in the economic update. Winter is coming, and it is going to be cold. We know that. It is going to be hard. I know people will die in Quebec, on those riverbanks, in small towns, all over the province. That is unacceptable.

We asked for an emergency fund to help address the problem, but we got nothing. Most of the economic measures will not take effect until 2025 or 2026, but we need to build 150,000 housing units a year starting right now. If we do not build them this year, there will be a backlog, and they will have to be built sooner or later.

When will the Liberal government get serious about this problem and come up with measures that will make a real difference?

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thought that when I thanked the member for his intervention, I confirmed that. However, for the record, yes, I do wish to split my time.

We also need to stabilize the cost 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 needed it the most, with up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and an extra up to $234 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew we needed to do more to address the rising cost of groceries.

Through Bill C-56, the government is introducing the first set of legislative amendments to the Competition Act to, one, provide the Competition Bureau with the powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; two, remove the efficiencies defence, which includes allowing 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 three, empower the bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular in situations where large grocers prevent smaller grocers from establishing operations nearby.

Bill C-56 builds on other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians: delivering automatic advance payments for the Canada workers benefits, starting in July 2023; supporting up to 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,400 per child under the age of six and up to $6,200 per child aged six through 17; increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and older by 10% as of July 2022, which is providing more than $800 of additional support for pensioners; and reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories reducing child care fees to $10 a day or less by April 2, 2023, and strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces.

The new proposed housing and grocery support I outlined today would make it easier to build more of the homes Canadians need and want, to help them thrive. It would also help families with the growing cost of putting food on the table. The passage of Bill C-56 would help us to provide a brighter future for Canadians. We want to ensure that Canada remains the best place in the world to live, work, go to school and raise a family, and making life more affordable is a key part of that.

I urge hon. members here today to conduct their review of this bill expeditiously and support its speedy passage so that we can conclude this important work.

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention of my colleague.

We know the rising cost of groceries and the lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country, and I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing those important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56.

We know that for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach, and paying rent is becoming more expensive across the country. The housing crisis is having an impact on our economy. Without more homes in our communities, it is difficult for business owners to attract the workers they need in order to grow their businesses and to succeed. When people spend more of their income on housing, it means they spend less of their money in their communities for necessities like groceries.

Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and seniors' residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects that begin construction after September 14 and on or before December 31, 2030. For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need and that families want to live in.

The measure would also remove the restriction on the existing GST rules so that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying not-for-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, would be permitted to claim the GST new residential rental property rebate. The government is also calling on provinces to join it by matching its rebate for new rental housing. It is also requesting that local governments put an end to exclusionary zoning and encourage apartments to be built near public transit.

Launched in March, the housing accelerator fund is a $4-billion initiative designed to help cities, towns and indigenous governments unlock new housing supply, which is about 100,000 units in total, by speeding up development and approvals, like fixing out-of-date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density and incentivizing development to choose public transit. It represents one of the ways we are encouraging initiatives aimed at increasing the housing supply. It also would support the development of complete, low-carbon, climate-resilient communities that are affordable, inclusive, equitable and diverse. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster, so we need to reduce the cost of housing for everyone.

We also need to stabilize the cost of groceries in Canada. Through the one-time grocery—

[Tony Van Bynen, Liberal, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in today's debate on Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. Our government understands that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet in these times of high inflation. It is committed to continue to make targeted and responsible investments to build a stronger future for all Canadians.

We all know the rising costs of groceries and the lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country. I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing those important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56. We know that for far too many Canadians, including young people, the dream of owning a home is becoming increasingly—

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner.

It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country.

We are debating Bill C-56. The NDP-Liberal government continually fails to address the real issues that it has caused for all Canadians. It says the bill will somehow bring down the cost of living and grocery prices.

People in my community are struggling to pay their bills and put food on the table. Food bank usage is the highest it has ever been, with over 30% more clients year over year. This is consistent across the country and also in my community. People with disabilities and seniors on fixed incomes are hit particularly hard.

Instead of cutting the carbon tax and government spending, which is driving up inflation, the Liberal-NDP government believes that implementing Bill C-56 would somehow solve the inflated cost of living and grocery price issue.

There is a lack of competition in Canada's grocery industry, an industry held mostly by Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, and this is a problem the bill would not solve. We have already seen the Prime Minister and the government fail at keeping their promises, like having cheaper groceries before Thanksgiving. That date has long come and gone.

Canadians are faced with higher costs than many other developed countries due to a lack of competition, whether in industries like grocery, airline, banking or telecommunications. High taxes, bureaucracy and red tape make Canada unproductive and uncompetitive. The Liberals added a second carbon fee, basically a second carbon tax. Saying the legislation takes some kind of stand against grocery stores is nothing short of performative with a nice title.

The policies of the NDP-Liberal coalition, with its inflationary deficit spending and high-tax agenda, has caused our inflation rate to be as high as it has been, and continues to be, which has caused the highest interest rates in a generation. The legislation is trying to deal with problems created by the government without addressing any of the causes. It is as if we are walking along and someone trips us and while we are lying on the ground looking up, that individual puts his or her hand out and asks to help us up. Meanwhile we would be thinking that if that person had not tripped us in the first place we would not be on the ground.

The NDP-Liberal coalition thinks that taxing farmers who grow our food, taxing transport trucks that move our food and then taxing grocery stores that sell our food has nothing to do with inflation. We have to remember that it was the Liberal finance minister who had declared victory on inflation only to see it go higher.

We also have to remember that inflation is compounding. Most people are familiar with compounding interest on their investments. However, this is the harmful kind of compounding, because it means things cost more.

For a 3% inflation, for example, that is 3% on top of last year, where during the same month it could have been 8%, as we were seeing in 2022. Therefore, the inflation rate this year is 3% plus 8%, which is 11%, but is even more because it is compounded compared to two years ago.

The Governor of the Bank of Canada said that inflation was homegrown and that it was costing the average Canadian $3,500 a year. That is not per family; it is per person. No wonder people are having trouble heating their homes. They were last winter and we are seeing them have a tough time again this year.

I send multiple surveys each year to every home in my community of Kelowna—Lake Country, and it is amazing the huge amount of people who respond to them. A recent one was this past summer. Here are the results: 70% say they are buying fewer groceries; 81% say they are taking fewer trips; 78% say they are donating less to charity; and 89% say they are putting less into savings. Many people also put detailed notes, sharing their ideas, solutions and heartbreaking stories with me.

The John Howard Society of Okanagan and Kootenay has stated that it is now having clients come to its organization saying that they have just lost their homes and do not know what to do. Now the organization does not know how to support these people because it was not built for the capacity it is now seeing.

It is no surprise that people cannot afford a home when the price of homes and rent in Canada has doubled over the last eight years of the NDP-Liberal government. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years to save for a mortgage.

Saving for the average mortgage for the average home used to take five and a half years before the Liberal government. A recent C.D. Howe Institute study determined that in Vancouver, nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is government gatekeepers adding unnecessary red tape. That means that over 60% of the price of a home in Vancouver is due to delays, fees, regulations, taxes and high-priced consultants.

The NDP-Liberal government has poured billions of dollars into housing programs and there is little to show for it. Removing the GST from home construction was proposed in a private member's bill by the leader of the official opposition. The difference between what he was proposing and what this bill would do is that this bill would help, but it is not focused on affordability like the official opposition member's bill is.

When I am home in my community at many different activities and events, a top issue many people bring to me is the increasing cost of their mortgage payments and how it is affecting their families and families they know. I was talking to a dad who said his mortgage just increased by over $1,000 a month. Another person, who has three kids, reached out. He is the sole income-earner for the family as his wife stays home to look after the kids. He was looking for any tax credits for kids' fitness and other activities, something I had to tell him the Liberals cancelled.

The latest MNP consumer debt index shows 51% of Canadians are $200 or less away from not being able to complete their financial obligations. It said, “Facing a combination of rising debt carrying costs, living expenses and concern over the potential for continued interest rate and price hikes, many Canadians are stretched uncomfortably close to broke. There is no mystery as to what is causing Canadians’ bleak debt outlook: it’s getting increasingly difficult to make ends meet.”

A recent survey released by financial firm Edward Jones Canada said, “Canadians are stuck in a chaotic whirlwind of personal financial stress,” and, “The poll clearly shows that Canadians are so preoccupied with just getting through the day, that the idea of paying debt feels like a distant dream.” It also found that 88% of Canadians say their personal financial situation is impacting their well-being.

In addition, 65% of Canadians now say they are concerned about saving for retirement, and 63% are concerned about how to prepare for an unexpected financial event. There are less savings, more concern and more risk. Forced sales events are up 10%, with mortgage defaults climbing, as just reported by the Toronto Regional Real Estate Board. It is not just me talking about the financial situation in my riding of Kelowna—Lake Country. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada said that Canadians are now facing the biggest financial challenges of their lives.

The Prime Minister and the NDP-Liberal coalition have really lost touch with Canadians. This bill would assist with one small sliver of an issue with building homes, but it is not a housing affordability bill. As we see now with the fall economic statement and the Liberals being supported by its partner, the NDP, this spending will continue on a path of deficits and keeping inflation and interest rates high. This bill would not address the causes of high food costs, inflation or high interest rates. The Prime Minister is just not worth the cost.

We can send this bill to committee to be studied, and hopefully, some amendments can be made at committee and brought back to the House.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about Bill C-56, and it is important to bring us back to what this bill could offer to Canadians.

I am particularly interested in the piece around strengthening the Competition Act. We know that Canadians are deeply concerned about the rising costs of living. Christmas is coming. Ideally, not moving toward closure is what we want to see in the House, but we need to unfortunately because of the games that are played.

Could the member speak to some of the things we are seeing in the House that unfortunately prevent us from passing critical legislation like this?

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we are debating today would have a profoundly positive impact on Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

I would like to bring to this debate the Conservative Party's attitude towards legislation in general. I put it in the form of a question earlier about the Conservative Party today, the leader of the Conservative Party, his attraction to the People's Party and the membership of that particular party. As a result, the Conservative Party has moved far to the right. I would ultimately argue that the far right has taken over the leadership of the Conservative Party today.

I do not say that lightly. I truly believe that to be the case, and we have seen a good demonstration of that. Talking about the legislation we have today, one would think the Conservative Party would recognize the value and the good within this legislation and have a desire to see it passed. However, that is not the case of the far right Conservative Party today.

We saw that amplified just the other day when the Conservative Party voted against a trade agreement. Conservatives actually voted against the Canada-Ukraine trade agreement. It is unbelievable. Then they try to rationalize why.

It is rooted in the leadership of the Conservative Party. We see that far right element has virtually taken over. That has started to filter down into what we see across the way today. That is why, whether it is the Conservative Party voting against the trade agreement between Canada and Ukraine, or against the legislation we are debating today, there is a desire on the part of the Conservative Party to play that destructive force on the floor of the House of Commons.

Then they look surprised that we would bring in time allocation for the debate on Bill C-56. The bottom line is that time allocation was brought in because the Conservatives do not want to see this legislation passed—

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

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

Mr. Speaker, it would take me more than an hour to try to explain that to Canadians, but I do not think I could find any answers. On what Canadians witnessed yesterday, I am sure they are still at home wondering whether what they saw really happened, that in 2023 the Conservative Party of Canada would vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Did it really? A time when a nation is fighting for democracy, and when it is fighting a war, is the time when one needs to help it.

I know that maybe there is still a glimmer of hope, because Christmas is approaching. I know my colleagues are eager to go home, but Canadians are asking them to do one thing: to please vote for Bill C-56. They should give something to Canadians before they go on vacation and make sure we have more affordable housing and more affordability across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that we have to do more. This is why we introduced Bill C-56. We said the meeting with grocers was a first step. We asked them to do what was necessary to help Canadians, but we are not fools; we know more has to be done.

I know my colleague will vote in favour of the bill. I can see it in his eyes. He is thinking that Bill C-56 gives more power to the Competition Bureau specifically to investigate big grocers across the country. If what he says is true—and I know he thinks what he says—he will vote in favour of Bill C-56. This bill will give more power to the Competition Bureau so it can conduct inquiries, and we know that the best way to help consumers across the country is to strengthen competition.

Quebeckers will be watching the member when he votes on Bill C-56. I am convinced he will vote the right way.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's question was very thoughtful, and she pointed out what is going on in this place. I hope Canadians are watching.

There is a party in front of us that will do anything to block any progress. Yesterday, we saw something egregious. The Conservatives blocked the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. What the member is saying is that we see it time and time again. If I look into my own heart, I would think there should be unanimous consent. This is a bill that would improve housing and affordability. Everyone was sent here by families and other members of their communities. I know that these people expect us to do the right thing when it is about helping them. Like the member said, she would not expect people at home to say they sent members here to block and filibuster. They sent people here, on all sides of the House, to make sure we work for Canadians.

The bill is about more housing and more competition for Canadians. I hope that every member of the House will vote in favour of Bill C-56. Let us give a gift to Canadians at a time when they need it most.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can hardly believe this.

Today, my colleague tells us it is urgent, that we must quickly pass Bill C-56 for its housing initiatives. The GST credit is a marginal measure to fight the housing crisis. Still, in the economic update, two days ago, we had a unique opportunity to invest in housing. However, most measures will only come into effect in 2025-2026.

We need billions of dollars in investments now. We need to build 150,000 new units a year in Quebec. In the agreement with Quebec, 8,000 units will be built in the next five years. There are 10,000 homeless people in Quebec. We asked for an emergency fund to prevent deaths in Granby, in Rimouski and in Saint-Jérôme. Not a cent was allocated. The crisis is here now. I can hardly believe we were told this morning it is urgent to vote on the bill, while the government put nothing in its economic update two days ago.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take that question from the member because, as we said, Parliament is the place where we should debate ideas. This is the place where the best ideas should come from and actually be implemented. That is what we are seeing with Bill C-56 and this motion. There is a time for consideration and debate, but there is also a time for voting and acting.

If the member believes what he said, he should be in favour of the bill and running to his caucus to tell them that Christmas is approaching, Canadians are going to be watching and they need to do the right thing for Canadians. The two things that matter to Canadians are housing and affordability. Bill C-56 is going to help Canadians. If he is true to his word, he is going to convince his colleagues to vote for Bill C-56.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the reality for many Canadians. One thing we have seen across many nations is that the best way to bring affordability and stabilize prices is through competition. Bill C-56 would do something that has not been done in about 37 years in our country. It would reform the Competition Act in ways that are very clear.

The bill would give more power to the competition authority, for example, when it does a market study. The last market study was done on groceries. Can we imagine having an authority with no subpoena power? That has not been seen in any other G7 country. Now we are going to fix that. Another thing it would do is ensure that anti-competitive mergers can be blocked. We have seen, time and time again, that we have restricted competition. Lastly, Bill C-56 would remove restrictive covenants that we can currently find in leases. We have seen in the member's riding, as in my own, a grocer in one shopping centre. Today, there are some restrictive clauses in leases that would prevent an independent grocer from going and competing with them. We need to put a stop to that.

Canadians watching at home are trusting us to do the right thing for them. The only reason we are here is to serve the people at home. They sent us here to do something. We are committed to doing that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not bet on that. However, I would say that I know the member; he is a man of good heart. I have had a number of discussions with him, and he is someone who wants to do what is right for Canadians.

However, like me and I hope all members, when they get groceries, when they walk in their ridings on the weekend and when they talk to people in the street, they hear that there are two things that Canadians are facing today. They are facing the cost of housing and affordability. Those are the things Canadians want us to take action on, not only as government but also as parliamentarians.

Christmas is approaching. Canadians are watching, and they ask whether Parliament will finally do something to help them. They want help on affordability and on housing. This bill would do that. We can imagine: It would enhance the GST rebate on new rental housing; it would give more tools to the Competition Bureau to go after uncompetitive practices in this country.

If the Greens want to help Canadians, as I am sure they do, I have no doubt that when the vote comes up on Bill C-56, they will vote in favour of it and in favour of Canadians.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Greens, we believe we are sent here not to play partisan games but to focus on the priorities of our communities. Right now, we are not even debating Bill C-56 or the programming motion to move more quickly on Bill C-56. We are debating another motion to limit debate on the programming motion. This has happened dozens of times in this Parliament alone. I believe it is 29 or so. One day, the minister might be in opposition. Is he at all concerned with the precedent that this sets of bringing forward allocation to limit time on debate again?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my colleague is talking about competition because we know all about competition in Quebec. Consumer protection is a value that Quebeckers hold dear. Right now, Quebeckers who are looking at my colleague must be thinking that the Bloc Québécois will certainly support a bill that promotes competition.

One of the problems we have seen recently involved the food sector. Bill C‑56 would give more power to the Competition Bureau to investigate, to undertake a comprehensive study. I am sure that Quebeckers at home are thinking that the Bloc Québécois will certainly vote in favour of Quebeckers because, if it believes in competition, it believes in Bill C‑56.

Bill C‑56 will create new tools to help Quebeckers. I am sure that people at home listening to us today are convinced the Bloc Québécois will do the right thing and support Bill C‑56.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister is getting all worked up talking about competition, saying it is important to promote it.

I have a proposal for him to promote competition. In Quebec, a lot of small businesses need help. We asked that the deadline for small businesses to pay back the emergency business account be extended by one year. Due to inflation and what they lived through with the pandemic, they are not able to reimburse the loan so quickly.

The government said it would grant them 18 days. What are they going to do in 18 days? They cannot do much. We proposed that the government extend the deadline for small businesses to reimburse the loan. We also offered to help in expediting passage of Bill C‑56. The government refused.

Is it telling us it has decided to abandon small businesses in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the member, but let me repeat in English what I said in French. Do they know how much we consulted on that when it came to competition? There were 120 days of consultation. Five round tables were held across the country. Four hundred submissions were received in 120 stakeholder organizations.

On the one hand, the Conservatives say they want more debate, consultation and time. On the other, they are trying to blame us for delaying. We are saying no. Canadians are saying no to them. They said no to them in the last election.

There is a time for consideration and debate, but there is also a time for action. Canadians want action on housing and affordability. Can they help Canadians for once? Bill C-56 is very simple; it is a bill for helping Canadians. I am sure people at home will look at the Conservatives and wonder whether they will do the right thing for Canadians once and for all.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the meantime, I am going to respond to that, because I know Canadians are watching.

My colleague is right. Yesterday must have been a shock to Canadians from coast to coast to coast, seeing the Conservatives voting against Ukraine in a time of war. Did they really vote against the Canada Ukraine free trade agreement? They tried to find excuse after excuse for it.

Now we are going to see if the Conservatives find another excuse to not help Canadians. Bill C-56 is simple: It would help people with housing and affordability. I am sure Canadians are asking whether the Conservatives will ever do something for them.

Conservatives have the opportunity of a lifetime. It is just before Christmas. They should give a gift to Canadians by voting for Bill C-56 and letting us move forward in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, that is exactly what we are doing. There have been five days of debate, which adds up to 20 hours. I am listening to the member, and I hear him. He says we must act, and that is exactly what we are trying to do. I hope the Bloc Québécois will be with us.

My colleagues need to remember that there were 120 days of consultations on competition, including five round tables and 400 submissions. Nearly 120 organizations filed submissions. We consulted all the stakeholders. Today, we are asking the House to move forward.

Canadians also agree with the member. They want us to forge ahead. We expect the Bloc Québécois to vote in favour of Bill C-56. That way, we will be able to push forward and reform the Competition Act, which has not been updated in 37 years.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is music to my ears when I hear that from the party blocking everything.

We can imagine that folks at home are watching, and they are saying that the Conservative Party of Canada voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. I am sure people at home are asking what is going on in Ottawa these days. They want to know what kind of Conservatives would vote against a nation that is fighting for democracy on behalf of all of us.

My hon. colleague is right; he brings words of wisdom to this House. Bill C-56 is about helping Canadians with housing and affordability. Will the Conservatives ever vote in favour of Canadians? We are going to be watching them.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I hope all Canadians watching at home are looking at this debate. They would agree that there is a time to consider and a time to debate, but also a time to act. I have been saying that to Canadians and even to the Leader of the Opposition. There is only one thing he can do for Canadians, which is to vote for Bill C-56. Why? The Conservatives would be well advised to listen to Canadians.

Canadians have told us that the two things they are concerned about are housing and affordability. That is why we have already had 20 hours of debate over five days. Imagine that. Canadians at home need the help contained in this bill and are wondering why members of Parliament have been talking about 20 days. I think Canadians watching today want action and that is what we are going to deliver.

Fall Economic Statement

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words from the member for Elmwood—Transcona on calling out the extent of the disappointment on housing time and again. We saw it again this afternoon. I give credit to the NDP on Bill C-56, which was able to negotiate a fix to ensure co-ops would have access to that really important measure.

When we see this happen time and time again, at what point is enough enough? At what point do we say that the juice is not worth the squeeze and that we need to make sure more gets done on housing, along with so many of the other challenges our country faces, and we need to make sure the government does better and more?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Standing Committee on Finance. We just spent the last week touring western Canada. We visited every region to hear from people. All the organizations, the chambers of commerce, the organizations representing SMEs are asking for the deadline to be extended by one year. It is the same in Quebec. We hear it everywhere.

When we speak with the ministers individually, most of them agree with this call. Most of them do not understand the Minister of Finance's reaction. That is what is throwing a wrench in the works. The Minister of Finance and senior civil servants are saying that it is going to be expensive.

We have been leading the charge for quite some time. We just want to be the voice of the SMEs we represent. We were ready to negotiate with the government. For example, if the government wants Bill C‑56 to pass, in exchange, we would like the government to extend the deadline by a year. With all due respect, we wish the NDP had followed our lead. I hope they keep this example in mind so that, in future negotiations, they can ask for this in exchange. It would be a big win for SMEs. It would mean 20% fewer bankruptcies, according to figures from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. It would make a big difference.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to remind the House that this is an economic statement. It is not a budget. As we know, a budget sets out the government's policies and presents the legislative, fiscal and budgetary measures required to implement them. An economic statement has a more modest purpose. It is supposed to present the evolution of the economic and fiscal situation since the last budget.

What this statement now tells us is that the deficit may change according to the government's forecasts, contrary to what the Parliamentary Budget Officer had calculated, which is worrisome. The statement outlines the government's response to these changes. There is not much there. For example, at the end of the summer, the Prime Minister asked the new President of the Treasury Board to cut $15 billion from various departments in order to balance the budget. They promised to give us an outline by mid-October. That did not happen. We were expecting to see it in the economic statement, but all they are doing is putting things off again without any concrete targets. Another objective has been missed.

What is the purpose of an economic statement? It is used to present the measures the government plans to take to deal with the emergencies that have cropped up since the last budget. There have been quite a few emergencies since the last budget. The economy has changed a great deal. There is a lot of struggling and difficulty. The economy is not doing well. Many people are affected by that. We were really expecting the minister to address the major emergencies that have come up since the last budget. Unfortunately, this is such a missed opportunity that we might wonder what the point is in having an economic statement. I will come back to that. There are several emergencies that we could have focused on that were simply not even mentioned in this statement.

I will give another example. The first chapter has to do with housing. While we are short on housing and social housing and the situation is desperate, we find out that there will be $37 million in cuts this year. For next year, not one penny more will be added to what was already presented in Bill C‑56 to get rid of the GST on social housing construction. We will have to wait two years to see the $54 million and $1 billion promised for subsequent years to tackle housing. Is that enough when we know that most of that $1 billion is money that was already announced and not spent? It is unfortunate.

A few weeks ago, we presented our requests to the minister. What we asked the government to do in the economic statement was to respond to existing emergencies, the urgent situations that we are currently facing. Take, for example, homeless people. As we know, it is starting to get cold outside. This morning, the temperature was below zero. There are people who are sleeping in tents and in the streets. It is truly awful. We are asking the government to do what Quebec did in its fall economic statement and to allocate emergency funding to immediately address homelessness. We want to set up an emergency fund to help cities and municipalities support homeless people in their area and give them the resources they need to do so. There is nothing about that in the economic statement. This is a real emergency that we are dealing with, and yet we have here a government and a minister who are ignoring the real emergencies. There was no response to that request in the economic statement.

On the housing front—and I will come back to this in more detail later—we provided the minister with ideas of how to create an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations and set up an interest-free or very low-interest loan program to stimulate the construction of social and affordable rental housing. Our program could be easily implemented and rapidly deployed without costing the government a fortune. The main measure being announced here is that builders who want to develop a real estate project will be allowed, in partnership with their financial institution, to pay only the interest on the loan and will not have to repay the capital until the building is built and sold.

While this would improve liquidity somewhat, it is not really something that was asked for by the groups that we heard at the Standing Committee on Finance, for instance. At the end of the day, we do not think it will contribute to building additional housing. Let us just say that the impact of this remains to be seen, and we do not see it in this statement.

We know that seniors are in dire straits. With the current inflation rate and what was announced this morning, the consumer price index is not as high as what we have seen over the last few months and the last few quarters, but it is still above 3%. Low-income seniors and seniors in general are struggling, and we need to restore some measure of fairness.

The government decided to increase old age security for seniors aged 75 and over. However, since then, with my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, who is our critic for the rights of seniors, we have been saying that fairness must be restored. The increase must start at age 65. People who are struggling need this support, which will not be enough to make up for the lack of indexing to inflation or to the average wage that the program originally offered. Still, it could give seniors a little breathing room in the current inflationary environment.

The repayment of CEBA loans is another urgent situation. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, or CFIB, chambers of commerce and many organizations representing SMEs are raising the alarm with elected officials in the House and with the government. They are asking that the deadline be extended by another year. These loans were granted during the pandemic, but after the pandemic, SMEs have had to deal with rising inflation and a difficult economic recovery. Many of them are falling further into debt. Now, the government is asking them to repay their loan or they will lose the grant portion.

According to the CFIB's numbers, approximately one in five SMEs could go bankrupt if the deadline is not extended. When we asked the minister about that, she said that it would cost too much. No serious studies were done to determine what it would cost the government, the economy as a whole and society if as many as one in five businesses went bankrupt as a result of this.

We in the Bloc Québécois are willing to bet that pushing the loan repayment deadline back one year would be much more profitable. It would strengthen the economy in the sense that it would prevent a lot of predictable bankruptcies. A few weeks ago, the Journal de Montréal published an assessment of the risk for each region. My riding, in the north of the Lanaudière region, was particularly at risk, given the minister's refusal to extend the deadline for repayment of CEBA loans by one year. That is very disappointing. We tried and tried to negotiate with the government. We could not get access to the studies it had used to make that decision because, as we understand it, there were no such studies.

In the end, the government chose to team up with its natural ally, when we could have come to an agreement in exchange for that condition, which would have greatly helped our SMEs. The government chose to turn its back on struggling SMEs. We can only conclude that the government's ally did not really care about that too much.

There are other emergencies. As I said, the purpose of the economic update is to respond to existing emergencies.

We can think of our media. Small, local and regional media, newspapers and radio stations are struggling. They are falling one after the other. The situation is catastrophic. Even the bigger media outlets are having a tough time. We do not even know if they are going to make it to Christmas or next summer. The situation is that dire. We saw the sad announcement of upcoming layoffs at Groupe TVA, with more than 500 employees affected. Even the biggest media outlets are struggling to overcome the crisis. We called for an emergency fund for the next few months at least, but that did not happen either.

Also, in order to resolve an inequity, we called for an end to fossil fuel subsidies. We are talking about tens of billions of dollars. That has not been done either, which is appalling.

Let us talk about other extremely important points. Since 2015, this government has been promising a complete overhaul of employment insurance. Once again, it has been postponed indefinitely. A year and a half ago, we were told that it was coming in the spring of 2022. After that, they said it would be no later than that fall. Now there is no mention of it, and nothing has been done. I naively wanted to believe the Liberals' promise. Let that be a lesson to me. Nothing has been done, and now they will not even dare talk about it. Shame on me for believing a Liberal promise.

When it comes to EI reform, a specific concern was also raised that once again has to do with the need to respond to emergencies. This summer, there were forest fires everywhere. That means that a lot of seasonal workers in the forestry industry were unable to accumulate enough hours to qualify for EI during the season because they could not work in the forest. We brought this to the minister's attention. This is an emergency and the government needs to be a bit flexible. The government needs to do something and to think about those workers, and yet there is nothing in the economic statement to address this emergency either.

We often asked questions in the House, and I personally drew the minister's attention to an issue that my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has been working on. The government announced $1 billion for a school breakfast program for children. The money was promised during the announcement, but it has yet to be delivered so that the program can be implemented. Inflation is high, and more and more children are going to school hungry. It is time for the government to pay out the money it announced. The government could have already dealt with this emergency, but this, too, was not urgent enough for the minister.

Many of my colleagues talked to me about regional infrastructure needs. Nothing more is being done. There is also the whole agriculture sector, which was hit by the flooding in some regions this summer. The produce and horticultural sectors are struggling. They are in serious trouble. Could existing programs have been adapted? The economic statement would have been the time to do that but, no, nothing was done. Once again, agriculture was not even mentioned in this statement.

There is a slightly technical detail that affects many artisanal businesses throughout our regions that could really change things. As we know, the government increased the excise tax on wine after Australian wine producers sued Canadian wine producers. Regulations on the matter are problematic. In legal texts, everything that is alcohol is called “wine”. The Bloc Québécois managed to get apple cider and mead exempted from the tax. That was a big win, and these producers are grateful.

Afterward we realized that if cider producers put a bit of pear in their drink, they have to pay the entirety of the tax. Producers of beverages made from maple alcohol also have to pay the entirety of the tax. As soon as there are a few small fruits in these drinks, producers have to pay the entire tax. It does not bother wine producers in Australia that we help our small artisans who produce these niche products. For two years we have been calling on the minister to settle this. I understand that she is busy, that she is dealing with many challenges, but at some point these are just formalities that need follow-up. This would only help better recognize the artisans without taking anything away from anyone, without frustrating anyone in Australia. It would be easy to do. This could have been implemented in the economic statement, but no, that was not done either and it is really disappointing and upsetting.

As I was saying, the government and the minister should have developed an economic statement to respond to the emergencies. I raised a few that have been brought forward by all of my colleagues here. It is not hard. How many of the emergencies we raised did the minister respond to? A big fat zero. I am referring here to a former minister I will talk about and quote. It was a former minister of Prime Minister Trudeau, the father of the actual Prime Minister. I definitely said “actual” and not “actuary”.

Speaking of actuaries, let me emphasize that the employment insurance fund surplus has doubled. Once again, workers have to pay to fill the government's coffers.

Let us come back to the urban affairs department. What is it? In the economic update, the government has chosen to create a new department, which my leader dubbed the “department of interference” because it deals with housing. It is interference, pure and simple. It is similar to what Pierre Elliott Trudeau did when he created a ministry of urban affairs. Its minister was Mr. Ouellet. That is why I am drawing attention to it.

This is a quote from a Library of Parliament research document:

Accordingly, in March 1971, Prime Minister Trudeau appointed a Minister of State for Urban Affairs, who took on responsibility not only for CMHC but also for a new Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (MSUA). Given the inescapable constitutional limitations [of interfering with provincial jurisdiction], this ministry had no program responsibilities...

Today, the government is bringing this department back. We can see where this is going. The Library of Parliament document continues as follows two paragraphs later:

This...eventually led to the downfall of Trudeau's intervention in federal-municipal relations.

A bit further on, it reads, and I quote:

In view of the Department's lack of credibility and the government's desire to cut expenditures, the MSUA was abolished on 31 March 1979.

Is that what awaits us with the creation of the new department announced in this economic update? As my colleagues have said, that is definitely what we can expect.

Let us talk about some other aspects of the economic statement. Over the past few weeks, we have been seeing a squabble play out between the Liberal government and the Conservatives in the House. The Conservative Party is all about slogans and is always pointing out problems. The Conservatives made a suggestion on housing. What is it? It involves punishing the municipalities and the provinces. The Conservatives are saying that, if the municipalities do not build 15% more housing units, then the federal government should hold back infrastructure funding. For example, this year, housing starts in Quebec decreased by half. That means that, were the Conservative Party in power, it would have cut the province's infrastructure funding by half. They are real winners, as my colleague said.

The Liberal government's response to this proposal is to use it themselves. In the statement, it is clear that they are using the same approach. In other words, they are threatening the provinces and, indirectly, the municipalities. The statement says that if they do not build enough housing, transfers will be cut off. My goodness, does the Liberal government want to go back to the Stone Age, too? I wonder.

There is one good measure involving Airbnb. The government wants to bring it in line with municipal regulations. It is going to be difficult to enforce, but there is hope. I am not simply criticizing everything. That is a good measure. As I was saying about the $15 billion in budget cuts, it was supposed to happen in October. However, the plan hatched by the government and the President of the Treasury Board is not even mentioned in the November statement. As I was also saying, we brought up a number of urgent matters, but none of them have been resolved here. There is no plan for dealing with the emergencies. Clearly, the Liberals do not understand what an emergency is.

I will say it again: Each and every one of the Bloc's demands and the urgent needs expressed by Quebeckers has been ignored. Clearly, this government, this Prime Minister and the finance minister are confusing fiscal restraint with inaction when it comes to emergencies. It is all going to cost us more in the end.

Again, the purpose of an economic update is to take stock of the economic situation since the presentation of the budget and announce solutions for the emergencies we know about. This statement does not address the many changes and does not fix anything. This is such a missed opportunity that we wonder why the government even bothered.

Thanks to the Liberals, things will get worse before they hopefully get better.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-56 certainly, I think, after some improvement by New Democrats, would help a bit with the housing crisis but would not solve the housing crisis.

The fall economic statement is an important opportunity to make further progress on both the housing crisis and the affordability crisis. Funds have been depleted for social housing that need to be replenished, and there is further work to do on strengthening competition laws in Canada. Are these initiatives that we are going to see in the fall economic statement, or are Canadians going to be left waiting again?

Government Business No. 30—Proceedings on Bill C‑56

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party of Canada could do a huge favour for Canadians today. Conservatives could recognize that there are two very important pieces of legislation that we are debating and allow both pieces of legislation to ultimately pass.

Bill C-56 is there to deal, in good part, with the housing crisis and price stabilization. These are things that are in the best interests of Canadians. Later this afternoon, we will be debating the Canada-Ukraine agreement. It is the same thing. These are—

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

Madam Speaker, this is the second opportunity I have been afforded to address this very important legislation. I want to start by commenting on when the legislation was introduced for debate earlier this morning, at which time the member for St. Catharines stood in his place and indicated that he would be happy to share his time with me.

I expected and hoped that, at least in part, there would be a general feeling that this is a substantive piece of legislation, which will have a very positive impact for Canadians. One would think that there would be support on all sides in favour of the legislation.

The member for St. Catharines, who is a little wiser than I am, pointed out in his comments that the Conservatives are filibustering, preventing legislation from passing. It was interesting that, when he pointed that out, he also referred to the fact that there are Conservative members who support the legislation and will be voting in favour of it. He then cited a specific member who indicated he would be voting in favour of the legislation.

After the member for St. Catharines spoke, I had the opportunity to speak. Based on previous experience, I also referred to the fact that the Conservatives have this natural inclination to prevent legislation from passing, even when they support it. A Conservative member across the way, speaking during Private Members' Business, made his perspective very clear in his opening comments. At the time, we were debating a private member's bill on a different issue, which is not government legislation, but he was critical of the government for not debating important issues.

I agree in the sense that the issues he referred to at the time, during Private Members' Business, were housing affordability and inflation. He may even have mentioned groceries. Within five minutes after the Conservative member sat down, we brought forward this piece of legislation, Bill C-56. If we read the title, it is about affordable housing and groceries. If we listen to what members opposite are saying, we would think they would be a little more sympathetic in terms of seeing the legislation passed.

Here is the catch: What did the very first speaker on Bill C-56, the member for Bay of Quinte, choose to do? He stood in his place, said a few words and referred to my speech, in which I referred to the efficiency argument in the legislation, which I will get back to. He referred to my saying that and said that is a very good part of the legislation. He acknowledged that. Then, toward the end of his speech, what did he do? He moved an amendment, with the real purpose of ensuring that there would be additional debate on this legislation.

Someone might ask what is wrong with a little more debate. On the surface, there is nothing wrong with it. However, people who follow not only this legislation but also many pieces of legislation that the government brings forward will know that the Conservative agenda has nothing at all to do with what is in the best interests of Canadians. For the Conservative Party of Canada today, it is all about putting roadblocks in place and the members doing whatever they can to assassinate the characters of government members and prevent legislation from passing. It is as simple as that.

That is why the Conservatives brought forward an amendment. What does the amendment actually say? It says:

...and the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, and the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities be ordered to appear as witnesses for no less than two hours each....

Every member of this House is very much aware of their opinions and thoughts on the economy, inflation and housing, as the ministers themselves have commented on the issue in different forms. The purpose of the amendment is, again, just to prevent or slow down the legislation's passing.

The Conservatives have no reservations in doing this. I appreciate that it gives me another opportunity to address the legislation. I look to the member for Bay of Quinte and thank him for allowing me to express myself a little more on the legislation.

At the end of the day, some members have said they support the legislation and other members have said there is good stuff in it. There is no reason why the Conservative Party should be attempting to prevent this legislation from passing.

Let us look at what is happening around us. If we want to support Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it, and if we want to look at how we could support low-income Canadians, in terms of getting into non-profit housing or even, in this situation, purpose-built homes, there is good stuff in here. Increasing competition is a good thing. Conservatives talk about that, but their actions are very different.

We introduced the legislation this morning, with the idea of having three hours of debate; maybe the Conservatives would see the light and the advantage of helping Canadians and would allow the legislation to pass. However, that is not the case.

It is just like one of the other pieces of legislation that really surprises me: the Canada-Ukraine agreement. We are going to be debating that legislation. It is scheduled for this afternoon. What is the Conservative Party of Canada going to do to prevent that legislation from passing? Will it bring in another concurrence report?

We have even had members in the chamber accuse the Canada-Ukraine agreement of being woke legislation. They have portrayed Canada as taking advantage of Ukraine, even though the President of Ukraine came to Canada and had a ceremony with the Prime Minister to sign this agreement.

There is no one steering the Conservative Party today on policy, ideas or things that would help Canadians in a very real and tangible way. Conservatives are more concerned about bumper stickers than they are about good, sound policy. A good example of that would be in trying to figure out what the Conservative Party of Canada stands for on the issue of the environment. I said, “What is the policy on the environment?” Members across the way just heckled, “Axe the tax.” That is what I mean about bumper stickers.

The reality is that the leader of the Conservative Party and his entire group are more concerned with social media posts, which are often very misleading, if I am being kind, and the bumper stickers they could use in the next election, as opposed to being concerned with what is in the best interest of Canadians.

This legislation, Bill C-56, is good legislation. We finally have a government that is trying to address the issue of affordability and stability of grocery prices, and the Conservatives do not want the legislation to pass.

Earlier, I brought up the issue of competition and how Canadians benefit through competition, and this legislation would provide the opportunity to take away efficiency as an argument that could be made by companies to acquire other companies. The example I used earlier was grocery stores. In Canada, as I am sure members know, we have five major grocery stores: Metro, Loblaws, Sobeys, Walmart and Costco. Those are the big five. We used to have Shoppers as a separate entity until Stephen Harper and the current leader of the Conservative Party thought there was nothing wrong with Shoppers being acquired by another company. That reduced competition.

On the one hand, we hear the Conservatives talk about the benefits of competition, but on the other hand, when it comes to voting for legislation that would help with competition pass, what do they choose to do? They choose to filibuster the legislation. They do not want to pass the legislation. That is why the member for Bay of Quinte moved an amendment. It is to prevent the legislation from passing. It is so they can continue to debate endlessly. As a government, we will have to go to the New Democrats or the Bloc to negotiate bringing in time allocation to pass this legislation, or it is not going to pass.

On the one hand, the Conservative Party will be critical of the government because it wants to see more competition, yet when it was in government, it allowed Shoppers to be acquired, with no questions asked. It was an acquisition worth billions of dollars, and its members allowed it. Then, when it has come time for us to be able to deal with those kinds of acquisitions, they are now preventing the legislation from passing. Many would suggest that is somewhat hypocritical, myself included, but it does not meet their agenda.

I ask members to take a look at what the legislation actually does. It would provide a GST exemption for purpose-built homes over the next number of years. That initiative is expected to see tens of thousands of homes being built, and that would be a direct result of this legislation. As I indicated earlier, the idea is sound and it is good. The Conservative Party of Canada should support it.

We are seeing provincial governments recognizing that this initiative is good, and they are applying it to the PST too, the provincial sales tax. We have provinces of different political stripes, and we have the Liberal government, the NDP and the Bloc all supporting that initiative. On the other hand, we have the reckless Conservatives, who feel that their job is to prevent legislation of all forms from passing in the House. I would argue that it is at a great expense to Canadians.

When we think of the housing issue, it is of critical importance. I have heard about it being of critical importance from all sides of the House, but when there are initiatives, whether legislation like this, budgetary measures that support housing co-ops and organizations such as Habitat for Humanity, the transfer of billions of dollars to provinces and non-profit groups to assist in subsidizing units, or the housing accelerator fund and the monies allocated for that, the consistent thing we get from the Conservative Party is that they vote against them, or they filibuster. In the meantime, Conservatives have the tenacity to suggest we are not doing enough on the housing file.

The reality is that no government in the last 60-plus years has been more proactive on the housing file than this government has been. No government has, and the numbers will clearly show—

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

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we are defending small businesses. We wrote the minister. We raised the issue. There are many things that we would like the government to do but that it will not do.

When we negotiate, we are not sitting in front of a mirror. We negotiate with a government that has its own priorities. Naturally, we propose things that it is opposed to.

I do not understand why the government wants to go after the small businesses that needed a loan during the pandemic. I do not understand why the government believes that it will get more money by causing bankruptcies. The government is clearly headed down that road even if it makes no sense.

We negotiated with the government to obtain what could be obtained. Regarding the loans, we do not think that it is something the government is prepared to do. I believe that the government is on the wrong side of this issue. I do not think we could have come to an agreement about this in Bill C‑56.

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

Madam Speaker, I find it hard to understand. I hear my NDP colleague boasting about the amendments obtained in Government Business No. 30 pertaining to Bill C‑56. These are amendments that are going to be made to the bill and are elements that are important to the NDP. However, the points contained in this motion could very well have been brought as amendments at committee stage.

The Bloc Québécois was calling for something important, namely financial flexibility, particularly for small businesses, with respect to the Canada emergency business account that was provided during the pandemic. A lot of businesses are asking us for this, and a lot of SMEs are telling us they need it to survive.

Why did the NDP not want to defend that?

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak to today's motion. As will come as a surprise to nobody in this place, Canada is facing a housing crisis. It is not a recent housing crisis but, as time passes, it gets worse and worse.

My father used to offer an anecdote regularly, particularly when talking about the environmental crisis we are facing. He would talk about lily ponds. One of the features of the growth of lily pads is that they grow exponentially.

It starts with one and then, the next day, there are two and, the next day, there are four. The lesson, both for the environmental crisis, and I do not want to diminish that in any way, and also for the housing crisis and where we find ourselves in the housing crisis, is that the day before the entire pond is full of lily pads, it is only half full.

To a spectator who does not know anything about exponential rates of growth for lily pads on the lake, they might come by the lake and say, “There is a lot of lake there. There is lots of time. Certainly, the lily pads are coming in but it is not that bad. We still have half the lake.”

As I say, there is an important lesson when it comes to the environment and the climate crisis we are facing and the accelerating rate of change. It is also important to understand the housing crisis. We are now at the point where the lake is full. We do not have any more time to act. We have to start repairing the situation right away.

There is the sense of urgency. It is why, when we came back to the House after summer, we were pleased to see the government had an idea that it wanted to move forward with respect to housing, something new and tangible that New Democrats and many stakeholders have been calling for for a long time, which was to eliminate the GST on purpose-built rentals.

For our side, we wanted to see that done as part of a comprehensive housing strategy. We certainly do not agree that what the Liberals have called a national housing strategy since 2015 is that. It is clear that it is missing many components and that even the components that are there have not been effective in meeting the challenge that we face in Canada.

We were glad to see the government taking some good ideas from stakeholders and, indeed, from the NDP, saying that it is something that it wants to move forward on.

Our problem was that we knew, with respect to the changes to the Competition Act, that they were inadequate. We know this because our own leader, the member for Burnaby South, has done a lot of work on the Competition Act and proposed a suite of changes to the Competition Act right around the same time.

We wanted to see the changes proposed to the Competition Act and Bill C-56 take the stronger tone that our leader has taken. Our leader does not shy away from taking that tone when it comes to talking back to corporate Canada and letting it know that we see the role of government as requiring it to do right by Canadians, not exploiting its market position to gouge Canadians.

That is something we are not shy about and we believe the government should not be shy about it. It is why we run to form a government that is not shy about taking corporate greed to task.

In the meantime, we want to get as much done in that regard as we can, working with the Parliament that Canadians elected.

There was work to do on strengthening the Competition Act provision. When it came to housing, we wanted to see a more comprehensive strategy and more initiatives, particularly to focus on building more non-market units in Canada.

No matter how many market units are created, there are going to be a lot of people who cannot afford or cannot access those market units. When we build non-market units, whether that is in co-op housing or whether that is social housing, where rent is geared to income, or whether it is investing in projects alongside the private market, to ensure that there are at least some suites that have a below-market value, whatever the combination of those things is, we know that this also helps relieve pressure on the housing market.

There are people who are sacrificing their prescription drugs and food in order to pay market rent. When they get an option to be able to rent a home that meets the needs of their family and allows them to have money left over for essentials like food and medicine, that frees up market units for those who can afford them but may, nevertheless, be struggling to access them.

One glaring oversight in Bill C-56 was that it excluded, without any good reason, co-operative housing from getting a break on the GST for purpose-built rentals. That was something we definitely needed to fix, and we have received a commitment from the government to fix it at committee, along with some changes to strengthen the Competition Act.

All we have to do is look at the latest case of the Rogers-Shaw merger to know how frustrating it is for our Competition Bureau to do its job. It could not compel evidence from Rogers or Shaw, which would change here, as the Competition Bureau would be empowered to require certain kinds of evidence from the folks they are investigating. This would also mean that when the commissioner of competition believes a market study is required, the bureau would be able to embark upon it on its own initiative, something we think is very important. We also argued for tougher fines for companies that break the rules, and tougher fines not just generally but also for recidivist corporations that do not learn the lesson the first time. Those penalties would increase to deter companies from continuing to do things they know full well they should not be doing. The government has agreed to this suite of changes, and we will continue to press.

Another thing we think ought to have been included here in respect of the GST exemption were projects that had already received a commitment of some kind of funding through the various programs of the national housing strategy. We know that not enough projects are getting funded under that strategy as it is, but some of the ones that have been funded have been put on hold. Why? It is because of rising interest rates. That means for a project to proceed, people have to find more money. They either have to do that through private fundraising, which is very challenging to do at the best of times, or have to increase the amount from government grants in a project. They could benefit from the GST exemption as well, and we do not think they should be excluded just because a project started before September 14 of this year.

We think extending the GST rebate to non-profit housing projects that the government has already agreed to fund to make projects work, after a year of punishing interest rate increases, is a small thing the government can do to ensure that people out there in our communities, who are already doing great work to build housing that Canadians can afford, do not have work stymied by rising interest rates and can see something in their budget that makes it work. Removing the GST is the simplest way to do that.

The government will collect no GST from these projects if they do not move forward, because the business case is being ruined by rising interest rates. We think waiving the GST for projects that are otherwise not going ahead is a very low-cost way to ensure that the government delivers on promises it has already made by allocating funding to the projects that have stopped because of circumstances beyond their control. That is not a fight we are prepared to give up on. It is something we think should be happening, and we are going to continue to argue for it.

However, we are not insensitive to the fact that a lot of folks have announced that they want to move forward with new purpose-built rentals as a result of the GST rebate the government is offering in Bill C-56. We know that we are already well past the time to contemplate how to act. We know this is a demand that stakeholders in the housing industry, whether they advocate for market-based housing or non-market-based housing, have talked about as a way to pencil out projects, so it is something we need to move forward with.

There was an opportunity to move forward quicker if debate on the bill had collapsed, but of course it is not collapsing because no debate on bills is collapsing in this place. The official opposition sees to that daily, whether it is by moving motions to take time away from dealing with government business or by putting up speakers ad infinitum. It ensures that we need some kind of time allocation or closure just to get to the point of having a vote on a bill.

When we are talking about a crisis that is in full swing and the need to build more market housing and non-market housing, New Democrats are prepared to work with the government to move the bill through far more quickly than it has been. We will use the opportunity here to improve the bill, as we believe it is our duty to do.

We would go further if we could, but there is only so far we can go with the Liberal government, apparently. However, we are willing to test how far we can go every day of the week and are going to keep fighting for the things we think are very important, including fighting for new announcements in the fall economic statement around housing that make more funding available for organizations that want to pursue non-market housing, and offering financing on better terms for those who want to build more rental housing in the market but are struggling to make projects work from a financial point of view because of rising interest rates.

That is a bit about why we think Bill C-56 is important, how New Democrats have worked hard in this place over the last couple of months to improve the bill, what we are going to continue to fight for and why we think, now that we have reached some agreement on improving the bill, it is important to move it forward. The contractors out there waiting to pick up the shovel and put it in the ground need the deal done on the GST and want to see it move ahead. We think it is important that it move ahead. We think it is important those units come to market and Canadians have the opportunity to rent them. We want to see them come to market in sufficient volume so there is a lowering of their price.

We know that is going to take time, but delay will not help. We have been delaying already for too long, certainly for eight years under the current government, which is after 10 years of delay and no meaningful action in the housing market from the previous government, and even longer before then, going back to the mid-nineties, when the national housing strategy was cancelled and we saw the federal government completely walk away from building social housing units in Canada. That is when the first lily pad started hitting the pond, so to speak, and it has taken us 30 years to see the pond fill, with really no more time to wait to enact important solutions.

Is there more the government can do? Absolutely. We want to see it get rid of the special tax treatment that real estate investment trusts enjoy. We want to see it take action to make sure that non-profits with experience and a great track record of delivering non-market housing in our communities have access to capital so that when buildings with low rents come on the market, they have an opportunity to bid on those buildings and have the money to close a deal successfully to make that happen. The term of art for that is a non-profit acquisition fund. It is a fancy term, but all it means is making sure the non-profit housing providers in our communities, which are already doing a great job, have the opportunity to run low-rent apartment blocks when the current owners do not want to do it anymore, instead of having a corporate landlord come in, superficially renovate the building, kick everyone else out and invite tenants with higher incomes to rent suites that were formerly homes for Canadians who cannot afford luxury rent prices.

Those are some of the things we think the government ought to be doing. We are not going to get them all done in one bill, but we managed to improve what is in this bill, and we think it should hurry along so we can bring more units to market.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are seeing another phenomenon that keeps happening fairly regularly. We can no longer call it a phenomenon really. I would say it has become routine: another Liberal time allocation motion supported by the New Democratic Party. As we know, imposing time allocation is very democratic. I invite them to consider changing the name of their party.

Bill C‑56 was supposed to be the magic solution to the cost of living crisis we are dealing with. That is what the government said. The government introduced this bill two months ago and failed to convince the opposition parties to adopt it quickly. That must be because the bill is not that good.

I would like my colleague's opinion on the fact that the government, who claims to have a miracle bill to address the housing crisis and the cost of living crisis, is telling us that it needs time allocation and two months to be able to take action.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and paying my respects to the Cree nation following the death of Charly Washipabano, who was a member of Hockey Abitibi‑Témiscamingue's board of directors and a program coordinator with the Eeyou Istchee Sports and Recreation Association.

I am rising in connection with the debate on Government Business No. 30, which seeks to impose a gag order and make amendments to Bill C‑56. This bill, which aims to eliminate the GST on the construction of rental housing and amend the Competition Act, was introduced in the House in September by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

The government's motion authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance to expand the scope of the bill in order to amend it in three ways.

The first amendment would increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, which amends the Competition Act and contains several elements that would become obsolete with the passing of Bill C‑56. The motion proposes to “increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum)”. In the case of a large company, the maximum penalty could be even higher, up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the practice.

The second and third amendments deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies. As currently worded, the amendments being submitted to the committee have no real effect. The goal is to “allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced”.

The Competition Bureau has significant powers. It can compel witnesses to appear, demand documents and request searches if necessary. However, these powers are available to the bureau only when it is investigating a clear infringement following a formal disclosure. The investigation then becomes quasi-criminal. However, when the bureau is conducting a study to determine whether competition is working properly in a given field or market, it has no such powers. For example, in its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June 2023, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. They refused to hand over the documents it had requested and refused to answer some of its questions.

Government Business No. 30 includes a proposed technical amendment to the way the Competition Bureau can conduct a market study, although it does not change much from current practice.

The third amendment will “revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market”.

Everyone knows that there is a serious housing crisis in Quebec and across Canada. We often hear about rising prices and housing shortages in major urban centres, in big cities, but it is also an issue in rural regions and smaller towns. The housing crisis is in its 18th straight year, and its impact is being felt more and more in the towns, villages and communities of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. In Val‑d'Or, for example, the vacancy rate is now around 1.4%, adding pressure to the average cost of rent, which has jumped by 5.4%.

The housing shortage, combined with higher rent, is directly impacting the most vulnerable, by which I mean people living alone, single-parent families, women, young people, seniors, first nations and Inuit people, immigrant families, and persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, some of these people often end up having to stay in shelters longer or live in apartments that do not meet their needs, and that is unacceptable. We also need to consider the growing number of people left homeless by this crisis. It is important to find real solutions to this problem. The ongoing housing crisis is adding to the already pressing needs, and the homelessness problem is only getting worse.

The social housing stock is also aging. The government needs to upgrade and renovate it as quickly as possible, while ensuring that rent remains completely affordable for the low-income families living there now or in the future.

The government's national housing strategy, which was launched in 2017, falls far short. The funding allocated for social housing, both to maintain existing units and to build new ones, is not enough to meet the needs of all the nations.

When it comes to housing, there is nothing to indicate that Government Business No. 30 will add any value to Bill C-56 in terms of lowering rents.

It would be surprising if a property owner decided to lower rents just because they did not have to pay GST on the new building they bought. What is more, it is important to remember that the cost of higher mortgage payments will likely be passed on to renters.

I understand the minister's intention in moving this motion, but the measure to provide a GST rebate on the cost of labour and materials will apply to future rental properties, regardless of the market value and rental prices.

I represent Nunavik, where residents experience the impact of the housing shortage in many persistent ways. In Nunavik, 47% of Inuit live in overcrowded housing, compared to 7% for Quebec as a whole. This means their situation is seven times worse. The housing problem in the Far North is nothing new. Nunavik has been short on housing since the 1990s, when Ottawa stopped funding housing construction for five years. We have never caught up since, and now that has to change.

We have a moral responsibility, from one nation to another, to ensure that Inuit communities have decent housing. Housing is definitely one of the most important social issues in Nunavik. It is not uncommon for five, six, seven, eight or even more people to live together in a two-bedroom dwelling. If one of these people has social problems, the entire family is affected. The situation is far from ideal for raising children and supporting their education.

There can be up to three generations living in one house without much privacy. This has numerous consequences for their quality of life. Some 98% of Nunavik's Inuit residents live in social housing provided by the Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau. Approximately 1,000 families are hoping for housing, yet only about 100 units are built each year. Construction costs are astronomical, at least three times higher than in southern Quebec. Materials arrive by boat, and it is difficult to build more than 100 homes a year. Even at that rate, we cannot keep up with population growth.

It is important to note that, in my community, the housing shortage is also affecting the economy. Large mining and forestry companies would like to bring workers to the region. However, they hit a brick wall when it comes to housing. Companies have no choice but to reserve homes and rent housing for fly-in, fly-out workers, which reduces housing availability for the rest of the population.

As the families, children and social development critic, I feel it is important to address the impact that the housing shortage is having on families and children.

In its eighth report on housing and poverty in Quebec, the social housing group Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain states that three out of five renter families have had to cut back on activities, clothing and even groceries in order to pay their rent. According to the same report, no less than 30% of parents with children aged five and under live in a home that does not meet their needs, often in terms of space, because of the lack of housing in their price range.

What is the government waiting for? Why does it not take action now? The situation is urgent.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sorry, but I did not understand my colleague's question. I was not listening to the interpretation and it was hard to hear him. I will just mention something that I meant to address in my speech on Government Business No. 30 concerning Bill C-56.

We spoke about supply and demand, but the problem is that when it comes to the housing crisis, the government never talks about demand. It always talks about increasing the supply. Increasing the housing supply will take a long time, but the demand may increase rapidly as a result of the actions the government is taking.

The government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. It wants to increase the demand by significantly increasing the number of people coming to Canada from abroad, but it cannot claim that adding more people will cost less money. If more people are added to a saturated market, then that is going to create more pressure. The government needs to take that into account.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin my speech by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. That is a rather long riding name. Many riding names are quite long. Mine certainly is, and so is hers.

Today we are debating Government Business No. 30. It is a government motion to shorten the debates on Bill C‑56, which seeks to implement a rebate of the GST on the construction of residential rental properties. The bill also seeks to give the Competition Bureau more power to conduct an inquiry. Notably, it could force the procurement of documents, which was not previously the case.

Unfortunately, we are debating government business instead of the bill because the government decided to impose closure yet again. We are faced with another gag order. Sadly, the current government seems to want to govern by gag order. It is one gag order after another. Obviously, the government will argue that it was meant to stop the Conservatives' filibustering. I am not saying that the Conservatives never filibuster, but we get a sense that this procedural device is being abused.

In the current case, we in the Bloc Québécois were open to speeding up debate. The government said that doing so might help build housing faster. It said that the measures in Bill C‑56 to strengthen the Competition Bureau's powers could make a difference. We were sensitive to all these things. We are very open to studying Bill C‑56, but we had other concerns too.

One of our concerns, and we have been repeating this for weeks, has to do with the emergency business account that was launched during the pandemic. It was meant to support small businesses by offering them a $40,000 loan. Twenty-five percent of that amount, or $10,000, was forgiven if the loans were paid back within three years. The problem was that, following the pandemic, there was a supply crisis and an inflation crisis, not to mention the fact that interest rates have gone up considerably. The economy is struggling even more now. Those businesses were already struggling during the pandemic, because many of them could no longer operate for health reasons. We must stand together as a society, which is why that program was put in place at the time, and we agreed on it.

However, the government did say that these businesses would have to pay back their loans. We agree that businesses should pay them back. A loan is meant to be repaid at some point, but it is important not to put Quebec businesses at risk. We have to use our brains a little and be somewhat flexible in how we do things.

I mention this while we are debating Government Business No. 30 regarding Bill C‑56, because we told the government that it should be giving Quebec businesses more flexibility. In return, we would have been prepared to fast-track the passage of Bill C‑56. Unfortunately, the government did not listen to the Bloc Québécois. It decided to let Quebec businesses fail. It will continue to leave them in jeopardy, even though people from my riding talk to me about this every week. When I am out and about in my riding, people tell me that things are not going well, that their sales are lower than expected, that things did not return to normal like they thought they would and that money does not grow on trees.

Unfortunately, the government has not been sensitive to that. We have been asking questions in the House about this for weeks. Members on the other side have responded by saying that they extended the deadline, but they extended the deadline by only 18 days.

I doubt that 18 days is enough time for a small or medium-sized business to rake in $40,000 in profit. There is no way. Unfortunately, that is what we are looking at with the Liberals.

Instead, the government decided to turn to the NDP. As we all know, the NDP can be bought quite easily. They give the government everything it wants. Unfortunately, we are stuck with the reality that Quebec businesses are going to pay because of the Liberals and the NDP.

The Bloc Québécois will continue to push for our companies to have more flexibility in repaying the Canada emergency business account so that, come January 18, the banks are not waiting for them. I can just picture them, big smiles on their faces, telling companies that they can get their $10,000 back by simply taking out a high-interest loan. Considering the significant jump in interest rates, we know full well that there are plenty of companies that will not make it through.

To come back more specifically to Bill C‑56, earlier I talked about getting rid of the tax on new rental housing construction. The government claims this is going to fix the housing crisis. Maybe not exactly, but it claims that it will make a big difference.

The Bloc Québécois has a few concerns. Will this make a difference? It may make a difference in making some projects more profitable than they were as a result of interest rate increases. It may help, but we would have liked to see a study done on this. Did the government do a study on the impact that this bill might have on the price of housing and on its availability? No, it pulled this bill out of its hat. Since we are in a housing crisis, it decided to make a quick announcement and that is what it did.

This will likely have a positive impact on housing construction, but we do not really know because we have no baseline data to confirm the result.

I have another point. In a supply and demand market, there is typically a going price for housing. Right now, that price is very high. Homes are being sold at a high price, but unfortunately, some people would benefit from lower prices. I say unfortunately, but that might be an exaggeration. What I mean is that this could have an unfortunate impact. There is absolutely no guarantee that this much-touted 5% cut to the GST on new housing construction will impact social or affordable housing. In fact, there is zero chance that it would be used for social housing because that type of housing does not qualify.

For example, if a city decides to build social housing, it is already exempt. The proposed measure will not work. The same thing applies to co-ops or non-profit organizations. There is already a type of exemption in place. This will not benefit them. Therefore, it will not result in social housing or low-cost housing. On the other hand, it will certainly help the construction of expensive housing.

The government says that it may take care of the specifics through regulations. We look forward to seeing those, but there is no guarantee. We have no guarantee that the exemptions that will be granted will be used to build reasonably priced new housing. They could be used to build units that rent for $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 a month. I cannot even say $2,000 a month anymore because that is practically considered affordable housing nowadays. Unfortunately, the government thinks that it is going to fix the housing crisis, but this bill is no silver bullet. I find that unfortunate.

I also want to talk about the Competition Bureau. Not so long ago, the minister said in the House that he would fix the problem. He said that he had spoken with the grocers and that there would not be an issue anymore, that grocery prices would drop. The week after, he said that he had checked the flyers and seen some great discounts. He claimed to have fixed the inflation crisis by checking the flyers one week and speaking with grocery CEOs. He should have spoken with families instead. The inflation crisis is not over.

Some elements of this bill will give the Competition Bureau more oversight over large companies. This change will not necessarily happen overnight, however.

The same goes for this much-vaunted 5% rebate. It is not going to solve the problem in the short term. The effects of this measure will be felt more in the very long term. We therefore expect—

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

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise to speak to the types of things the government can do to support Canadians in all regions of the country. We are witnessing that Bill C-56 is a substantial piece of legislation with an intent to support Canadians.

Unfortunately, as my colleague has pointed out, the Conservative Party has chosen, once again, to use this legislation as a way to slow down the process of proceeding and prevent the government, wherever it can, to allow legislation from ultimately passing. I will hold my breath in the hope that the Conservatives will wake up and understand the reality Canadians are facing.

We often talk about the issue of inflation. There is no doubt that inflation is hurting people. Yes, it has improved. If we look at the bigger picture and compare Canada to the United States, France, the G7 or even the G20 countries, we are doing relatively well regarding our inflation rate on a worldwide basis. Since June of 2022, we have had an inflation rate of just over 8%. If we look at the last number of months, we have made significant gains in bringing down that inflation rate. We are focused on doing that because we recognize the harm it causes to our economy and, most importantly, to Canadians. That is one of the reasons we have been very targeted, whether with legislation or budgetary measures, to give those breaks to Canadians. We want a government and an economy that works for all people.

Unlike the Conservative Party, we believe in Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be a part of it. We understand and appreciate the importance of lifting people out of poverty. We have demonstrated that with hundreds of thousands of children and seniors. We recognize the harm it does. That is why I look forward to the fall economic statement that will be coming out tomorrow from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, who has been out in the communities to get a better understanding and a better sense of the types of actions we can take as a national government to provide relief wherever we can to support Canadians.

The fall economic statement we will see tomorrow will be a reflection of what we have been hearing, whether from individual members of Parliament bringing back their concerns to Ottawa or the consultation work that the different ministers, in particular the Minister of Finance, have been doing. We are doing this because we understand the pressures that are on Canadian families. It is the reason why we have developed programs of a national nature, such as the affordable $10-a-day child care. It is the reason why we have brought in programs such as the grocery rebate program.

When we think of Bill C-56, we should think of two aspects: housing and groceries. Fighting to stabilize the price of groceries is important to the government. We often hear about how we need to improve the Competition Act. Bill C-56 is an attempt to not only improve it today, but also to continue to look at ways we could modernize it.

One of the significant improvements we are seeing today in this legislation is the use of the efficiency argument so that the Competition Bureau does not have to listen to companies saying that, for efficiency purposes, they need to buy up a company. If members think about it, at one time we had six major grocery suppliers, and we are now down to five. Why are we down to five? It is because, when Stephen Harper was prime minister and the leader of the Conservative Party sat around that cabinet, Shoppers was bought out for billions of dollars, so we went from six to five.

Even today, we hear Conservatives say that the way to ensure lower prices is to ensure that there is more competition. This legislation would go a long way in getting rid of the efficiency argument, so we would be better able to ensure there would be more competition.

I would like to think that most people in the chamber would recognize that as a positive thing. It is one of the reasons we should not have to wait endlessly and accept the ongoing filibustering of the Conservative Party. If they are serious about the cost of groceries, and if they are serious about wanting to stabilize grocery prices, Conservatives should be supporting the amendments to the Competition Act that are being brought forward, amendments that would enhance the Competition Bureau's ability to protect the interests of Canadians and of consumers. Actions speak louder than words. We look to the Conservative Party to start taking action.

On the other part of the legislation, we often hear Conservatives talk about the issue of housing. We often hear them raise the issue. However, when it comes to taking action, again, they sit on their backside and do nothing but filibuster. This legislation is good, sound, solid legislation. The proof is in the pudding. Let us think about it. The federal government, through this legislation, is saying that for purpose-built rentals, there would be no GST.

It is a sound idea. I can say that because we have provincial entities in Canada today that are copying what Ottawa is doing, but with the PST. In part, we need to recognize that, when it comes to the issue of housing, it is not just the federal Government of Canada that has to deal with the issue. The federal Government of Canada has a role to play. No government in the last 30, 40 or 50 years has played a stronger role in housing than the Prime Minister and this Liberal government. No government has.

If we are talking about a disaster, we could look at the previous Harper government and the lack of attention the Harper government gave to housing. We could contrast that to today's government, which has brought in a national housing strategy, the first of its kind, with billions of dollars of investments.

We could talk about what the government has done to support housing co-ops and other non-profit organizations in building non-profit housing, as well as our investment in tens of thousands of housing units. When I say “tens of thousands”, it is well over 150,000, so it is a bit of a guesstimate. I would say it is probably closer to 250,000 units the federal government continues to support, based on income, at least in good part, by working with provinces.

We talk about the housing crisis, and the Liberal government's approach is to work with the stakeholders and with provinces and municipalities. The Conservative approach is to hit them with a stick. The Liberal government plays an important role, which I believe we have been fulfilling, not only with legislation but also from a budgetary perspective. We are actually materializing and demonstrating that leadership.

However, cities also need to play a role with things such as zoning. Provinces also have to play a role. We are working with other jurisdictions. We have brought in programs through the housing accelerator program that ensure there is a higher sense of co-operation on the housing file.

I can assure the House that our government, whether it is the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers or the Liberal caucus as a whole, will continue to deal with the issues of inflation, the price of groceries and affordable homes the best way we can. As a government, we are concerned and care about Canadians and their well-being. That is why we work every day to try to make a difference, working with different levels of government at the same time.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad I could help bring the House together on that potentially controversial point about the member for Winnipeg North.

The Conservative member who just spoke was concerned that we are not addressing the housing crisis. I have great news for the member and for the House. We are debating this motion on Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. I am sure he will be thrilled to vote in favour of it.

After months of Conservative filibuster and delay and over 20 hours of debate over five days, it is clear that the Conservatives have no intention of allowing Bill C-56 to get to a vote. During question period, for 45 minutes of the day, the Conservatives pretend to care about affordability issues for Canadians, but when the rubber meets the road, they are nowhere to be found. They delay, delay, delay.

It was surprising to hear the member who spoke just before me say the Liberals are not prioritizing this. He does not look back to this own members and his own leader to ask why they are not getting Bill C-56 through fast enough to help provide relief to Canadians. This is despite the fact that many of his own members support Bill C-56, such as the Conservative member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, who more than a month ago committed in this House to voting in favour of the bill. Here is what he said on October 5: “I will be joining my Conservatives colleagues in voting to move this bill forward to committee”. That was 46 days ago.

Given all this, I look forward to hearing what is going to be said today. Before my Conservative colleagues rise, I would like to remind them of what this bill does, because I think some of them may have forgotten.

We know that the rising cost of groceries and lack of affordable housing are affecting families across the country. I am pleased to discuss some of the ways we are addressing these important issues through the measures outlined in Bill C-56.

We know that for too many Canadians, including young people and new Canadians, the dream of owning a home is increasingly out of reach and paying rent has become more expensive across the country. The housing crisis has an impact on our economy. 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 like groceries.

Bill C-56 would enhance the goods and services tax rental rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences across Canada. The enhanced rebate would apply to projects that began construction on or after September 14, 2023, and on or before December 31, 2030, and that complete construction before 2036. For a two-bedroom rental unit that is valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rental rebate would deliver $25,000 in tax relief. This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing we need for families to live in.

The measure would also remove restrictions in existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, public colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profits, that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing are permitted to claim the 100% enhanced GST rental rebate. The government is also calling on provinces that currently apply the provincial sales tax or the provincial portion of the harmonized sales tax to rental housing to join us by matching the rebate for new rental housing.

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. 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, with about 100,000 units total, by speeding up development and approvals through fixing out of date permitting systems, introducing zoning reforms to build more density and incentivizing development close to public transit. Every community across Canada needs to build more homes faster so we can reduce the cost of housing for everyone.

We also need to stabilize the cost of groceries in Canada. With the one-time grocery rebate in July, we delivered targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families who needed it the most, with up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and up to an extra $234 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors. This support was welcomed by Canadians, but we knew more needed to be done to address the cost of groceries.

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

Bill C-56 builds on other measures that have been introduced to make life more affordable for Canadians, including delivering automatic advance payments of the Canada workers benefit, starting in July 2023, to provide up to $1,518 for eligible single workers and $2,616 for an eligible family, split between three advance payments and a final payment after filing their 2023 tax return; supporting about 3.5 million families annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit, with families this year receiving up to $7,437 per child up to the age of six and up to $6,275 per child aged six through 17; and reducing fees for regulated child care by 50% on average, delivering regulated child care that costs an average of just $10 a day by 2026, with six provinces and territories reducing child care fees to $10 a day or less by April 2, and strengthening the child care system in Quebec with more child care spaces.

This government is taking action, and again, more often than not it is the Conservatives voting against, holding things up and delaying committees with filibuster after filibuster. It is shocking to see, especially because it is blatant hypocrisy. I am sure we will hear speeches about how important it is to provide relief to Canadians, but when will members opposite speak to the Leader of the Opposition and their House leader to say that we need to get this legislation through?

I will not hold my breath that they are going to do that. We have been seeing for a lengthy period of time delay after delay. When will the actions of the Conservative Party match the rhetoric that occurs during question period? Granted, its members love a good slogan, but let us take a look at their voting record. All of the things I mentioned, they have either held up or voted against. They do not care. They only care about chaos in this place. It is unfortunate, because I believe some of them truly do care about their constituents and want to see these benefits flow to them.

Some have said they are going to vote in favour of this legislation, but they remain silent when their leader holds it up in this place. This legislation has been debated quite a bit. The filibuster needs to end. It is time to move forward.

The new proposed housing and grocery support I outlined today would make it easier for Canadians to build more homes and would help them thrive. It would help families with the growing cost of putting food on their table. The passage of Bill C-56 would help us provide a brighter future for Canadians.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, as we all return to our respective ridings to mark Remembrance Day and honour the men and women who proudly fought and died to defend our country, I have a few questions for the government House leader about the work that awaits us.

I especially hope that she will have an answer for the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who asked us forcefully and adamantly during question period today precisely when Bill C‑56 would finally be passed. I refer the question back to the government House leader since this bill has not been called in the House since October 5. Can the government House leader tell us when she intends to call Bill C‑56?

It will certainly not be tomorrow or next week, since the House will not be sitting. Could she tell us what business awaits us when we return from our constituency week?

Grocery Industry

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, we did even more than that. For the first time in Canada's history, we called all the CEOs to come to Ottawa to tell them one thing. We expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians, and we expect everyone to do their part, including signing the grocery code of conduct to help stabilize prices in Canada.

However, there is one thing that the members on the other side can do to help Canadians, which is to vote for Bill C-56 so we can reform competition and ensure that we have more competition in this country. Why will they not act?

Public Accounts

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been plenty of legislation that Conservatives have agreed with and voted for. There were bills on disabilities, child care and extending COVID support payments. If it is good legislation, we will vote for it. In fact, the Liberals have legislation they still have not brought back to the House, such as Bill C-56, which Conservatives have indicated they would support.

Canadians were told that Liberals could not cut or pause the carbon tax for any Canadians because of fires, floods and hurricanes, and I want to know how any member in the Liberal Party sleeps at night. How does the member sleep at night knowing that they paused the carbon tax on heating oil when just six months ago, they said they could not pause anything because of hurricanes, floods and fires?

Innovation, Science and Industry

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and members of the House will have an opportunity to do something for Canadians. I have asked the Leader of the Opposition to do one thing for Canadians, which is something that he does not do very often, but that one thing is to vote for Bill C-56. Canadians will be happy to learn that Bill C-56 would reform competition by giving more power to the competition commissioner, removing the mergers that are harmful to competition and removing the clauses that are hurting competition.

We want more competition and lower prices in this country.

Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a genuine consensus of agreement in the legislation and the principles of the legislation, yet the Conservatives continue to want to prevent the House of Commons from being able to pass legislation with all forms of filibustering. A good example of that is Bill C-56, something that we debated earlier today as part of a private member's bill where members on all sides were talking about the importance of competition. However, Bill C-56 is yet another victim of Conservative filibustering.

I wonder if my friend and colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to the filibustering that takes place, which hurts Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to answer the question again. There were 11 meetings at committee to talk about that and 20 hours of debate. This has been debated at committee. People had the chance to debate it, but now that the debate is taking place in the House and everyone agrees, it is time to vote.

Canadians watching at home are saying there were 20 hours of debate in 11 committee meetings and 20 hours of debate in the House. Members had the chance to debate it, and they said that they agree with the amendments. Now they are asking why the government is asking them to vote on it. It is to protect Canadians' national security and make sure we have modern tools in the tool box.

There are real questions, which I know Canadians are asking. What is the hidden agenda of the Conservatives? Why would they want to block legislation? Why are they blocking Bill C-56, which would reform competition? Why are they blocking amendments to the Investment Canada Act?

When it comes to national security, members need to forget their political affiliations and do what is right for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the question. I wish I could answer it. I do not know, honestly, because Conservatives agreed to the legislation and the amendments. They support them, yet they do not want to vote.

I am glad Canadians are watching. They must be wondering at home why the Conservatives agree but do not want to vote. What is the logic of that? The only thing I can find is that they want to obstruct the work of Parliament. They want to delay everything. They will not even allow Bill C-56 to pass, which we talked about before, to make sure we reform competition.

They say that Canada should work at the speed of business, and look at them this morning. What about the speed of business? What about voting on something they want? Find the logic in that. Folks watching at home are wondering why Conservatives agree but do not want to vote for it. It is very tough for me to understand that. I am sure my kids, who are watching at home, would ask how that is possible. That is the real question we are asking. Why do they not do what is right for Canadians? They supported the amendments. They support the bill. We had 44 witnesses. We had 20 hours of debate in the House, 11 meetings at the INDU committee and 20 hours of witnesses.

As I said, there is a time for debate, but there is also a time for action. The time for action is now.

Lowering Prices for Canadians Act

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

Mr. Speaker, this weekend in my riding I was at the Saint‑Janvier Optimist Club, whose mission is to work for youth and children. I want to take this opportunity to commend Linda Cardinal and the entire team who work very hard for children.

Attending this type of event always allows us to reconnect with people, the business community and community organizations, and I find it interesting that we are talking about competition in the House today because I heard people talking about that on Saturday evening. I was at that event with people from the Mirabel Chamber of Commerce, who came to see me to tell me that every year, there is a gala for entrepreneurs in Mirabel, but that this year the gala will not be held because the entrepreneurs are in over their heads, because businesses are extremely worried as they wait for extensions and flexibility for their emergency loan and because for some members the survival of their business is potentially at risk.

If we want to increase competition and stimulate entrepreneurship, and if we want people who enter stores and businesses to be able to shop—we talked about mergers and acquisitions that reduce the number of businesses in the market—then we need to make sure small and medium-sized businesses can survive and breathe and enjoy some flexibility. I find it mind-boggling that, out of all the parties that have spoken today, not one so far has asked the government to extend the deadlines and show flexibility when we know this would immediately increase competition.

I ask the government once again to show some flexibility. What it has shown to date is complete disregard for our entrepreneurial base. The government says it has shown flexibility, that it took measures during the pandemic and invested significantly. Yes, but the current economic circumstances are exceptional, as they were during the pandemic. Times are tough. This must be extended.

That said, it is true that we have a bill in front of us that is good for competition. It is time we started talking about our competition regime. What does this bill do? It increases penalties for some anti-competitive behaviour. We need tougher, more meaningful penalties. It changes the competition regime for Canadian businesses, big multinationals, when they merge with or acquire other companies, so that consumers and the price they will pay are considered in the Competition Bureau's decision-making process. It allows the Competition Tribunal to issue additional, broader orders so that mergers, acquisitions and so on can be more easily prevented. It extends the limitation period for the review of mergers and acquisitions from one year to three years.

These are good measures given our ailing competition regime. We talked about this during the debate on Bill C‑56. Around the world, when there is a major merger or acquisition, competition authorities ask two general types of questions. The first is, how will this make things more efficient? Will these businesses, which are expanding and increasing market concentration, operate more efficiently? That is a legitimate question. The second type of questions is, considering that consumers will have fewer places, fewer stores where they can shop, do they risk being fleeced? Could they end up paying more? Could there be an increase in the cost of living? Do consumers risk being held hostage by this smaller number of larger businesses?

Canada's system is unique in the world in that the Competition Bureau is not allowed to ask this second type of questions. As a result, in certain markets, such as grocery stores, we have seen market concentration, merger after merger, acquisition after acquisition. It is now at the point where there are three major grocery stores in the market, not including Walmart and Costco, even though Canada is a G7 country. When the minister invited representatives from these big companies, they were all able to sit around a small coffee table, in 10 square feet. That is just one example of the disease plaguing our competition system.

HSBC Bank Canada is the perfect example. It is selling its subsidiaries around the world because it needs cash. What is happening? HSBC is selling its subsidiaries and, obviously, it is the biggest, strongest player that is most likely to buy that bank, especially since we know that the mortgage market is struggling and some banks are vulnerable. The system is already vulnerable.

The Competition Bureau is keeping an eye on that to determine whether there are efficiencies to be had. Of course, there are efficiencies to be had. We do not have to have an honorary doctorate, like the member for Trois-Rivières, to know that. The biggest bank is going to buy the portfolios of customers from other banks. It will own the mortgages and will be able to close branches and reduce the number of players in the market. HSBC will likely not have any storefront locations after the merger or acquisition. It will be the same bank with the same customers. It will provide the same loans, with the same employees and the same systems.

The Competition Bureau allows this because it will save money. However, not even the Competition Bureau is authorized to check on whether this will reduce competition, and consumers are the ones who end up paying. What is interesting is that the government even recognized that. With Bill C-56, the message is that Canada's competition regime needs to be changed, because consumers have been getting shafted at every turn for decades.

The Competition Bureau allowed this to happen under the old rules. This has made it to the desk of the Minister of Finance, who is about to sign it. If I were the Minister of Industry, I would really feel like I was a laughingstock. It is imperative that this transaction be put on hold until we see whether Bill C-56 passes, depending on the will of Parliament, so that the Competition Bureau can reissue a notice under the new rules of Bill C-56, taking the consumer into account. That is why it is so important to review our competition system.

Bill C-352 looks at supply chains, which is a good thing. We experienced this during the pandemic. We know that when there are mergers and acquisitions, transactions often involve head offices elsewhere and there is a risk that foreign suppliers will replace local suppliers. A few years ago that was not seen as dangerous. However, with the closures during the pandemic, we realized the extent to which consumers’ buying power in Quebec and Canada could be weakened by supply chain disruptions in the event of a major shock to international trade. We have come to realize that, sometimes, it is good insurance to have local or national suppliers. It is a very good thing.

Furthermore, we will be able to give the Competition Tribunal some power to cancel mergers and acquisitions. We realized after all that, because the Competition Bureau’s advisory opinions are not always perfect, consumers were being cheated far more than people thought. Some trial and error is involved here, and, often, when the Competition Bureau has not taken everything into account, when circumstances have changed, the consumer ends up paying.

They say that a transaction will be cancelled if it takes the new company that merged or made an acquisition to a 60% market share. That could be at 30%. We are not sure where these figures come from, but we think this deserves to be properly assessed in committee and, perhaps, be amended. That said, the bill does leave the tribunal a lot of latitude to take other criteria into account.

There is also the dominant market position issue. Until now, companies with a dominant position have been prevented from forcing their competitors to not do business with some suppliers. A number of practices have been blocked, but nothing prevents these companies from abusing their dominance and charging prices that are too high. We know that when a company gains market power, when it becomes a monopoly or comes close, its first reflex is of course to raise prices excessively high, because the consumer has no other place to shop. The consumer is stuck with one brand, one company. In some regions, there are very concentrated markets where the consumer is stuck with one company.

What this bill shows is that the competition regime is in serious need of reform. Most of all, it shows that Canada's competition regime has been favouring business and capital, not consumers, for decades. With today's cost of living, the importance of putting consumers at the centre of our thinking, at the centre of our approach, is not lost on anyone.

I would therefore like to thank the leader of the NDP for introducing this bill. We will be pleased to debate it in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canada has a competition problem. I think we all know this; it has been repeated over and over today in the House. After eight years, Canadians pay the highest prices in the world for almost every good and service they can imagine. Canadian monopolies are making money on the backs of hard-working Canadians. It is not corporate greed; it is government incompetence driving these changes with the unwillingness to change the Competition Act, as well as the carbon tax driving up the prices of almost every good and service.

We can look at all of it. Canadians pay the highest cellphone bills on the whole planet. We pay three times as much as the Australians and twice as much as people do in the U.S. and in Europe. For Internet, we pay some of the highest fees. When it comes to rural Canadians, seven million Canadians, 60% of them do not have high-speed Internet. When it comes to trying to get high-speed Internet, most of them get it from the sky, from Starlink and Xplore, which are owned by American companies. With banking, six banks control 80% of all the mortgages in Canada. For airlines, 85% of all of them are controlled by two companies in Canada.

We are talking about the highest grocery bills. A 50-dollar basket in Canada is only $35 in the United States. A decade ago, we used to have eight Canadian grocery companies, which has now been whittled down to only three Canadian companies and two American companies that control 80% of all the groceries in Canada. Even for beer, we have InBev, Molson Coors and Sapporo that account for 90% of all the beer sales in Canada. What a travesty that this is controlled by three companies.

If we look at the top 20 Canadian companies, the average age of those companies is 110 years. The average founding year for Canadian companies is 1914. In the U.S., the average age is 80 years, and the average founding year is 1944. Of the top five biggest companies in Canada, our oldest is RBC, which was founded in 1864. In the U.S., it is in Microsoft, which was founded in 1975. We have major monopolies that have controlled all Canadian markets. They control everything Canadians buy. After eight years of the government, the Prime Minister, coupled with the NDP government, is just not worth the cost, literally, for almost everything Canadians buy.

Why do we want competition? Competition is freedom. It is freedom of choice. Families can decide where to put to put their money, their hard-earned tax dollars. That always means better service. It always means lower prices. However, to have freedom, one needs to have courage to change the rules and to break up the trust to stand up for Canadians' wallets.

The Competition Act is the culprit. It is outdated. It was meant to be based on an industrial 1960s-style policy that was meant not for competition in Canada but for competition in the world. We wanted Canadian companies to get as big as possible in order to be able to compete internationally. That meant we made sure all our big companies, starting from the founder, the Hudson's Bay Company, which was the original monopoly, were a big as possible and ensured those companies could compete. However, at the invention of free trade and as we have gone global in the world, we have never changed the Competition Act, so the Competition Act, in fact, protects only large companies. It protects them to get bigger, and at the end of the day, Canadians pay the highest fees on the whole planet.

After eight years, here are the mergers that have been approved by the Competition Bureau. Air Canada was approved to buy Air Transat. Rogers was approved to buy Shaw in 2022. WestJet bought Sunwing, which was approved in 2022. Bell was approved to buy MTS. Superior Propane was approved to buy Canexus. Superior Propane was approved to buy Canwest Propane. Sobeys, in the grocery market, was approved to buy Farm Boy in 2018. Tervita bought assets from Babkirk Land Services in 2015. The most egregious, to me, is happening right now. It is RBC, which has been approved to buy HSBC. RBC, Canada's number one bank, with 21% of all the mortgages, has a hard time getting new clients. When it looked to buy new clients, of course it looked at the deal with HSBC, which had 800,000 mortgage holders, and said “Is this not a great deal?” and that it would love to buy it. Why would it not, with 800,000 mortgage holders? The Competition Act, based on outdated rules, said that this company was going to get bigger and saw nothing in these rules to stop the merger.

Let me tell members what this merger would do. Of those 800,000 mortgage holders, HSBC has 10% of all Vancouver mortgages and 5% of all Toronto mortgages. When we look at the housing markets in the world, Toronto is the number one hottest market in the world. Vancouver is the third-hottest market. The approval of this merger would effectively mean that, when we look at prices for mortgages, the lower mortgages by the scrappy competitor, HSBC, would be bought wholeheartedly by RBC. We will want to compare those numbers. RBC, last week, had a posted variable mortgage rate of 7.15%, HSBC at 6.4%. That is a basis point difference of 75 for a mortgage market, which may not have meant anything three years ago when interest rates were really low. However, when interest rates go higher, that means that a family in Toronto or Vancouver with a half-a-million-dollar mortgage would be paying, per month, $312 more, based on the fact that this competitor would be gone.

The Competition Act favours monopolies; it says so in the purpose statement. Part of the change in this is the courage to change the rules. Conservatives were the ones who came up with eliminating the efficiencies defence, the defence that allows, in the Competition Act, any big companies, regardless of their size and regardless of the merger, to be able to merge based on efficiencies. A lot of times, they were job markets or job losses. I know that the removal of the defence is a good idea because it was my idea, my private member's bill, which was introduced in the House on June 12, when it was read for the first time. It was scheduled to go the second time and the government first took it with Bill C-56. Now, of course, the efficiencies defence removal is coming under this private member's bill. Of course, this is a good idea. Conservatives are looking forward to presenting more good ideas as we look to tackle the Competition Act.

It comes down to one thing: do we stand up for the people or do we stand up with monopolies? When we look at the monopolies across Canada, we certainly have to be brave in terms of looking at how to tackle those.

When we look at grocery prices and grocery stores, only three Canadian companies, three Canadian grocery chains, own two-thirds of the whole market. They are Metro, Shoppers and Sobeys. We can look over the years at how that was able to occur. In 1986, Safeway was able to buy Woodward's. In 1990, A&P was able to buy Steinberg's. Sobeys bought IGA. That one is the most egregious to me. The Independent Retail Grocers Association is not independent; it is owned by Sobeys. We have Loblaws buying Safeway. Metro bought A&P. Loblaws bought Provigo. Amazon has bought Whole Foods. Metro has bought Jean Coutu. Sobeys has bought Farm Boy and Longo's. There is no competition in Canada; there are only oligopolies.

When it comes to the grocery sector, we also have another item, another piece, that makes it completely uncompetitive; that is the carbon tax. The carbon tax has added on for the farmer. The medium farm in Canada pays $150,000 in carbon taxes and gets no rebate, meaning it passes that cost on to the consumer. Truckers get a carbon tax added on to the price of fuel. They do not get a rebate, so that gets added on to the price for consumers. Cold storage facilities and warehouses all get a carbon tax added on to their heat bills and to their bills to freeze food and keep it cold. All of that gets added on for consumers. When the carbon tax gets added on one, two, three, four or five times, the food goes up one, two, three, four or five times. That is why, when we compare Canadian grocery prices to American grocery prices, Americans pay less; it is because they have no carbon tax.

Large monopolies should not be able to merge with one another. The large monopolies should not be able to gobble up other, smaller competitors. That is the key we are missing in the Competition Act. When we have large competitors competing internationally, that is one thing. When we have Canadian monopolies buying small competitors just so they can get bigger, just so that they can make more money on the backs of hard-working Canadians, that is wrong. To break that up and to change the Competition Act takes courage, and that is what we want to do as Conservatives on this side of the House.

Competition is freedom of choice and freedom of courage. Let us have the courage to change the Competition Act and to create competition for a change, for my home, your home and our home. Let us take competition and bring it home.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and address the issue that the leader of the New Democratic Party has brought to us this morning in the form of a piece of private member's legislation.

It is interesting to look at Bill C-56, a government piece of legislation. I think some of the principles are there. I look forward to hearing the feedback from my friends in the New Democratic Party with respect to Bill C-56. I believe that Bill C-56 is going to be able to make a difference.

Before I get into that, I think it is important for all of us to recognize a few facts. One is that Canadians are hurting in a very real and tangible way. We recognize that. If we compare inflation and the price of groceries in Canada to other places around the world, Canada is doing fairly well, but that does not mean that we just accept that. It is important that we continue as a government to look at ways to bring more stability to the prices of groceries, to even have an impact on reducing the cost of groceries indirectly, which is still important, and directly, provide that support to Canadians. An example of that would be in the last budget. In the last budget we had a grocery rebate. I believe over 11 million people directly benefited from that. That put more money in the pockets of people during a difficult time, ensuring that they would have that additional disposable income.

I would suggest there are many benefits throughout the budget that help Canadians with disposable income, such as the national child care program, the national dental care program, both brought in by this government, again, with the idea of ensuring that disposable income, which could go toward groceries, would in fact, be helped.

More specifically, in regard to the bill itself, when we think in terms of the big five grocery chains, Loblaws, Metro, Sobeys, Walmart and Costco, our government called them from the minister's office here in Ottawa and had them make a presentation to the standing committee in a genuine attempt for more accountability. That was relatively unique. We want to ensure that there is a healthier sense of competition and that consumers are not being taken advantage of, as we know that can take place. In fact, not that long ago, colleagues will recall when Canada Bread company was caught price fixing. Over the last couple of years that allegation was established and the company taken to court. I believe there was an agreed-upon fine somewhere in the neighbourhood of $45 million to $50 million. That was because the government does take this issue seriously.

Bill C-56 deals, in good part, with ensuring there is a healthier sense of competition. Let me give an example. They call it the efficiency debate. Members might recall that Shoppers Drug Mart used to be a stand-alone independent company, producing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in sales throughout the country. They used the issue of efficiency partly to justify the merger of Loblaws and Shoppers. That was the last real significant merger that we saw in the grocery industry. There is no doubt that Loblaws and Shoppers benefited immensely by that, using that particular argument. The ones who lost out were the consumers because there is less competition when two large companies form one, based on the issue of efficiency.

As much as the Conservatives criticize the Liberals, I will remind my friends across the way that the same thing happened while Stephen Harper was prime minister. It was the Conservative government that approved that particular merger. In good part, it was based on the efficiency defence. That is why Bill C-56, which I believe the Conservatives are filibustering, would change the game. I am not 100% sure they are filibustering it, but I would be surprised if they were not. We will have to wait and see, and maybe do a little more research on it. Suffice it to say that Bill C-56 would change the game, because we can no longer use the efficiency argument. We need to have more of a focus on Canadian consumers, and we would see that in some of the changes in the bill.

In Bill C-56, we would see more of an empowerment of the Competition Bureau, giving the bureau additional money and resources to conduct investigations to ensure we have healthier competition in a wide spectrum of areas. The best way to keep corporations more responsible, to prevent price-fixing and some of the shenanigans that take place, which ultimately shaft consumers, is to ensure there is healthier competition. That is why we looked to the Competition Bureau to give the legislation more authority, not only from a legislative perspective but also as a budgetary measure. As a government, we have invested more, into the tens of millions of dollars, so the bureau would be in a better position to conduct the investigations necessary to protect our consumers.

Over the last year, I have been invited to grand openings in the community, and one thing I really appreciate is that it is the small businesses of Canada that provide the backbone to our economy and that are so important to the whole idea of competition. I look at some of the ethnic grocery stores. I am a little reluctant to use the word “ethnic”, so I will say “community-based grocery stores”. Look at the impact they have in the community by providing additional competition, not to mention some wonderful alternative foods. In my community, there are a Punjabi grocery store and a Filipino grocery store that emphasize products from those two communities. Superstores nowadays are starting to broaden their selections, which I suggest has a lot to do with competition. Superstores will start to lose more and more of their market if they do not diversify the types of products they offer.

The same principles apply with regard to prices. We would encourage all opposition members to look at Bill C-56 as legislation that can and would make a difference for the consumers of Canada, for all of us because we are all consumers. The government is focused on having the backs of Canadians, in supporting Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it and in boosting up individuals who need to be boosted, while, at the same time, ensuring that the wealthiest 1% pay their fair share. It is one of the very first actions the government took in 2015; we raised the taxes of Canada's wealthiest 1%. We have the backs of Canadians and will continue to do so through legislation and budgetary measures.

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to try my hand at interpretation at this time of the day. All I understood was that there was some question as to whether the national housing strategy was the right measure, and whether it had accomplished its mission after five years.

Personally, I would rather ask the government the following question. There are five years left in this strategy. When we returned to the House of Commons in September, the housing crisis was already bad. The government wanted to respond by introducing Bill C-56, which aims to abolish the GST on the construction of rental housing.

The government is spending $82 billion on the national housing strategy, which includes several programs. That said, a strategy is meant to be adjusted when it is not working. I would have expected the government to ask itself how it intends to resolve this situation or help resolve it over the next five years by supporting Quebec and its municipalities when it comes to social and affordable housing. That is how it is. I do not expect them to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but I do expect them to make major adjustments to the strategy so it can achieve its objectives.

The Economy

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, our goal is to make life more affordable and ensure that companies pay their share.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry met with the CEOs of the big grocery chains and of domestic and international food producers to clearly explain the need for a more affordable grocery basket and improved competition.

I hope that all members will join us in expediting the passage of Bill C‑56 on affordable housing and groceries to improve competition in the food sector, among others.

Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, 2023

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this legislation was tabled in the House last week on October 17. I am hoping the member can enlighten me, because the government's own policy requires that before the tabling of legislation, 21 sitting days have to expire so that members of Parliament can take a look at the agreement before any enabling legislation is brought in. We did not have that presented to members of Parliament. We also do not have an economic statement.

The government has attached a lot of importance to Bill C-56, so I am just wondering why the government did not take the time to do those two key priorities. We have plenty of time to consider this legislation. Instead, maybe we should devote the House's time to Bill C-56, which the government often likes to complain is not moving ahead.

Requirement of Royal Recommendations for Bills C-353 and C-356

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise with respect to what the Speaker said on Thursday, October 19, when he raised two items for Private Members' Business that appeared to infringe on the Crown's financial imperative and asked members to bring forward interventions on these matters.

Without commenting on the subject matter of the two bills in question, I submit that Bill C-353, sponsored by the member for Thornhill, and Bill C-356, sponsored by the member for Carleton, both infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative and that both bills require a royal recommendation.

Subclause 21(1) of Bill C-353 relating to the programs to encourage co-operation provides that:

The Minister may, in cooperation with the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, establish and implement programs designed to encourage individuals to co-operate with the Government of Canada to secure the release of Canadian nationals and eligible protected persons who are held hostage or arbitrarily detained in state-to-state relations outside Canada.

Subclause 21(2) of Bill C-353 further provides that “the Minister may pay a monetary reward to the individual who provides that information in an amount and manner determined by the Minister.”

I submit, respectfully, that there is no authority in statute or in an appropriation to establish such a program set out in subclause 21(1), nor the authority to make payments subject to the provisions set out in subclause 21(2). Therefore, subclause 21(1), in toto, seeks to impose a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund in a manner that is not currently authorized.

Turning to Bill C-356, I submit that the repurposing of $100 million from the housing accelerator fund and the provision to give effect to a 100% GST rebate on the new residential rental property for which the average rent payable is below market rate both seek to infringe on the Crown's financial prerogative.

First, the housing accelerator fund was established as a program administered by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and is funded by a voted appropriation by Parliament through the estimates process. The member is seeking to change the terms and conditions and the purposes of the housing accelerator fund in a manner that is inconsistent with the program parameters as established and that therefore deviates from the authority granted by Parliament. The tabling of the main estimates and supplementary estimates is preceded by the recommendation of Her Excellency the Governor General for voted appropriations. That royal recommendation sets the maximum amount, the purpose and the terms and conditions of the voted appropriations contained in the estimates documents and voted upon by Parliament.

Second, the 100% GST rebate on new residential rental property would be a rebate paid out of the consolidated revenue fund for which a builder, landlord or buyer could claim the said rebate. I would point out that Bill C-56, which also proposes a 100% GST rebate for purpose-built rental housing, while different in design, was accompanied by a royal recommendation. Since, when brought into force, it would create a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund, it stands to reason that the program for which the terms, purposes and conditions of the GST rebate envisioned in Bill C-356 cannot rely on the royal recommendation provided with Bill C-56. Bill C-356 must, similarly, require a new royal recommendation to authorize a new and distinct draw on the consolidated revenue fund.

Carbon Pricing

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, what I can say with a straight face is that the Conservative Party has voted against every measure proposed by this side of the House to provide support to families. The Canada child benefit and every investment we have made in housing come to mind. We still expect the Conservatives to vote in favour of Bill C‑56, which will stabilize grocery prices and get rid of the GST on new housing construction.

On this side of the House, we are taking care of people every day.

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

Mr. Speaker, if they really wanted to pass Bill C-56, they would put it on the agenda. Since October 5, the Liberals have not called Bill C-56 for debate in the House. They should make a decision and stick with it. One would think they would have a better sense of what they want.

Meanwhile, the middle class knows what is coming. They are lining up at food banks. This morning, the newspapers were saying that food banks are desperate. In the last three years, food prices have risen by 23%.

Meanwhile, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois want to drastically increase carbon taxes. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly now, and it is going to get even more costly.

Will the Liberals abandon their plan to raise carbon taxes?

Financial Protection for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Farmers Act

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's fresh fruit and vegetable growers should be paid for the fruit and vegetables they grow, full stop. Bill C-280 will ensure that fresh fruit and vegetable suppliers are not unduly disadvantaged by the bankruptcy of a produce buyer.

The deemed trust established by this bill will also support the highly integrated produce trade between Canada and the United States. Farmers and other suppliers in Canada have been pushing for these measures for almost 20 years. The absence of a deemed trust has cost produce suppliers their farms and livelihoods and has jeopardized our domestic food security. With Bill C-280, we can finally change that.

This is a common-sense Conservative bill that has been supported by all parties in this House. I want to thank all members for that, especially the Conservative shadow minister for agriculture and agri-food, the member for Foothills; the chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the member for Kings—Hants; the member for Berthier-Maskinongé; and the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford for their support. It goes to show the cross-country support this bill has.

Bill C-280 will provide financial protection measures for those growing fruits and vegetables from coast to coast to coast. This includes asparagus in Quebec, sweet potatoes in Nova Scotia, and carrots in the soup and salad bowl of Canada, home to the Holland Marsh in my riding of York—Simcoe. Of course, this week we saw the leader of the official opposition clearly loved the Ambrosia apples in the great province of British Columbia. How about those apples?

I am also grateful to Ron Lemaire and Shannon Sommerauer from the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, Quinton Woods from the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada, Fred Webber from the Fruit and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation, Jody Mott from the Holland Marsh Growers' Association, and of course, my number one staff in Ottawa, Patrick Speck, who worked tirelessly on this bill with me, as well as my staff in the riding: Jennifer, Michael and Carol.

My thanks to Suzanne, my wife. I told her that it would all be worth it, all the long days and nights here in Ottawa, which I know all members can appreciate.

It is time we get this over the line. I urge members to support Bill C-280 when this is voted upon next week. I trust that legislators in that other place with the red carpet, who can be a little slow sometimes, will deal with it promptly, given the multi-party support for these measures. Like we say in York—Simcoe, “Be ready, Senators”.

Right now, Canadians are dealing with the high cost of food. With Bill C-56 and other measures, the government has been talking about stabilizing food prices. Bill C-280 is going to lower prices of fresh fruits and vegetables that Canadians need now, so we all need to get behind this.

Too often Canadians, especially rural Canadians, think we cannot work together in this place. They think we cannot get anything done and they believe that whatever is accomplished does not have any relevance to or impact on their lives. In rural communities, people band together every day. They are the foundation of what it means to be Canadian. They want to see this place work for them, they want to see the way it works for one another. I firmly believe that Bill C-280 sends a message to every produce farmer and supplier that we understand the issues they face and that we are committed to addressing them.

The hard work of passing this bill is nothing compared to the boots in the muck in the Holland Marsh, which all farmers face right across Canada, but I can tell colleagues this. We are going to get behind them with this bill. We are going to get it done. Let us get Bill C-280 passed for the farmers right across Canada.

Alleged Duplication of Private Member's Bill—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Greg Fergus]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte concerning Bill C-339 and Bill C-56.

Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence), standing in the name of the member for Bay of Quinte, received first reading on June 8 and was added to the order of precedence on September 20. Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, received first reading on Thursday, September 21, and is currently being debated in the House at second reading.

In his intervention, the member for Bay of Quinte noted that the government had presented a bill which contains the same provisions as his private member's bill. The member sought assurance from the Chair that, if required, he would have recourse to replace his bill with another item according to the provisions of the Standing Orders.

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it would be premature to consider the matter until the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had completed their work pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 and presented a report to the House.

Bill C‑339 contains only two clauses, which are identical to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C‑56. Bill C-339 seeks to repeal the provision of the Competition Act setting out the “efficiencies defence”, which prevents the Competition Tribunal from making an order if it finds that the likely gains in efficiency will be greater than the effects of any lessening of competition resulting from a merger.

Bill C-56 aims to repeal the exception brought about by mergers involving efficiency gains, while also establishing a framework to conduct an inquiry, permitting the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders, as well as amending the Excise Tax Act.

It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business held a meeting on Thursday, October 5, to determine whether the bills added to the order of precedence on September 20 should remain votable or not. While the subcommittee and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have not yet made a final recommendation to the House concerning Bill C-339, the official process has not yet run its course. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make any determination on this matter at this time.

There is an opportunity to resolve the concern raised through the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which are the designated bodies for considering items added to the order of precedence. I trust that the usual process will be followed in accordance with the rules and practices of the House. If a procedural issue remains after that process is complete, the Chair is open to considering the matter.

I thank all members for their patience and attention.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be very happy with my answer.

I hope that happiness will result in him supporting Bill C‑56 and not just giving a speech about it. The bill is good for Quebeckers and Canadians.

Tomorrow, we will begin second reading debate of Bill C-38, which deals with new registration entitlements. I am sure my colleague is very interested to hear that, on Monday, we will debate Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act. On Tuesday and Wednesday, we will call Bill C-57, the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement implementation act, which was introduced earlier this week.

Thursday, we will proceed with report stage and third reading of Bill C-34, concerning the Investment Canada Act. I assume that my hon. colleague is very happy with this news, and I look forward to hearing his speech on Monday.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have to admit you are putting a little pressure on me to produce a Thursday question that lives up to this House's reputation.

During Oral Questions, there were a lot of questions about Bill C‑56 and comments by government ministers about the Conservative Party's decision to support or oppose it. They urged us to support it. I would note that the government has not put Bill C‑56 on the House's agenda since October 5. I actually have an excellent speech ready about my position on Bill C‑56.

I would therefore like to ask the Leader of the Government if a discussion of Bill C‑56 is planned for next week's House business so that I can finally deliver my speech.

Housing

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a housing crisis in Canada. Our government is on the front lines fighting this crisis. We introduced Bill C‑56, which will eliminate the GST on the construction of housing and speed up residential construction across Canada. However, as we speak, the bill is still being debated in the House, which is causing delays in getting help to Canadians.

Can the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development remind the House how this bill will help Canadians who have been hard hit by the housing crisis?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the member could provide some clarity to Canadians. When the Conservatives talk about austerity and cutbacks, one of the issues they like to bring up in the House is that of housing. As a government, we are investing literally hundreds of millions of dollars in housing. In fact, we have Bill C-56 before the House now, which would allow for literally hundreds of thousands of new purpose-built rentals to enter Canadian markets over the coming years. On the one hand they say that we should not spend money, and on the other hand they say that we need to do something about the housing crisis.

Not only are we spending money, but we are also working with other levels of government. Does the member believe that the federal government should be spending money to ensure there is housing for Canadians into the future, or does she oppose that expenditure too?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives, at times, just want to put their heads in the sand and stick with their slogans and bumper stickers, quite frankly. The member talks about inflation. Back in June of 2022, inflation in Canada was at around 8%. In the United States, it was at 9%. Today it is 4% and 3%, or just under 4%. Let us put it that way.

The Conservatives will go around Canada and say that Canada is broken. Does that mean the whole world is broken? The Conservatives are so extreme. They like to get those slogans on the bumper stickers.

Does the member not believe she is misleading Canadians when she tries to give this false impression? Yes, inflation is hurting. That is the reason we bring forward good legislation, such as Bill C-56, which is legislation the Conservatives is filibustering. Why?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member started off by being critical of the amount of debt that the Government of Canada has acquired. They understand very clearly that most of the debt that was accrued was during the pandemic. Billions and billions of dollars were spent to support small businesses, individual Canadians, seniors, people with disabilities and so forth; the Conservative Party supported a lot of that. With hindsight, the Conservatives are saying we should not have spent the billions of dollars that they supported at the time. That is one issue.

Actions speak louder than words. The member says he is concerned about inflation. The government is also concerned about inflation; that is the reason we brought forward Bill C-56, which would provide literally hundreds of thousands of new homes in the years ahead for rental properties. The Conservatives' response is to filibuster the legislation. They will not even let the legislation pass. Why is the Conservative Party so out of touch with the reality of what Canadians are facing today?

Grocery Industry

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure members that there was nothing nice about my meeting with the five grocery CEOs in Canada. I expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians who are struggling to put food on the table, and I asked them, on behalf of all Canadians, to do their part to stabilize prices in Canada.

If all the members of Parliament want to do something to help Canadians, they can vote for Bill C-56. It is that simple: more competition, lower consolidation and more food on the table for Canadians.

Housing

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, the housing crisis, as we know, is underpinned ultimately by a crisis in supply or the lack thereof. What the government is doing is partnering with municipalities across the country. For federal dollars, municipalities have the chance to build more. In London, for example, 2,000 more units of housing will be built in exchange for a $74-million investment.

What we have also done is to put forward Bill C-56, which, if members look at it, is a serious bill that would remove the cost of taxes, of GST specifically, for rental construction. The Conservatives have nothing to say on that.

Finance

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, it seems the Conservatives once again failed to look at what we presented. We presented an action plan to stabilize prices in Canada. The first thing the plan will do is ensure that Canada's grocers are accountable to Canadians, something that the Conservatives would never have considered. We also helped consumer groups, another thing that the Conservatives would never have considered.

Will the do-nothing Conservatives at least vote for Bill C-56 to help Canadians for once?

Opposition Motion—Fiscal Plan

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Davenport.

I am thankful for this opportunity to take part in today's conversation and debate.

To say Canadians are living in a turbulent world would be an understatement. Right now, it is clear the rising cost of living is one of Canada's most significant economic challenges, and the last three years have been hard. Canadians, like most people around the world, have been unable to avoid the financial pain caused by the last few years, but despite all these challenges, the Canadian economy represents resilience and stability amid the tumult.

In so many ways, we are faring much better than our international peers. Our government is tireless in its drive to build an economy with stable prices, consistent growth and abundant good-paying jobs for middle-class Canadians, and we have impressive results to show for it.

There are currently more than a million additional Canadians employed today than before the pandemic. Both the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development predict that Canada will see the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year. Despite the global economic headwinds and slowing growth across the world's economies, Canadian growth in July was 3.3% above its pandemic levels. DBRS Morningstar also recently confirmed Canada's AAA credit rating.

Our excellent credit rating proves how responsible our plan is. Through a number of measures that I will describe in detail in a few moments, we have strengthened the social safety net that millions of Canadians rely on. We have implemented these measures while ensuring that Canada maintains the lowest deficit and lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Looking ahead, we will continue to focus on fiscal restraint. The government is strongly committed to reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio to ensure that the country's finances remain viable.

It is my pleasure to walk members through some of the powerful steps our government has taken since 2015 to support Canadians and address the cost of living concerns. These actions are having a real impact in terms of putting more money into the pockets of Canadians across the country. Our government has given Canadians a boost through the Canada child benefit, tax cuts for the middle class, a commitment to implement a new dental care plan and affordable early learning and child care right across the country, with six provinces and territories already providing regulated child care for an average of just $10 a day or less, significantly ahead of schedule.

Our affordable Canada-wide early learning and child care system has a record labour force participation rate; earlier this year, this was 85.7% for working-age women. It is also helping to grow the economy and to make life more affordable for families from coast to coast to coast.

The result is that in 2020-21, the most recent years for which we have data from Statistics Canada, close to 2.3 million fewer Canadians were living in poverty compared to 2015. In other words, in 2021, 7.4% of Canadians were living in poverty, a 14.5% decrease compared to 2015. Our government remains committed to reaching its goal of a 50% reduction in poverty by 2030 based on 2015 levels.

I would remind the official opposition that even the central plank of our climate plan, the federal carbon pricing system, is giving Canadian households more money back in climate action incentive payments than they pay in. Since 2019, there has been a price on carbon pollution, a measure that survived two federal elections and that was upheld by the Supreme Court. In April 2023, the price increased to $65 per tonne. The money collected goes straight back into Canadians' pockets, as 90% of fuel charges are returned directly to households through climate action incentive payments. In the provinces where the federal system applies, a family of four can now receive up to $1,500 per year under our plan.

The global economic environment has driven up the cost of far too many necessities, everything from housing to groceries. We know the urgency around affordability is even greater now, and we are responding to it.

In budget 2023, we announced targeted relief for Canadians that was carefully designed to avoid exacerbating inflation. These measures included a one-time grocery rebate for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families; it provided, for example, up to $467 for eligible couples with two children. We also increased the Canada student grants and raised the interest-free Canada student loan limit for the current school year to help post-secondary students pay for their education and pursue their dreams. Budget 2023 also announced a crackdown on predatory lending and hidden junk fees.

Our actions have made an impact. In budget 2023, our government has continued to tackle affordability issues for Canadians. Just last month, we introduced Bill C-56, which would implement powerful measures to foster more competition in the economy, including the grocery sector. The government met with the leaders of Canada's largest grocery chains after calling on the industry to take immediate action to stabilize food prices. Each of the top five major grocery chains have since committed to an initial series of price-stabilizing steps that will be implemented in the coming days and weeks.

We know that we have to boost Canada's housing supply to address the cost of living challenges that Canadians are facing, and we have been doing that. New commitments in Bill C-56 would remove the GST on new purpose-built rental housing. This is one of the many steps that the government is advancing to help get more homes built in a fast way. I hope that all hon. members here today will support the swift passage of Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, to help us improve the financial footing of all Canadians.

We have recently announced several agreements under the government's ambitious $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which my community has already benefited from. The cuts in red tape fix outdated local policies, such as zoning policies, and ensures that more homes are built in our cities in a fast way. Our agreements include one with the City of London, Ontario, which is my city; the fund will provide $74 million to increase the city's housing supply.

Last month, the Prime Minister also announced the government's housing accelerator fund agreement with the City of Vaughan, to fast-track over 1,700 new housing units and incentivize thousands of additional homes over the next three years. This work in Vaughan, for example, will help spur the construction of more than 40,000 homes over the next decade and help meet the demand in one of Canada's fastest-growing cities. We expect many more agreements to come soon.

In conclusion, we have been dogged in our quest for real, concrete solutions to Canada's affordability challenges, and we will not let up. We have made much progress, while maintaining a robust economy and fiscal responsibility. We have had Canadians' backs all along, and we will continue to do more for them. We also know that more work is needed, and Canadians can stay tuned for more from our government.

Canadians can rest assured that our government has the strong plan to help navigate the stormy economic world, and we will continue to have their backs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I hate to inform the member, but it was Brian Mulroney, a Progressive Conservative, who brought in the GST. I am okay with that. Today, I look at the GST as a progressive tax that can make a positive difference. When we think of Bill C-56, that is one of the ways to ensure that literally hundreds of thousands of additional purpose-built rentals are constructed. It is as a result of GST rebate. It is a tool.

Where I really disagree with the member is with regard to inflation. This government does not look at inflation, in any form, as a positive thing. Inflation is hurting people in a very real and tangible way. That is why we brought in the grocery rebate. That is why we continue to take actions to try to minimize the impact of inflation.

I am happy to say that since June 2022, when inflation was just over 8%, today, it is at 3.8%. Hopefully we will continue to bring it down to make life easier for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me start by providing a comment reflecting on what is happening in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

We do not necessarily need to be lectured by Conservatives on the issues of inflation and interest rates. We understand, as we are often told by the Prime Minister and others, that when we look at what is happening in our constituencies, it is important that we bring those concerns to Ottawa, as opposed to trying to tell our constituents what Ottawa is doing for them.

If we look at the most recent budget that was passed by the House, we will find that it is very much a reflection of what is happening in communities from coast to coast to coast. People need to understand that, yes, we are very much concerned about the interest rates and the impact they are having on Canadians in a very real and tangible way.

Last weekend, the President of the Treasury Board came to Winnipeg to meet with some of my constituents who are primarily entrepreneurs. We talked about the impact of interest rates. We talked about homeowners, and so forth. We also talked about the rates of inflation. We are all concerned about that. That is one of the reasons why we brought forward legislation, such as Bill C-56. That is one of the reasons we brought in the inflation or grocery rebate, affecting 11 million Canadians, last spring, which came into effect in the summertime.

The budget and the type of legislation we are bringing forward are a reflection of what we are hearing from our communities. Therefore, one needs not lecture us on what is happening in and outside of the Ottawa bubble. We are very much aware of it.

At the end of the day, we look at not only what is happening around us, but what the Conservative Party is saying, particularly in the motion it presented today. Today, it wants to give the impression that there is this huge debt that has been acquired over the last number of years, and there is a huge debt. It is a huge debt that, in good part, was supported by the Conservative Party when we were borrowing money to help Canadians through the worldwide pandemic, and I underline the word “worldwide”.

Yes, we borrowed extensively, billions of dollars, in order to have the backs of Canadians. We spent that money, most of it supported by the Conservative Party, on things such as small businesses.

Yesterday, I heard a Conservative member talk about small businesses being so important to Canadians and Canada as a nation. I have talked about small businesses as the backbone of our country when it comes to economic development. During the pandemic, this government spent billions of dollars supporting small businesses, preventing them from going bankrupt in many ways.

We supported Canadians, who were no longer in a position to work, through programs such as CERB. Millions of Canadians were supported by billions of dollars, which did increase the debt. However, the Prime Minister, this government and many members of this chamber supported spending that money. It is like the leader of the Conservative Party giving a child a chocolate bar and then condemning the child for eating it.

However, at the end of the day, it was important for the government to spend that money to support Canadians and small businesses, not to mention the billions of dollars that were there to support our seniors through one-time payments for those on GIS and OAS or individuals with disabilities.

The Conservatives talk about this huge debt. In part, they supported us at the time and now they criticize us for it. They need to be more transparent and honest with Canadians about that when they criticize the government for spending money. Are they now saying, retroactively, that we should not have supported Canadians, that we should not have supported small businesses and others? That is what it sure sounds like. Today, in a question that I put forward to the leader of the Conservative Party, I challenged him on that point.

It is interesting when we look at the waffling of the Conservative Party. The best example is the previous speaker, the seconder on the motion. After I posed a very straightforward question for him, the member spent so much time, as many members of the Conservative Party have, criticizing the price on pollution, or as they call it “the carbon tax”. Like their apparent flip-flop on the need to support Canadians during the pandemic, the member failed to acknowledge that he supported a price on pollution, or the carbon tax, and he was not alone. Every member of the Conservative Party who ran in the last federal election supported it. When I pointed that out, he replied that he personally did not support it. It would appear that the first thing we need to ask every Conservative candidate is whether he or she personally supports this.

Imagine how many statements are made in an election platform and somehow the Conservative caucus believes that it is not responsible for that platform, that it can just opt out, much like it is opting out of the price on pollution. It makes one wonder about the Conservatives.

The Conservatives like to talk as if they know things about finances. Today it is about budgets and deficits, even though, compared to the G7 countries, Canada is doing exceptionally well.

I still remember when the leader of the Conservative Party was telling Canadians to invest in cryptocurrency, which is incredible. He still has not apologized for that. If people had followed his advice, they would have lost thousands, depending on how much they invested, 60%-plus of their investment.

We need to ensure that we put things into proper perspective. Yes, let us be concerned about inflation and interest rates. Let us take actions like bringing in Bill C-56.

I would suggest that the Conservative Party get behind legislation such as Bill C-56 and vote for it. It will ensure that more homes are built. It will ensure more stability in grocery prices. Actions speak louder than words.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the members opposite raising important issues local to their own communities. I have to say that I am hearing very similar things in my community. I know that the banks are working very hard to find solutions for their customers.

The news this morning that inflation is falling is certainly welcomed by our government not only in that we need to stabilize inflation to ensure that we stabilize prices, but also that we need to make sure that the Bank of Canada continues to work on interest rates and ensure that Canadians are well served by our institutions.

I think the elements of BillC-56, as I pointed out in my speech, are important to help Canadians who are struggling to find homes and to help Canadians who are facing higher prices at the grocery store. I certainly hope the member opposite will support that bill.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

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

We learned just this morning from Statistics Canada that inflation fell to 3.8% in this country. That is well below market expectations and good news for Canadians as our economy continues to stabilize.

We know that many Canadians are still having trouble making ends meet.

Our government understands that many Canadians are having a tough time these days. That is why our government is working hard to build an economy that works for everyone, with stable prices, strong and sustained growth and high-paying jobs. That is what matters most to Canadians.

There are over 1 million more Canadians in the labour force today than before the pandemic. The OECD and the IMF predict that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 next year. Moreover, rating agencies, including DBRS Morningstar, confirmed our AAA credit rating last month. That is the foundation for more investments in Canada. Our plan is working.

I want to highlight certain measures that our government introduced recently to continue to support Canadians. We know that for too many of them, including youth and new Canadians, the dream of being homeowners is increasingly unattainable, and the cost of rent keeps rising. I see it back home, especially in Côte-des-Neiges. People are struggling to pay their rent because it keeps rising all the time.

The housing crisis is also affecting our economy. Because of the shortage of housing 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 they are spending less money in our communities and on necessities.

That is why we began this fall parliamentary session by introducing Bill C-56 in the very first few days. This bill would enhance the GST rental rebate on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more and more rental homes throughout the country, including apartment buildings, student housing and seniors residences right across Canada. For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, this GST rebate for residential rental buildings could mean a tax break of $25,000. This is just one more tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that Canadians need and families want to live in. This measure would also remove the restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as hospitals and charities, as well as qualifying non-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, are permitted to claim that 100% enhanced GST rebate.

The government is also calling on provinces that currently apply the provincial sales tax or the provincial portion of the HST to rental housing to join us by matching our enhanced rebate for new rental housing. In fact, Ontario, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Prince Edward Island have already announced that they intend to follow our lead by eliminating the provincial component of the HST on those new purpose-built rentals.

Since we moved to remove GST on new rental housing, home builders from coast to coast to coast have announced they will be moving ahead with new or stalled projects. This means more housing for Canadians. I would certainly hope that Conservatives will stop playing procedural games with this bill so that we can deliver this important measure to Canadians because I do fundamentally believe that the Conservatives are supportive of creating more supply in the housing market.

In addition to the enhanced GST rebate, our government recently announced the next step in our plan to address the lack of housing in this country.

To ensure builders have the low-cost financing required to build more rental projects, the government is increasing the Canada Mortgage Bond issuance limit by $20 billion per year and designating the increased amount for funding mortgage loans on multi-unit rental projects insured by CMHC. Eligible rental projects must have at least five rental units and can include apartment buildings, student housing, and senior residences.

There is no fiscal impact for the Government of Canada as a result of this particular measure, and I would like to make that very clear. This is fiscally responsible policy, using policy tools at the government's disposal. This new measure alone would help build up to 30,000 additional rental units every single year. The increase to Canada mortgage bonds builds on the federal government's recent actions to make housing more affordable for Canadians, including the $4-billion housing accelerator fund, which was launched earlier this year, as members know. That fund helps to cut red tape to address outdated local policies, such as zoning issues that are preventing construction. It allows us to build more homes faster.

The government also introduced the new tax-free first home savings account, which is helping Canadians to contribute up to $40,000 tax-free toward their first down payment.

Since we implemented this new tax-free first home savings account in April, most of Canada's large financial institutions have started offering it. Today, 150,000 Canadians have already opened a tax-free first home savings account and many new accounts are being opened every day.

Our government also understands that inflation is, of course, challenging when it comes to the essentials Canadians must purchase every single day, such as food. Earlier this year, we addressed the rising cost of food by delivering targeted inflation relief for 11 million low- and modest-income Canadians and families, those who needed it the most. That was through our one-time grocery rebate, which meant up to an extra $467 for eligible couples with two children and over $200 for single Canadians without children, including single seniors.

I know that this support was welcomed by Canadians, but I also know that more work needs to be done. That is why Bill C-56 proposes to take immediate steps to help make groceries more affordable.

This crucial legislation would introduce a series of amendments to the Competition Act to strengthen competition, especially in the grocery industry. These amendments would give the Competition Bureau more power to investigate and take action when industries engage in unfair competition, such as price-fixing or unreasonable price hikes. They would eliminate the efficiencies argument to stop anti-competitive mergers that end up driving up prices and limiting consumer choice here, in Canada. These amendments would also allow the bureau to block collaboration efforts that undermine competition and consumer choice, for example, when major grocery chains prevent SMEs, their smallest competitors, from opening stores nearby.

The government continues to work with leaders of Canada's five largest grocery chains and, of course, domestic and international food processors, to take this action to stabilize food prices. Price stabilization requires the full engagement of everyone, of the entire supply chain. We are encouraged that grocers and manufacturers have agreed to work with us to find solutions that are in the best interests of Canadians.

In closing, these are real, concrete actions that will make life more affordable for Canadians. More competition will ease the sticker shock at the grocery store checkout line, and that is important. Eliminating the GST on the construction of new homes will get more homes built faster. That, too, is critically important.

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a practice of the House that, when a member realizes that he or she has a matter affecting the privileges of the House, the matter ought to be drawn to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, it is my obligation to inform the House that a letter from the Ethics Commissioner confirming the existence of such a matter arrived in my email inbox just after 2:00 p.m. on the most recent sitting day before the present day, that is to say, on Friday, October 6.

The House rose less than half an hour after I received this email and today, therefore, represents the first reasonably available opportunity.

The matter in question relates to subsection 12(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Subsection 12(1) states:

A member who has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before the House of Commons...shall, if present during consideration of the matter, disclose orally or in writing the general nature of the private interest at the first opportunity. The general nature of the private interest shall be disclosed forthwith in writing to the Clerk of the House.

On September 19, I wrote to seek the commissioner's advice as I am the chairman of the board of a family business, Giant Tiger stores. Although my family business is a small player in the great scheme of things, having a sales volume that is only about 5% that of Loblaws, it is nevertheless a significant player in the discount side of the grocery industry. Therefore, it seemed advisable to me to ask the commissioner whether, in order to remain compliant with the code, I might have to recuse myself from certain debates in the House and elsewhere.

As noted earlier, the commissioner responded to me just after 2:00 p.m. on October 6, advising me that, in his view, I would have an obligation, pursuant to subsection 12(1), to report to the House if I am present in the House during any debate or a vote on Bill C-56 and also that the same restrictions apply to Bill C-352, a private member's bill covering much of the same subject matter.

I can advise the House that in anticipation of precisely such a response from the commissioner, I have been at pains to avoid being present during any such debates. However, a strict reading of subsection 12(1) would suggest that the reporting obligation is triggered by the mere fact of being present during a question period when questions on the subject are raised by any party and that, as well, if I were to participate electronically in any vote on the subject, even if my intention is simply to electronically vote to register a formal abstention, I would trigger subsection 12(1).

Therefore, pursuant to subsection 12(1), I am tabling the following four documents.

The first is the letter that I wrote to the commissioner on September 19, in which I laid out the general nature of my private interest in my family's business.

The second is an email thread containing subsequent correspondence with the commissioner and his staff, leading up to his response email on October 6, in which he advised me that I should not merely recuse myself from debates in the House of Commons but also that I should exclude myself from any discussion, debate or vote on these two bills that might take place during the Conservative caucus meetings.

The third is a further letter that I sent this morning to comply with the commissioner's further instruction that I will need to formally inform the Conservative caucus vice-chair, or the individual who would chair the meeting in their absence, of my private interest regarding Bill C-56 and Bill C-352 and provide a copy of the correspondence to his office. I was told it will then be made public in accordance with the code.

Finally, the fourth is the cover letter to the commissioner delivered to his office earlier this day in which I confirmed to him that I have complied with this further instruction.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, let me share some facts. Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio and the lowest deficit in the G7. That is a fact. Canada has an AAA rating. That is also a fact. Do members know what else is a fact? The opposition, which claims to care about the housing challenges Canadians face, is blocking Bill C-56, which experts across the country say is essential to getting more rental homes built. That is sheer, utter hypocrisy.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I assure members that I am not making this up. The member is talking about a lack of affordable housing in her community. We are literally discussing an affordable housing project funded by our government in Peterborough, and she voted against that particular policy.

She says she is going to continue to vote against these kinds of policies, which are literally putting a roof over the heads of some of the most vulnerable constituents in her community. The hon. member has an opportunity to get more homes built in her community. She can support Bill C-56, remove the tax on new-home construction and invite some of her colleagues to do it with her.

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

Mr. Speaker, all we are doing is increasing partisan bickering. Now I will give the facts.

The facts are that Canada is fiscally responsible. Our AAA credit rating has been reconfirmed by the agencies, and we have the lowest debt and deficit in the G7.

If the Conservatives want to help us with the housing crisis, they need to support our Bill C‑56. That is the reality.

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with my hon. colleague that I recently had a chance to sit down with the mayor of the township of Langley to discuss their application to the housing accelerator fund, which that member and her party are promising to get rid of.

We want to be there for the cities to help the very kind of people she is asking about in her question, who she promises to cut the support out from under should the Conservatives form government.

If the hon. member is serious about building houses, I would invite her to support Bill C-56, which would remove the tax on the construction of new homes. I cannot understand why those members oppose it.

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

Mr. Speaker, talk is cheap, but actions speak louder than words. If the Conservatives actually believed in supporting Canadians during the housing crisis, they would be supporting Bill C-56. It includes the critical measure of lifting the GST on all new rental construction, which would get more homes built faster.

The Conservatives should actually act in the interests of Canadians and not continue to parrot their talking points.

Copyright Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise again in this chamber on the right to repair. I thank the member for introducing Bill C-244, an act to amend the Copyright Act, diagnosis, maintenance and repair, also known as the right to repair act. I congratulate the member for Richmond Centre for bringing it forward.

One of the things that is interesting about this is that an evolution is taking place. I originally had legislation in this chamber that passed. It was related to the right to repair, specific to the auto industry, because that was the first time we tackled this.

A common theme within Canada is that we are often treated as a colony when it comes to consumer rights. What I mean by that is the European Union and the United States often enjoy better auto recall, consumer rights, returns and other policies than we do here because we are lax, and our Competition Bureau needs reformation. We see some bills coming forth in this chamber, including from my leader, who also has a bill reforming the Competition Act, Bill C-56, and others that would improve things. Until that time, we still need to work on issues like this.

The right to repair became interesting for me because of the auto town I am in. Even representing auto companies, we still found that we were not getting treated fairly at that time. In Windsor, Ontario, we are across from Detroit, Michigan, and that is only a 2.5-kilometre distance across the border.

In Windsor, I could not get my minivan fixed aftermarket at the time, but I could drive it over the border and get it fixed in the aftermarket in Detroit, Michigan. That is because its environmental protection act and other right to repair legislation protected them much better than our Canadian system protected us.

I went across the country, back and forth a few times, and worked with a number of people. A good example is Scott Smith, who is now with the Chamber of Commerce, and others in the AIA. I worked with them for a legislative change for the automotive aftermarket. We knew that it was deficient in the overall issue, but just touching on that first point was really important because a lot of Canadians did not realize they were getting ripped off and getting treated as secondary citizens. It was unacceptable.

I remember having meetings with the auto companies. One of the executives was testing the waters about this issue, and it was really important. It was in the chamber of the other House before it closed down for renovations. I remember the CEO, after I told him what was going on, asked if it was happening in the United States. They said no, and he told his team to fix it. From that time, we got better players in the automotive aftermarket from some of the large automotive dealers.

Tony Clement was the minister at that time. The bill was going to go to the Senate. We had enough votes. It was a real fight, as is usual in this place, but that is okay. Then there was a decision made by all those involved that they would rather try a voluntary system, which we now have today and was put in place to provide the information for the aftermarket.

Why is that important? The aftermarket provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and is worth billions of dollars. It is also an issue of public safety because vehicles were being driven on the road for longer than they should not have been. Vehicles were emitting things, so it was an environmental issue because they were not tuned the way that they should have been. It was a competition issue because we had people who could not get the service they needed from the garages they wanted to use.

It was also a fairness issue because there were people working in those establishments who were trained. In those places, often some of the more marginalized workers in the industry were going to lose their jobs, not because they were not qualified or did not do all the things that were necessary, but because the industry and greed spoke louder than the people did at that time.

To credit most of those in the industry, they got their act together and created the voluntary agreement. There have been ups and downs all along the way. Even Tesla finally came onto that agreement, I am told. However, until that time, it was voluntary, so we had ebbs and flows all the time about what was taking place. That is why we are seeing legislation come back.

It is not just New Democrats this time. We see Liberals and Conservatives with aftermarket legislation, and that is because it has become habitual. I know the Bloc has also talked about this quite extensively. My colleague who spoke before me has been very effective at committee on this.

We have all grappled with this. We have seen the really stupid stuff with regard to how many plug-in cords we have to have with access to different devices for no technological reason whatsoever, and it is junk that is piling up in our landfills. Aside from the environmental part, there is a cost, and it has nothing to do with innovation whatsoever. It is about dependency, and those are some of the things taking place.

The aftermarket to fix the different problems we are talking about here is not about taking shortcuts. There is information that needs to be provided to those people, and it would be done with terms and conditions that would be legislated and followed through on.

When my bill went through, we were not asking for shortcuts or interventions; we were asking for the proper training to be made available. What was happening was unbelievable. When there was an update on software, which could literally be a simple and minor thing, it would cripple a vehicle, and it could not be fixed in the aftermarket. Sometimes, after the physical repairs, the vehicle was being towed to another garage just to get a download of a program. It makes no sense.

It does not make sense for the environment, public safety or competition, and it hurts some of the men and women who work in those shops. Again, they are not asking for this information for free. They want a system in place so they can buy the equipment, get the necessary downloads, pay for them and service their customers in a reasonable way.

There are many different ways the voluntary agreement has basically fallen on the edge of a precipice of being ineffective. There can be intentional issues, where some companies do not want to provide information in a reasonable time, or they play games if they want. It might not even be that. It could just be that it is not their priority, because they want to do something else.

This is dangerous. If we look at the auto sector, particularly in rural and other areas, we could not service all our vehicles with dealerships. We would cripple our economy. If we lose the aftermarket for the auto sector, then we are going to lose our capabilities to be effectively moving in transportation, which is changing with the electrification of vehicles.

The problem with my bill is that it did not involve heavy equipment, farm equipment or other things like that. We knew it was a problem in the bill, but we had to at least touch on this and bring an awareness that had not been there. It is why I went across the country on this, because people were just accepting it.

We always hear fake arguments that it is about safety, that people are going to wreck their stuff and other people's stuff. We hear all these different things. Imagine if we had the same attitude when we let the screwdriver go to the public sector and people were able to use a screwdriver at home. What if we could never use a wrench or a hammer at home because it was too dangerous? It is outrageous.

We have been fixing vehicles, electronic equipment and a number of different things, as we have moved from manual to electric and to all the different technologies with computers and so forth. It has been the normal process for consumers with the devices they own, but what is happening and changing is the building in of obstacles.

There is an obstacle when a device is created where one needs a special tool for it. An obstacle is when one puts a type of system in place where one cannot fix a device because there is a technological impediment, such as to performing a simple update on the software.

Bill C-244 is married, in many respects, to my bill, Bill C-231, an act to amend the Competition Act for vehicle repair. There are some problems with the bill, such as that it does not go far enough in terms of the tribunal, as well as a few other elements. However, it sets us in the right direction. I would like to see it amended. I hope the Senate takes a look at more of the possibilities.

We are just simply not keeping up with the rest of the world when it comes to aftermarket connections. There is mounting pressure. We have just seen with Apple that it is finally to make a more standardized version of its cord, which it did not even have in its own products. This is outrageous. Now it is going to move to that. Why is it doing so? It is because the European Union is moving toward forcing these things.

These are the reasons I will be supporting this bill. New Democrats have been supporting the right to repair. As much as it is a consumer issue and an environmental issue, it is also a social justice issue, because many people have spent their time and money to be educated to have careers in the aftermarket in order to provide resources for their families. That opportunity is being denied, not by choice or by their deficiency of skills, but by the greed of large corporations that want to protect it for pure profit at the expense of everyone else. That balance has to be restored, and that is why this is a good bill.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, we will return for second reading debate on Bill C-49, the Atlantic accord implementation act.

Upon our return, priority will be given to Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act, and Bill C-50, the Canadian sustainable jobs act. I would also like to note that Tuesday, October 17, shall be an allotted day.

Let me wish all colleagues a happy Thanksgiving, and I hope every member has a wonderful time with their family, friends and constituents over the coming constituency week.

Carbon Pricing

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, what the member for Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame will not say is that next week, climate action incentive payments will be arriving in the bank accounts of his constituents. He should make sure they know those are coming.

If the member really believes in affordability, then he ought to vote for Bill C-56 and the Atlantic accord, which he is standing against.

This is not the Conservative Party of our parents. The Progressive Conservatives stood up against things like acid rain, and they created solutions. The present Conservative leader, the member for Carleton, does not believe in climate change. He has spun his heels. The Conservatives have ditched progressive values and do not care about fighting climate change or fighting for lower grocery prices.

The Economy

[Sean Fraser, Liberal, Minister of Housing]

Mr. Speaker, I find it curious that my hon. colleague is standing up only now to defend the interests of low-income families that might need the services that food banks provide, when his party, over the course of my time in the chamber, has consistently voted against the measures that would make life more affordable for them.

I look back to when we first formed government. We raised taxes on the wealthiest 1% and cut them for the middle class, and the Conservatives voted against it. When we changed the Canada child benefit and stopped sending cheques to millionaires so we could put more money into the pockets of nine out of 10 Canadian families, the member voted against it. Every step of the way, including support for food banks during the pandemic, the Conservatives could not get behind it.

Will the member now vote for the measures that could have a direct impact on the price of groceries, and support Bill C-56?

[Pascale St-Onge, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I think today's debate calls for a little more gravitas from the Conservatives.

We are talking about the challenges facing Quebeckers and Canadians. The cost of living has been rising. Today, we presented measures to help Canadians, stabilize grocery costs and fight climate change at the same time. The Conservatives are still voting against these measures.

If they really want to help Canadians, they should vote in favour of Bill C-56 so that we can move forward and stabilize the cost of groceries.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, if the Conservative member wants to see grocery prices lowered, I hope that she asks her leader why it is that the Conservatives continue to delay the legislation that is before the House.

Just this morning, I was so pleased to see the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon say that he supports Bill C-56. I wonder if other Conservatives can convince their leader to support this bill because Canadians are counting on all of us in the House to help stabilize grocery prices.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition. He is coming to his senses. He realizes that the best way to help Canadians is to support the government.

This is a time when all parliamentarians need to come together. That is why we presented a plan that is going to help stabilize prices in Canada, that is going to increase competition in this country and that is going to take measures to help Canadians.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to give a gift to Canadians for Thanksgiving, why does he not support Bill C-56 and show Canadians that he can do something for them?

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope they have this much energy to support our bill to make a difference in the lives of Canadians, because this is not a joke.

Canadians expect action. That is what we took this morning with a five-item action plan to help stabilize prices in Canada. If the Conservatives want to keep laughing and making jokes, they should tell them to Canadians, who expect them to approve Bill C-56, reform competition, lower prices in Canada and make sure that Canadians can have what they deserve in this situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was shopping for the Leader of the Opposition to help him.

If the Conservatives want to do something for Canadians, not just ask questions but do something, they should vote for Bill C-56. It is going to help Canadians. It is going to stabilize prices in Canada. It is going to bring competition to this country. What we need is for them to act.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question.

Canadians know not to take advice from the Leader of the Opposition when it comes to the economy. The last time he advised Canadians, he told them to buy cryptocurrency. Now he is suggesting that Canadians buy $120 turkeys. I have news for him. I found a Butterball turkey for $30, and I think I can deliver it to his official residence.

If the Conservatives want to do something for Canadians, they should vote in favour of Bill C-56 to help Canadians now and bring down prices in Canada.

[Justin Trudeau, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, we introduced the affordable housing and groceries bill, which will incentivize the construction of more rental housing and increase competition, particularly among grocery stores. Instead of working with us to move this forward before Thanksgiving, the Conservative Party chose to obstruct debate because it has no plan for supporting Canadians. Actions speak louder than words. I am therefore asking all members of the House to work together to pass Bill C-56 as soon as possible.

Housing

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

Mr. Speaker, in my first answer, let me just congratulate you in this historic role. It is historic for Canada.

While the Conservatives recite trite and misleading talking points, our government is acting for Canadians. With Bill C-56, we would be getting more homes built by lifting the GST on purpose-built rental, and we would be acting to stabilize grocery prices with historic changes to competition law that would bring competition to the grocery sector.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's argument is, in fact, doomed to fail. Quebec has had a cap-and-trade program for over a decade. Perhaps that is because, unlike the Conservatives here, Premier Legault's government genuinely believes in fighting climate change.

Quebec's food inflation is equivalent to Ontario's, and we are looking to implement real solutions for affordability. The Conservatives have no credibility when it comes to issues of affordability or climate change.

If the members opposite would like to support affordability, they should vote for Bill C-56, the affordable groceries and housing act, but they are playing games on the other side for bumper stickers and T-shirts. This is not serious policy. They need to talk to at least one expert about what they are talking about.

Business of the House

[Karina Gould, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on your appointment, even though it is temporary, but I would also like to thank you, on behalf of the government, for agreeing to serve as interim Speaker to ensure an smooth transition while we await the next Speaker of the House of Commons. Thank you for taking on this role as dean of the House.

Tomorrow, we will begin the second reading debate on Bill C‑50, the Canadian Sustainable Jobs Act. On Monday, the House will stand adjourned to mark the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation. When we return on Tuesday, the first order of business will be the election of a new Speaker. When we resume our work that day, we will continue the second reading debate on Bill C‑56, the Affordable Housing and Groceries Act. On Wednesday, we will resume debate at second reading of Bill S‑12, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act and the International Transfer of Offenders Act. If the debate on Bill C‑56 is not completed, we will resume second reading debate on Thursday. On Friday, we will proceed to second reading of Bill C‑49, an Act to amend the Canada-Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act.

Carbon Pricing

[Anita Anand, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put the question to the opposition as to whether those members will actually support Bill C-56, which is before the House.

Instead of voting against every measure that goes to support Canadians, whether it is senior citizens, workers or small businesses, the Conservatives have a choice. We urge them to vote in favour of Bill C-56.

Opposition Motion—Carbon Taxes

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to say hello to the hon. member from Calgary who just shouted something out. He is a gentleman and an avid golfer. I wish him the best.

Making sure Canadians have access to affordable child care is important, but we also know that far too many Canadians are struggling with the increasing cost of essentials, such as housing and groceries.

Such initiatives as putting a price on carbon, an effective and affordable way to combat climate change, has been putting more money back in the pockets of Canadians. Eight out of 10 households get more money back than they pay, with low- and middle-income households benefiting the most.

We know that more needs to be done to address affordability. That is why we began this fall parliamentary session by introducing Bill C-56.

I just came from subbing in on the finance committee with CMHC officials, and it was great to talk about the removal of the goods and services tax on new purpose-built rental housing to encourage the construction of more rental homes, including apartment buildings, student housing and senior residences, across Canada.

I come from an area of the country where builders build houses and the associations are located. Since 2015, I will put on record, I have argued that we remove the GST on purpose-built rental housing in combination with the provinces. The GST combined with the HST would allow, encourage and incentivize more purpose-built rental housing to be built across the country and here in Ontario even more so. All the associations are applauding it. I encourage this measure and that Bill C-56 be passed as quickly as possible by all sides of the House.

For a two-bedroom rental unit valued at $500,000, the enhanced GST rental rebate could deliver $25,000 in tax relief.

This is another tool to help create the necessary conditions to build the types of housing that we need, that Canadians need and that families want to live in. This measure would also remove the restriction in the existing GST rules to ensure that public service bodies, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, charities and qualifying non-profit organizations that build or purchase purpose-built rental housing, are permitted to claim the 100% enhanced GST rental rebate. The government is also calling on the provinces that currently apply provincial sales taxes or the provincial portion of the HST on rental housing to join us by matching our rebate for new rental housing.

In fact, the finance minister of Ontario, an old colleague of mine whom I worked with for a number of years in Toronto at DBRS, came out that same day and said that the Province of Ontario would be joining the federal government in removing the tax on purpose-built rental housing, the HST portion on the federal side. We encourage all provinces and territories to join in, follow the lead of some of the provinces and territories and eliminate the provincial component.

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. Earlier this month, the government announced that London, Ontario, will be the first city to benefit from this fund, and it will certainly not be the last. It represents one of the ways we are encouraging initiatives aimed at increasing housing supply. It also supports the development of complete, low-carbon, 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 know that there are more cranes currently in the city of Toronto than in any other city in North America. We could combine cities in North America, and we would not reach the same number of cranes. I want to salute all the builders and workers out there from the carpenters union, IBEW, the pipefitters, everyone working on the condos and high-rises in downtown Toronto, in the GTA, across Ontario and Canada who get up every morning and build the housing we need. We need to applaud them. We are going to give them more work, not just today but in the years to come.

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. We are taking immediate steps to enhance competition in the Canadian economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, to help stabilize costs for middle-class Canadians.

Through Bill C‑56, the government is introducing the first series of legislative changes to the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau to investigate when industries are behaving unfairly, for example where price fixing or price gouging is occurring, and take enforcement action; remove the efficiencies defence, to end anti-competitive mergers that raise prices and limit choices for Canadian consumers; and empower the Competition Bureau to block collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, particularly in situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

By making these changes, we will empower the Competition Bureau to investigate price gouging and price-fixing. I have been calling for this for a very long time. More competition and less consolidation, more innovation and lower prices mean more choice for consumers across Canada.

In conclusion, our government understands that many Canadians still need to get through these difficult times. Canadians are being pressured, and we understand that. The focus of our government is investing in Canadians, restoring middle-class prosperity and building a country where everyone has a real chance to succeed. We will continue to do that day after day.

Government Priorities

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, over the summer, I had the pleasure of connecting with the hard-working residents of Brampton, whether through round tables, community events, my annual barbeque attended by hundreds of residents, or simply knocking on doors and listening to their concerns. They told me that we need to take strong action to address affordability and build more housing, which is exactly what we would be doing with Bill C-56, the affordable housing and groceries act.

Tangible measures like these, with respectful debate, are exactly what Canadians expect from their parliamentarians, not daily shouting and heckling, and not polarization. As we start the fall session, I encourage all members to work collaboratively and set aside the partisan games.

Grocery Industry

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Innovation]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I am glad to see that he knows that inaction is not an option. That is exactly why we convened the country's food executives with a very clear objective: to stabilize prices in Canada. I expressed the frustration of 40 million Canadians, saying that the number one issue for Canadians is affordability and the price of groceries.

We have introduced Bill C-56 which, for one, will tackle competition, because we want more of it in this country. I expect my colleague to support this bill so that we can move forward for the—

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—

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?