Debates of Oct. 5th, 2023

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question and I am going to look to my colleague because I know she has a lot of experience in the labour movement.

If Quebec's major labour unions could step up and give people in the building trades a little more flexibility, would that help increase the number of affordable and social housing units? Costs are the problem. Builders in Quebec no longer want to build social housing because it costs too much. Could we tackle the issue that way?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member is talking about big labour organizations.

At the beginning of my speech, I talked about social solidarity. Our communities are better off because of the social and public programs we choose for ourselves. Unions are major contributors to that. I was on the board of the FTQ's Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs for seven years, so I know that those are the kinds of actions such funds take to support the construction of affordable rental housing.

I do want to clarify something, though. Let us consider what is happening right now. Sometimes incentives are made available, but private sector builders are not interested. They would rather miss out on those potential benefits because they do not want to be obligated to provide affordable housing. They want to keep building housing for profit.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her great speech.

I agree that eliminating the GST on rental housing construction is a small measure, too small to fix the current crisis. However, it is an NDP proposal, so I do want to defend it. The thing that has us concerned is that the Liberals went only halfway. They are eliminating the GST on housing construction, but with no guarantee that this will have an impact on the price of rent. There is a risk that this 5% rebate will end up in the pockets of the developer building the housing.

Does my colleague share that concern?

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I do share my colleague's concern.

That is why I was wondering if getting rid of the GST on rental housing construction was the only proposed solution. We do not know how many housing units will be built. We are not getting these answers.

As far as affordability is concerned, we understand that the government cannot guarantee that, because the builder is the one who will get the GST exemption. Is the builder going to reduce the cost of the housing because it got a GST exemption out of the gate? I think that—

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

Resuming debate.

The hon. member for Lambton—Kent—Middlesex.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, according to the 13th edition of “Canada's Food Price Report”, published in 2023, by September last year, families across Canada were paying in excess of 10% more for their groceries. This year, Canadians' grocery bills have increased by another 8% to 9% or more. Vegetables are seeing the biggest price increases, and as a result, Canadian families are cutting back on their purchases of vegetables and other healthy food choices for their children. About 20% of Canadians report skipping a meal each day, and food banks across the country are seeing record visits by Canadian families.

On this side of the House for the last few years, I have been calling attention to the practices of Canada's big grocery retailers and their lack of competition in the grocery market. For a couple of years now, I have also been asking the Competition Bureau to investigate the grocery chains and their abuse of dominance. For the past three years, I have called attention to the market concentration in the hands of big grocery retailers and to the resulting lack of competition and the consequences for producers, suppliers and Canadian consumers. Producers and suppliers are gouged by what the big grocery retailers demand of them. Canadian consumers are gouged by the prices the big grocery retailers demand at the checkout.

Now, suddenly, the Prime Minister seems to have awakened from sleeping at the wheel to what Canadian families have known as a reality every time they have bought food. Where has the Prime Minister been? Only now has he called in the grocery retailers and introduced this bill? When was the last time the Prime Minister went to a grocery store? When was the last time the Prime Minister had to buy a Thanksgiving turkey dinner with all the trimmings? Families that can afford it will be paying a minimum of $60 to $80 this year for their turkey, let alone all the trimmings. Many families that cannot afford it will just go without. My guess is that the last time the Prime Minister visited a grocery store was some time in the previous decade, maybe.

Canadians cannot afford more of what they have suffered under eight years of the Prime Minister and his irresponsible Liberal-NDP government. Canadians cannot afford this costly coalition. The reason for food inflation is not just too little competition among grocery retailers. Beginning in 2018, the Prime Minister has been gouging Canadian families with a regressive, unfair carbon tax, which we will call “carbon tax 1”, and has been inflating it year over year.

As of April Fool's Day 2023, the Prime Minister inflated carbon tax 1 to $65 a tonne, and by April Fool's Day 2030, the Prime Minister wants to inflate carbon tax 1 to $170 a tonne. However, the Prime Minister has not stopped there. He decided that one carbon tax is not enough, so as of Canada Day, the Prime Minister has added another carbon tax. Therefore, now the Prime Minister is asking Canadians to pay not one but two carbon taxes. Even worse, when the carbon tax is added at the pumps or on their home heating bill, Canadians are charged sales tax on top of the carbon tax.

There is no other way to put this: The Prime Minister and his costly coalition are charging Canadian families tax on tax. However, they do not stop there, with carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2. Between these two carbon taxes, by April Fool's Day 2030, the Prime Minister wants to charge Canadian farmers and truckers 69¢ for every litre of diesel they put in their trucks. It is not rocket science; it is basic math that the NDP-Liberal government just does not seem to get. If it costs a farmer more to grow the food and costs the trucker more to ship the food, it is going to cost Canadian families more to buy the food.

The Bank of Canada governor, Tiff Macklem, says that the carbon tax announcements that have it going up increase inflation each year. The leader of “Canada's Food Price Report 2023”, Doctor Sylvain Charlebois, has pointed out that the carbon tax has made business expenses go up. He points to a “compounding effect” up and down the food chain as the supply chain is exposed to increased costs from the carbon tax. I will illustrate. Thanks to the Prime Minister's carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2, even with agricultural exemptions, farmers are paying carbon taxes on various parts of their production chain not covered by those exemptions. There are the carbon tax costs of heating barns with natural gas or propane when there are animals being raised. Getting produce, meat, poultry and eggs to the processors with diesel-powered trucks costs more with carbon tax. There is more; there is carbon tax paid on moving that food, with more diesel-powered trucks, from the processors' warehouses to the grocery stores.

The grocery retailers have to heat their stores, many with natural gas, propane or, in some cases, heating oil, so they are paying even more carbon tax. Consumers are travelling to and from the grocery store and are paying carbon tax on the fuel they put in their vehicles. Again, if it costs a farmer more to grow the food and it costs the trucker more to ship the food, it is going to cost Canadian families more to buy the food.

How do we solve this problem of rising food prices and the Prime Minister's costly coalition? First things first, we have to axe the carbon tax. The Leader of the Opposition and members on this side of the House want to give Canadian families relief from unfair competition. We want to offer Canadian families relief from the unsustainable burden of carbon tax 1 and carbon tax 2. I have one word: enough.

As for the bill, let me make a few observations with respect to grocery retail competition. Sadly, this bill seems to be a lot of fluff and not much substance. The Prime Minister has had eight years to look into this issue and to provide legislation that would put a stop to consolidation over concentration of market share in the grocery chains. This level of coordination of grocery stores into bigger grocery retail chains is reducing competition for consumer dollars. With less competition in grocery retail, Canadian consumers will always pay more. Let me give one example. I have two grocery store flyers, one from Toronto and one from Vancouver, from the same store and with the same items. Vancouver is about 2,000 kilometres, or 1,200 miles, from Central Valley, California, where most of our produce comes from, especially during the winter months. Toronto is about 4,000 kilometres, or 2,500, miles from California's Central Valley.

However, as I compared the two prices given for the same products, the prices for produce were higher in the Vancouver flyer than in the Toronto flyer, for the exact same items, even though Vancouver is about 1,000 miles closer to the producers than Toronto is. Why is this? It is because there is more competition in the Toronto area, with many more grocery stores available for folks. There are many small, independent grocery stores.

The bill makes much of the role of the commissioner of competition, but I have to point out that Canada already has a competition commissioner. Further, Canada already has a competition tribunal. However, Canadians still face high food prices because Canada's competition watchdogs have no teeth. It is not enough to have an official whose title is Competition Commissioner. If the competition commissioner is to uphold competitive pricing in the interests of Canadian consumers, this office has to have real teeth. The competition commissioner should have real power to call into question the excessive concentration of market control.

To sum up, Canadian families are seeing unaffordable price increases year over year in the foods they buy to feed their families. Almost daily, my constituency office is hearing from Canadians, young and old, who are having difficulty getting by. Many do not have enough money to buy groceries after rent and mortgage payments are made. More and more people are visiting food banks. Too many are breaking down in tears in my office because of their inability to pay for the basic necessities of life. Hundreds of my constituents are having trouble making ends meet because of runaway inflation that the Liberal government has caused. Canadian consumers face inflation on food at 8% to 9% year over year. Again, 20% of Canadians report skipping a meal a day just to save money on groceries.

Meanwhile, the government taxes to the max with carbon tax 1 and now carbon tax 2, plus the HST piled on top. It is tax on tax. Enough is enough. Canadians deserve better than a Prime Minister and a government that just seem to go through the motions. The Prime Minister can deny it all he wants, but Canadians know that inflation is real. The bill does not go far enough to address the lack of competition among grocery retailers.

Sadly, the Prime Minister is propped up by NDP supporters and Liberals who sit in the House, and they have not seen a regulation they would not support nor a carbon tax they would not impose to burden and weigh down Canadian families that are just trying to make ends meet by stretching their hard-earned dollars. Canadian families are paying at the fuel pumps and they are paying in their heating bills, and having enough money left over to get their grocery checkout line is sometimes a burden.

It is time for a real change from the inflationary, all-too-costly coalition of the NDP-Liberal government.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Madam Speaker, inflation is real. I do not think anyone is denying that.

She mentioned rising rents. We provided assistance, through the national housing strategy. Program after program that has been presented to this House has been opposed by the opposition.

We provided assistance through the rapid housing initiative, the innovation fund and the national coinvestment fund. We provided more support for co-ops, which a lot of members in this House have talked about, as well as the need to drive investments through municipalities and non-profits.

Every time the government has tried to assist Canadians, those in need, some of our most vulnerable population, the member opposite and her leader have chosen to vote against it. Why have they done so?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that a one-time payment is not going to do anything to help people in the long term.

One of my constituents, Paula in Wallaceburg, writes, “Lianne, renters need apartments that working people can afford. I make $27 per hour and I have no benefits, and my rent, for a 400-square-foot one-bedroom unit, is currently $1,400 a month, plus electricity, and I have to pay for laundry. Rent needs to come down or I will have no retirement savings left.”

Jolene from Dover Centre writes, “Average, hard-working Canadianss like my husband and I, we have been forgotten”—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I need to give time for other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Madam Speaker, I am going to do a little fact-checking here.

The member talked about the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem. He said that the carbon tax, all of it combined, is contributing 0.15% to inflation. That is 15¢ on 100 dollars' worth of groceries.

What she did not talk about is corporate greed, which is costing $3.90 on 100 dollars' worth of groceries. We know why. It is because Conservatives are gatekeepers for the big grocery stores, for the Galen Westons.

They also do not want to talk about the fact that eight out of 10 Canadian families get a rebate. Why do they not want to talk about that? It is because the truth is they are really fighting for two out of 10 Canadian families, and they know it.

Will my colleague tell the truth that the Conservatives are really fighting for the two out of 10 families that are not getting a carbon tax rebate back and that they are actually just trying to distract from reality?

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, I take offence to that, because I am telling the truth.

What the member is referring to is actually only on food. We can ask the farmers how their bills have gone up with the carbon tax. We can ask how much inputs have gone up. We can ask how much packaging has gone up for products. We can ask retailers why packaging has gone up. It is because the carbon tax is paid on fuel that delivers every single thing along the supply chain, and when the fuel prices go up, everything along the supply chain goes up. Unless we axe the tax, we are not going to see a reprieve. We need to axe the carbon tax and give families back more money in their pockets, not some one-time rebate that was masked as a grocery rebate when it is actually an HST rebate.

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

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech, after hearing other speeches given earlier by the Conservatives or the coalition. Members advised taking action specifically on the supply side of the housing issue. I think that everyone agrees on the need to address the housing supply. I also think that the government has a critical role to play in this regard, and that it is not doing enough.

However, there are two sides to every situation. The reason a housing shortage happens is because of demand, because people want housing. I never hear anyone talk about that in the House, even though it is being discussed everywhere in the media. Why is there a record number of newcomers, particularly temporary foreign workers, yet no one wants to talk about it in the House? It is something under the federal government's control, after all.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, part of the reason we cannot get houses built is because we cannot even get workers to work. A mom of a young adult told me that her son completed college and has a full-time job. He does training, travels as requested and has duties, but he cannot afford to live or rent near work. He lives at home; he drives over an hour each way, paying too much in gas to save for a mortgage or first and last on a rental. He looked into an electric vehicle and put down a deposit to purchase, but he cannot afford the higher insurance, not to mention the higher payments. He could not find any government rebates or incentives. His work, which he absolutely loves, as a very skilled and specialized—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, everyone knows that times are really tough right now. Canadians are suffering; housing and grocery prices are higher than ever, and they continue to go up. There is a real need for the government to intervene and adopt public policies to try to circumvent these circumstances that Canadians find themselves in.

Bill C-56 is a good step toward accomplishing some things, and certainly there are some things in this bill that, for years, New Democrats have called for. However, I have to say that this bill is a very small step. There are so many things that people need from the government to help with affordability.

The bill introduced by the leader of the NDP actually even goes further with regard to the Competition Bureau, which is a part of Bill C-56. His bill, Bill C-352, would impose harsher penalties on companies that fix prices and would better rein in and regulate monopolies in the industry. Currently, the onus to prove that mergers or monopolies are harmful to Canadians is placed upon the Competition Bureau, and that needs to change. We think that the burden of proof should fall to the companies; they should have to prove that their activities are in the interests of Canadians. Bill C-352 would do this. It would better protect Canadian consumers.

Not a day goes by that I do not hear from constituents who are struggling to pay for their groceries, rent or mortgage. I meet with community groups, food banks and shelters that are trying to stretch their services and programs so that they can help and cover more and more people. The people in London—Fanshawe are incredibly generous. When a neighbour needs help, there are many who will do what they can and give what they can, but the government needs to learn from them. It seems to be concerned only with these incremental supports. It is really quite disappointing.

We have had federal governments in power, time after time in this country, that have no real interest in actually ending poverty. They only perpetuate it. In fact, it would cost us less to eliminate homelessness and poverty entirely. We have had both Liberals and Conservatives in government that are only truly concerned with ensuring that those who hold the majority of power, keep it.

We need to deal with the core problem here: For years, there has been a growing divide between the richest and the poorest among us. The truth of the matter is that this country was built by everyone, by all citizens, but not all citizens are getting an equal return on that investment.

I am extremely disappointed with the Liberals' approach of calling in the grocery CEOs for a meeting, wagging their fingers at them and asking them to please do better. It is a government made of people, and it needs to govern for all people. All people have to pay their fair share. We have a responsibility to draft laws to ensure that equality.

The Conservatives would have us believe that the carbon tax is the only thing driving up grocery prices, but if that were the case, then the CEOs' profits would not be growing in the way we have seen them grow. If they were just passing along the increased costs from inflation or from the carbon tax, Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro would not have made $3.6 billion in combined profits in 2022. Those profits are growing by far more than the increase in input costs. Any government or any party that wants to form a government with some common sense and with a seriousness about addressing the challenges that Canadians have been facing at the grocery store has to recognize the role of corporate greed in the equation. Nothing will change for people until we do that.

Long before the pandemic, before these incredible increases in inflation, New Democrats were recommending a windfall profit tax. Other governments around the world are doing this. We can use our legislative powers to stop price gouging, price-fixing and greedflation. We need to address the extreme profits these companies enjoy at the expense of people in my riding and in all our ridings.

I also want to talk about the other piece of this bill concerning the removal of the GST from construction costs on rental units. Again, this is a good first step, but it is a small one. It is one that New Democrats have long been calling for. When it comes to housing, we have seen Liberal and Conservative governments ensure that housing is entirely a financial issue.

I believe that housing is a human right. We cannot rely solely on a market-based solution when it is about a human right. If we truly want to resolve the housing crisis that has been growing for over 30 years in Canada, we need a wide range of solutions.

New Democrats have made several proposals. One I would like to talk about right now is the inclusion of an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations. This would give them an opportunity to buy affordable social housing when organizations or companies decide to sell them. This non-profit acquisition fund could help alleviate the housing crisis.

We have seen a lot of real estate investment trusts or big corporate landlords swoop in and buy buildings. They have fast access to capital, and they have a lot of money in reserve that they can use to buy these places.

Again, in my riding, there are residents who live in the Webster Street Apartments, and they are being renovicted. I have raised this issue in the House a number of times, asking for the government to help them. Sadly, my calls have fallen on deaf ears.

Ultimately, a Toronto-based corporation purchased rental units in my riding that were formally reasonably priced. They made small renovations, sometimes painting or removing partial walls, and then they told the existing residents that they would be charged an additional $1,000 a month in rent. These residents are seniors, people living on ODSP, single moms and people on fixed incomes. They cannot afford that significant increase in their rent.

They are now having to leave their homes. Some of them have lived there for decades. They have created a community. They feel truly a part of the building with their neighbours; they know who their neighbours are. However, they are being forced to leave that home.

The creation of a non-profit acquisition fund could have helped stop that kind of renoviction and helped the people in my constituency who live on Webster Street.

The government must also adopt policies that will help address the critical shortage of social and affordable housing. There is no mention of that in Bill C-56. We know that there are opportunities to work with the government and other parties to ensure that Canada can take strategic approaches, including non-market solutions.

There is no doubt in my mind that a public policy intervention is required in order to get a handle on this situation. We have reached this moment of crisis because, for 30 years now, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have largely said that they will leave housing up to the market. However, the market has not produced solutions around affordability.

The market has an important role to play in the building of housing or the delivery of groceries, for that matter. However, the government has to create a balance. There is currently no balance. We cannot leave it solely to the market. A lot of housing needs in Canada will never be met by the market; meeting these needs would not be profitable enough.

That is why we need a strategy that pushes private actors into making affordable suites available as part of their holdings. It is why we need governments to take responsibility, as they did in the 40s all the way up to the 90s.

Unless we get governments back to the table and take responsibility for the creation of social housing, we are not going to see an adequate resolution to this crisis. That is one of the things that has changed significantly in Canada since the 1990s, where the government said that it actually did have a responsibility and an obligation to invest in social housing. Sadly, we had a Liberal government that stopped that. In Ontario, we had a Conservative government that stopped that in the 90s.

We need to get back to that level of investment and commitment. We cannot continue to see current governments, such as Doug Ford's provincial Conservative government in Ontario, being in the back pockets of wealthy developers. Again, this is about balance.

We need a meaningful engagement of not-for-profit and co-operative sectors to build social housing. I need to see that in Bill C-56. I would love to see that in the bill.

There are so many things I want to talk about in terms of affordability and housing, but I will conclude with this: Food and housing are not just commodities. These are not things people can do without. They need them to live. They cannot solely be the subject of profit-driven markets, with no checks or balances or regulations on that greed.

My constituents, and all people in Canada, have the right to live a dignified and healthy existence; we have an obligation here in this place to give that to them. New Democrats will always fight for that equality and fairness.

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

Madam Speaker, I remember very clearly, going right back to 1993, that I was advocating that the federal government play a role in housing, but every political party inside the House of Commons opposed such involvement. A lot has changed under the current Prime Minister.

The current Prime Minister is the first prime minister since the early 90s who has made a clear statement that we have to invest in housing. He has brought forward a national strategy of housing, from virtually day one to the legislation we have today, where we are, again, saying that the federal government needs to play a role.

Yes, it is important, and it is nice to see that we have a national government that wants to play that federal role, but all the stakeholders need to come together in order to deal with this housing situation properly. This includes non-profit organizations, other levels of government and, of course, the federal government. Would the hon. member not agree with that?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, this needs a whole-of-government approach, and all partners need to work together. This has become a crisis that governments have watched happen, which they have created over the last 30 years. However, there have also been a lot of gaffes in the federal government's provisions of some of the solutions New Democrats have been calling for. There have been a lot of delays. Knowing that they have created this crisis over the last 30 years, now we have to have a huge response to it.

I would tell the hon. member to put his money where his mouth is, stand up, stop making just announcements and do what is needed.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member from the NDP has been part of the government for the last year and a half, and now the government is blaming the government for the crisis we are going through. How can she explain that?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. New Democrats are not members of the government. We are trying to use some of the power we have to deliver on the commitments we made to people on the doorsteps. We have not seen anything from the Conservative Party because all they do is criticize rather than propose solutions and work with the government in providing some help for constituents.

I am proud of my track record. I am proud that I am able to provide dental care to the people who need it and, hopefully, pharmacare, if the government will play ball with us on that. What has your party done to actually provide—

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

I would remind the hon. member that I cannot answer that question.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Madam Speaker, I cited earlier the impact of corporate greed in our country. It is about $3.90 on a $100 bag of groceries. The carbon tax, which the Conservatives try to spin as the major contributor, is 15¢ on a $100 bag of groceries.

We know corporate profits are going into the pockets of Galen Weston. In places like Tofino, Hornby Island and Ucluelet, there are co-op grocery stores that give the profits back to their members. Does my colleague agree that we should charge an excess profit tax on corporate greed to fund co-op models when it comes to the grocery business?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree with my hon. colleague more.

I really liked what he said earlier in this debate when he referred to the Conservative Party's focus on the carbon tax as a diversion tactic. They are ultimately trying to cover up for and be these huge lobbyists for the oil and gas companies that receive those extreme profits, which we need to put excess taxes on.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, following up on that point, as the member for London—Fanshawe likely knows, the carbon tax, in the last year, added two cents a litre to the cost of gas. Excess profits of the oil and gas industry added 18¢. That is why I put forward a motion that calls for a windfall profit tax on oil and gas companies, specifically looking to work with members of all parties to do something extremely reasonable and responsible to get at the corporate greed that she is speaking about.

Could the member speak to her support for doing so?

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been calling for that for a long time. My entire speech was to get at the point that there is no balance. The government's responsibility is to provide a balance, and that is out of play right now. We need to ensure that people pay their fair share, and those are the kinds of ideas that need to get to them.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak about Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, or the so-called affordable housing and groceries act. I call it a sham, a desperate attempt by this desperate government to make Canadians think it is tackling these problems by using a name that falsely labels the purpose of the act. It is pure propaganda.

Let us talk about groceries. People watching might be surprised to learn that the bill has literally nothing to do with groceries. Once it is passed, grocery prices would not suddenly drop because of anything in the bill. The bill is, in fact, about something else entirely. It would make amendments to the Competition Act.

First, it would remove the efficiencies defence, an idea Conservatives first proposed, but we never said that it was a solution to high grocery prices because that simply would not be true. However, what its removal would do is make it more difficult for major corporations to merge using economies of scale and savings as an argument. The bill would also introduce new market study powers and give the Minister of Innovation the power to order expensive market studies, which many argue would politicize the process and is financially onerous for industry. Ironically, the bill would drive up the cost for industry, making food even more expensive.

This does not sound at all like inflation-busting measures to me because they simply are not. Members need not take it just from me. They can take it from the Business Council of Canada, which released a statement saying, “As the Competition Act amendments included in today’s bill will in no way address the inflationary environment now facing Canadians – and could, conversely, worsen inflation by introducing uncertainty and instability in the free market”. This is not a ringing endorsement.

Its president, Goldy Hyder, had more to say. He said that it would “stifle” business through “bad regulation” and called it a “trojan horse”. He went on to say, “Ottawa wants Canadians to think the bill will improve affordability for families by giving consumers more choice...but that’s not its actual purpose nor what it will achieve.” He also said that the government “is acting in bad faith” and that the “amendments came as an ambush” and without proper consultation. As well, he said, “If the government is truly serious about lowering prices...lower import tariffs on certain goods...or eliminate...interprovincial trade barriers”.

However, he is not the only critic. Michael Osborne, the chair of Cozen O'Connor's Canadian competition law practice says of the bill, “Some of the amendments are good, more are bad, but most are useless.”

It is not high praise. It is useless because competition law is simply not designed to solve macro economic problems such as inflation. He pointed out what we have been saying for two years, which is that inflation is caused by expanding the money supply too quickly by loose monetary and fiscal policy.

He went on to say, “By design, competition law cannot limit increases in the money supply; that's the job of central banks...If a lack of competition is responsible for rising grocery prices, then competition law might be able to help. But the evidence doesn't support this.” He also indicated that the bill vests too much power to order market studies with the minister, reducing the bureau's independence and increasing the risk of politicizing competition law enforcement.

It is becoming a disturbing trend with this government to hand power directly to politicians at the expense of other departmental officials. This will lessen the independence of the Competition Bureau and politicize the way that we deal with competition law.

Even if there were more room for competition in the grocery industry, Mr. Osborne opines that removing the efficiencies defence would have little effect on lowering prices given how small margins are on grocery sales. These are damning opinions from industry regarding the efficacy and forthrightness of Bill C-56.

If the Liberals really wanted to make groceries more affordable, they would drop their inflationary carbon tax to stop taxing the farmer who produces the food, the trucker who transports the food and the grocer who sells the food. It is the height of Liberal hypocrisy to claim to be lowering food prices while they are taxing food production and transportation every step of the way.

The bill before us also claims to be the affordable housing act, which is another sham. Although it would reduce the cost of a new build by the 5% GST it would eliminate, it would do nothing to bring down the price of existing housing in the near term.

After eight years of the Prime Minister, housing costs have more than doubled. Toronto now ranks as the worst housing bubble in the world. Vancouver is now the third most overpriced housing market in the world when we compare average income to housing price. It is worse than New York, London and Singapore, a tiny island with 2,000 times more people per square kilometre. All these places have more money, more people and less land, yet somehow, miraculously, their housing is more affordable.

Canada has the fewest homes per capita of any G7 country, even though we have the most land to build on. That is because we are the second lowest in being the slowest with building permits out of all 40 OECD countries. It used to take 25 years to pay off a mortgage. Now it takes 25 years just to save up for a down payment. Only in Canada has housing become so unaffordable so quickly. This is happening because the Prime Minister subsidizes government gatekeepers and the red tape that prevent builders from getting shovels in the ground and our people into homes they can afford.

In Vancouver, nearly $1.3 million of the cost of an average home is due to 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. In Toronto, the added cost is $350,000.

Housing prices have doubled; mortgage payments have doubled. According to the IMF, Canada is the G7 country most at risk of a mortgage default crisis. We have the most at-risk housing market among developed economies. As low-interest mortgages come up for renewal, defaults are sure to rise.

Conservatives have a real plan to get housing built. Our leader and party's act, the building homes not bureaucracy act, would incentivize cities to speed up the rate at which they build more homes every year to meet our housing targets. Cities would have to increase the number of houses built by 15% each year and then 15% on top of the previous target every year. If targets were missed, cities would have to catch up in the following years and build even more homes, or a percentage of their federal funding, equivalent to the percentage they miss their targets by, would be withheld. Cities that exceed that target would get bonus funding; cities that miss it would have their funding reduced. Federal transit funding would be provided to certain cities only when those stations are surrounded by high-density residential buildings.

We would empower Canadians to file complaints about Nimbyism with the federal infrastructure department. When complaints are legitimate, we would withhold infrastructure and transit dollars until municipalities allow homes to be built. It would ensure that CMHC executives cannot receive bonuses unless housing targets are met and applications for new construction are approved within 60 days.

In addition, there will be a 100% GST rebate on new residential rental properties for which the average rent payable is below market rate to ensure that low-income housing gets built in this country.

This bill would also require the housing minister to report on the inventory of federal buildings and land to identify land suitable for housing construction, and to propose a plan to sell at least 15% of any federal buildings and land that would be appropriate for housing construction.

The sad reality is that, under the Prime Minister, housing costs 50% more in Canada than it does in the United States. To bring market equilibrium, we need to build 3.5 million homes by 2030. This act will not get the job done.

I find it troubling that the government that caused this affordability crisis because of its inflationary spending and taxes has now brought legislation that blames food producers and grocers. Deflecting blame from itself and using the power of the state to impose a solution on industry is a bullying tactic unbecoming of a responsible and ethical government.

It is time for the Liberals to get out of the way and let Conservatives fix what they broke. This bill is a sham, and the Prime Minister is not worth the cost.