Debates of Nov. 23rd, 2023

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

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is the government's job to incentivize various parts of the marketplace from time to time when it sees the need for the betterment for society. Sometimes we do that with respect to encouraging the growth of a particular manufacturing sector, such as we have seen with electric batteries and the car revolution that is coming along with EVs, and sometimes it is about incentivizing through removing the GST on building new rental units.

On the topic of affordable housing specifically, this is just one tool of many. I have made various announcements that are based on different levels of government support. We may see the rents in a particular building being required at 80% of CMHC market rents and sometimes as low as 50% or 60% based on the supports that have been received. We also have supports for rent that is geared to one's income. The member would know that the ministry responsible deals with that as well.

This is one program he mentioned, but there is a whole host of programs. We have to approach housing from a holistic perspective. If we were just doing the one measure he mentioned, it certainly would not be enough, but we are doing a lot more than that.

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

Madam Speaker, the bill we are debating today contains parts of two different Conservative private members' bills buried within it. I am wondering if the member opposite could enlighten us as to how many other great Conservative ideas it will take for his government to get to the point where it can finally look at balancing the budget.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, does the member really think that Canadians care whose idea it was? It is an amazing idea. I thank him very much for it. Let us celebrate it together. Now I hope the member will vote for it. That was such a ridiculous comment.

I know this better than most people. I brought forward a private member's bill in 2016, and before it got voted on, the government put it in a piece of legislation it had brought forward. I rejoiced in that, knowing that Canadians would be better off as a result. Only a petty politician would spend time talking about it being a certain person's idea, not someone else's, and why the other person is getting the credit for it. Who cares? This is for the betterment of our country.

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

Madam Speaker, the reality is that we have the scale and scope of a housing crisis, and it is manifest right across this country. In fact, in my riding of New Westminster—Burnaby, average rents are now $2,500 a month for a one-bedroom apartment. That means families are homeless or are doubling or tripling up. In some cases, there may be half a dozen people living in a one-bedroom apartment.

With that scale and scope, and knowing how awful the Harper regime was, why did the Liberals not move to immediately build the housing that is absolutely necessary? Why are they looking, through the fall economic statement, to wait two years before the funding that is so crucial to building affordable housing, which is based on 30% of income, and that so many Canadians need now, is put into place? Why are the Liberals, despite the pressure, hesitating on doing the right thing?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question, but it has a false pretext, which is to assume that nothing else has ever been done, which is not the case.

We have had, for a number of years now, the national housing strategy. I am aware of several projects in my own riding that have been built, as well as those on the west coast and on the east coast.

This is what I find most frustrating about the last two questions. They assume that this is the only measure that has ever been taken by the government on housing. We have been dealing with housing challenges since we came into office. We had the first national housing strategy introduced, I believe around 2018, and we have been trying to tackle this ever since. Yes, the problem has been getting worse. That is why we are throwing even larger measures at it right now, such as the one the member indicated.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Madam Speaker, on the whole affordability issue, and this bill apparently deals with affordability, how can we guarantee that it is going to go down or get easier for constituents in my, the member's and everybody else's ridings? We have tried this and that, and we have said that we were going to lower prices, but people are still feeling the pinch. How can he say this bill would help Canadians with affordability?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot guarantee anything. I do not think anybody can guarantee anything realistically.

What I can say is that we look at where the problem is. We know the problem is in food inflation. We know that food prices have inflated much faster than the average. We know there is a small oligopoly in Canada in the major retailers of food. That is why the minister responsible brought those CEOs to Ottawa to talk about what can be done.

That is why this bill would empower the Competition Bureau to do more by putting more teeth into its ability to deal with the problems of anti-competitiveness. Again, this is one measure that I think goes to the heart of competition and to ensuring competition because we recognize that, when there is healthy competition, people get the best value for their dollar, which they are not getting right now specifically as it relates to the retail grocery industry.

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

Madam Speaker, just so the member is aware, we are talking about Motion No. 30. Therefore, there is no reason why anybody should be chastised for not talking about some of the other issues. Of course, they are important and have been described before.

One thing I would like to mention, because the Liberals seem to feel they have found something special to speak about, is that, yes, Ukraine is part of carbon pricing in the European Union, but that is so it can participate. In 2019, and this comes from McKinsey and Company's Ukraine carbon pricing policy, in Poland it was $1.00, in Sweden it was $139, in Ukraine it was 36¢, and in Canada at that time, to be fair, was $20, which is 55 times more. That is what we are talking about. Therefore, I think it is somewhat rich that the Liberals are taking that position.

The point I wish to make is that I have gone to OECD meetings in Europe where they were discussing the concept of the carbon tax. The major push from this country was that those countries must make sure to put their stamp on Canada's carbon tax. That happened both in Berlin when I was there and in Birmingham two summers ago. These are the types of things the government is pushing, and it continues to do it now.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's comment about talking about whatever we want. Maybe he should talk to the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands about that, as he is the one who called me out on it.

This does not matter because nowhere in this deal does it commit Ukraine to Canada's system. It is a red herring to suggest otherwise.

The member will have to explain to me why Conservatives never raised the issue. First, they started talking about how it was a woke free trade deal. They started out talking about everything but a carbon tax. They only started talking about a carbon tax being in this about a week ago. They just discovered it then. They should not act like they have been on this all along because they have not. They know it is a red herring.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to see you. I like speaking when you are in the Chair. I know you are eagerly awaiting my speech, but I know you are even more eagerly awaiting that of the colleague with whom I am sharing my time, the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, a man so very cultivated that his riding is zoned for agriculture.

I feel like repeating that we are faced with closure yet again. They are reducing our debate time and bypassing the process. They are taking time away from the Standing Committee on Finance for a bill that we feel is important.

The argument the government gives for working this way is this. It says that housing is so important that we need to ram this through by bypassing parliamentary processes and that the Competition Act reform is so important that we need to ram it through before Christmas by bypassing parliamentary processes.

I am not very satisfied with that type of logic for the following reason. There have been problems with the Canadian competition regime for years. In the early 1980s, we had 13 big box stores in Canada. Geographically speaking, Canada is a rather large country. We allowed mergers and acquisitions to occur at the expense of consumers to the point where the minister can now sit down with the entire grocery market around a coffee table in his office one morning. The government let that happen. The Liberals and Conservatives let that happen. We have had alternating Liberal and Conservative governments, and this has never been urgent until now. It was never urgent until the Liberals' pre-session caucus meeting where an argument broke out and then, all of a sudden, they had to move quickly. All of a sudden, this is so urgent that every parliamentarian who is not a Liberal is having their rights violated.

Housing and the GST on housing are so urgent that they have to be rammed through under a gag order. Where did this measure come from? I am not saying it is a bad measure. I am not saying that it will not help increase the supply of housing.

What I can say is that the Liberals had a caucus meeting prior to the parliamentary session. They were down in the polls, they panicked and they had to do something about housing. They came up with the GST measure, but were not even able to include the parameters of a major change to the tax laws in the bill. Now here they are introducing a very flawed bill that will give the government disproportionate regulatory power. Now they are telling us that it has to be passed quickly.

However, they had not thought about it before. This is the government's new way of skirting democratic debate: gag orders.

Today, when we ask questions about the administration of the Canada Revenue Agency's programs, we are told that the CRA is independent.

Now there are new bills where we are given only a framework and everything else is set by regulation. The Liberals had promised help for the disabled. They finally introduced a bill with a framework, but it does not include a penny for the disabled and its parameters are unknown to us.

That is why I have to say that, once again, the Liberal government is disrespecting parliamentarians. I believe in parliamentary work. I disagree with lots of people in the House, but I recognize that they take the time to look at the issues, read the bills, propose amendments, rise in the House and express their views on bills. I think those parliamentarians should have the right to speak. Now the Liberals are talking about the cost of living. They say we have to bypass the whole process because of the cost of living.

The economic statement contained no immediate social housing measures. That is what Quebec wanted. We have permanent programs to build low-income housing and housing co-ops. The federal government has been stalling on handing money over to Quebec for years. The Bloc Québécois had to push to get the last $900 million we were owed. There is virtually nothing in the latest economic statement that acknowledges the urgency of the situation.

Take the cost of living, for one. Now that there are only five major grocery chains left, we have to hustle for legislation they took decades to introduce. On housing, not only is there nothing in the statement, but, to make things worse, they are complicating matters with Quebec by creating the department of interference in Quebec's municipal affairs.

It is a bad idea. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government tried it back in the day and gave up. That government had no luck doing anything with it. Now it is the son's turn. Repeating a mistake twice is never a sign of common sense. It must be an intergenerational thing.

Small and medium-sized businesses and chambers of commerce in my riding are asking that we give our businesses more time to repay their Canada emergency business account loans. What is this government's contemptuous response? It says that the federal government provided $8 out of $10 of assistance during the pandemic and that it has helped businesses tremendously. However, it did so with our tax dollars, and piled up a debt that our children will have to pay interest on. This is not money that the federal government conjured out of thin air. It is money that the federal government borrowed at the expense of future generations. True, we collectively took the risk. However, the government is telling us that since it helped businesses during the first phase of the crisis, it has the moral right to abandon them during the second.

Now the government is talking to us about competition. When people in my riding go out shopping, how many small businesses, suppliers and shops will be closed? How many fewer stores will people have to choose from? What effect will this have on consumer choice and prices in rural areas, where often the only place people can buy many products is from a small business? Despite all that, the government is doing absolutely nothing.

Earlier, I had a phone conversation with a produce grower in my riding. He called to tell me that he had a bad season, that it was terrible. I see Conservative MPs looking at me and they know that what I am saying is true. We all get these calls. People are asking us when the government is going to pay out emergency support to get them through the year. The government's answer is that it will not do anything. It will not offer them any emergency assistance to make up for the worst season they have ever had. How will consumers be affected when produce markets close? In the world of fruit and vegetables, we need produce growers to provide us with local, environmentally friendly products that are grown nearby, that are homegrown and that revitalize our rural areas and regions. The government is doing absolutely nothing about that.

I understand that the NDP wanted to shut down the debate. I do not know what they got in return, but I am very curious. Everyone in the parliamentary precinct is dying to know what the NDP is getting in return for shutting down the debate. Everyone wants to know how the movie ends. I cannot wait to find out. I do not know what the NDP got but I think it was probably pretty costly for the Liberals, although the NDP did not get anything in the economic update. What we want are measures for the middle class. We want measures for our farmers, for our businesses and for housing, but there are no such measures.

Now, on the substance of the bill, it is a good bill. We have been saying for years that this kind of legislation should be introduced, specifically regarding competition.

In Canada, our competition regime is archaic on every level. It is not that the commissioner of competition does not want to do his job. The Competition Bureau employs competent people, but there are fundamental flaws in their mandate. Among other things, mergers and acquisitions are allowed based on efficiency gains alone. In Canada, when two businesses merge, no one asks whether the cost reduction and efficiency gain will allow them to be more competitive with the others and in turn lower the price consumers pay. They only ask whether they are able to be more efficient and to hell with the consumer.

I do not have enough time to get into the details of the bill, but I can say that it will change this particular situation. It will also prohibit other anti-competitive practices. In Canada, it is prohibited to directly come to an agreement with a competitor to reduce competition, but getting the dirty work done by another is allowed. For example, a business has the right to tell the shopping centre it is renting space from that it cannot rent space to another grocer or another hardware store. They get others to do the dirty work.

This bill contains a number of good things. They include the government giving the Competition Bureau more power to conduct investigations, obtain documents and compel witnesses to testify. That will be a good thing.

I will conclude my speech by saying that a bank merger is coming. HSBC is being acquired by the Royal Bank of Canada, or RBC. This file is on the Minister of Finance's desk, and the Competition Bureau only looked into the efficiencies that would be generated by the transaction.

If the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is at all committed to his principles, he will require that the Minister of Finance wait for this legislation to be passed and for the Competition Bureau to conduct a new analysis before authorizing this transaction.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I am a little bit puzzled. On the one hand, the hon. member is attacking the NDP, and I guess the government at the same time, in terms of this motion. On the other, he is supporting the contents of the bill. Does he support the continued Conservative filibuster, or does he not want to see residents of Quebec and the rest of Canada actually benefit from the measures he supports?

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

Madam Speaker, first, I am not attacking anyone. I am making some factual observations. The fact is that our right and my right as a parliamentarian to express myself on this matter is being curtailed.

The member across the way talks about the Conservative filibuster. It is not right that we are pushing this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance next week when this is legislation that amends the Excise Tax Act and fundamentally changes the Competition Act. It is not right that such an important bill is getting only two meetings, next Monday and Wednesday until midnight. If the Liberals thought their bill was so important and they, like me, thought that the content of this bill was so important, they would allow the Standing Committee on Finance to do its job properly, but this is absolutely not the case right now.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I empathize with the frustration. I am frustrated too. We are in a position where we have to deal with a party that is blocking legislation after legislation from getting through at a time when people need help. People need to have access to affordable groceries and a roof over their head. We are put in this predicament where we are all impacted by the decisions being made consecutively by the Conservatives to stop anything from going through the House. What does the member propose we do in order for us to see Canadians get the help they need and deserve when there is a party blocking all the legislation Canadians need from going through?

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

Madam Speaker, and there was light.

I understand my colleague's viewpoint and her question. It is a reasonable question. I understand how, from the NDP's perspective, voting for multiple closure motions might seem like a good thing for democracy. Let us say for argument's sake that this is a great closure motion, even though I would disagree.

Not only are they muzzling us at this stage, they are also muzzling us at the committee stage. No one with an iota of intelligence in the world of economics, finance or competition would think that two evening committee meetings are enough for a bill with such potentially deep and long-term effects on our competition system.

What would I have done? I might have done a better job of negotiating.

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

Madam Speaker, maybe there are other measures the member would like to see the government take on that would be beneficial to his constituents in Quebec. Does he want to speak a bit more about what could be done to further enhance competition rather than just simply having a lazy government stealing other parties' bills?

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

Madam Speaker, I get the same kinds of questions from both Liberals and Conservatives. We support the bill. We think its underlying principle is good and its main features will be useful. We do not think these solutions will fix everything, and especially not when it comes to housing, but there are good solutions here for competition issues.

What I think we should do is take a little more time to hear from witnesses so that stakeholders can share their views and we can suggest amendments and work toward improving the bill. If things do come to a standstill at some point, we will discuss all that, but I think that holding a gun to the committee's head and making it work as fast as possible will rob us of a tool that is of vital importance to parliamentary democracy and the legislative process. I find that deeply disappointing.

[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.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the last points the member made around rent and who is really going to benefit from the GST exemption.

Of course I believe that the GST exemption is a good idea. I wish it had happened many years ago. Would the member mind just expanding on what we need to do for renters?

In British Columbia, there are above-guideline rent increase papers being served to people. I know that, for one of the residents in my riding, their rent went from $1,100 to $1,400, and they were asked to sign one of these above-guideline rent increases. Could the member expand on what he thinks would be helpful to make sure renters are protected?

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

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate some of the things I said. I do not see why a landlord would say that, since he did not pay GST on the purchase of a new building, his rental prices will go down. I do not see how this measure could lead to that. I do not see any automatic or obvious correlation.

Having said that, I believe that if GST were to be imposed, it should be on the buyers if homes were being purchased only to rent them at exorbitant prices. That could be one measure. How can rental housing be improved? It is often a question of supply and demand. To improve the situation, we need a major housing construction strategy. Clearly, we do not have one.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, that was an interesting answer; the member said he does not see a correlation, then specified the correlation that we need to build more housing. Reducing the cost of building, especially by reducing the GST, would make rental projects more profitable for builders to develop, increase the supply and increase competition in the rental market. Would he not acknowledge that reducing this cost is going to have an impact, which is what we want to see?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the member opposite did not listen to what I said. I said that there was no correlation with rental prices. He can listen to that again and we will talk about it again.

[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 think he put his finger on the problem with these super closure motions. My colleague began his question by summarizing our position, which is, of course, to oppose the super closure motion, but support the bill as amended at this stage.

Entrepreneurs are asking us questions and they want to know if they have the right to do certain things. We need to do our job properly on that. Super closure motions do not allow us to do our job properly. They do not allow us to carry out studies and examine the details as we should. This is not the first time that we have rammed a bill through because of a super closure motion only to realize later that the bill is having alarming consequences because of a misplaced comma.

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

Madam Speaker, we know very well that the Conservatives want to block this legislation. We know that they want to block it so that they can also block the anti-scab bill that the NDP has been pushing for and that is, of course, supported by Quebec's unions.

My question is very simple. Do the Bloc members understand that the Conservatives are blocking this bill so that they can also block the anti-scab bill?

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

Madam Speaker, correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the closure motion came after the anti-scab bill issue.

That being said, generally speaking, I too was stonewalled by the Conservatives on a bill I defended at the Standing Committee on International Trade. Those staunch advocates of farmers, the Conservatives, filibustered the defence of supply management. We can clearly see how consistent they are.

However, it never crossed my mind to impose a super closure motion on that, either. Some practices we use can be worse than what we are trying to remedy. A super closure motion is one of them. If democratic procedures are denied, if things get mired in a procedural overload like that on a committee, fortunately, there are rules in place, there is a limited meeting time, despite everything, in case of filibustering.

I understand that it is frustrating, but for something as important as a new competition law that will have a direct impact on the lives of so many people, we must give ourselves the time to do things properly and—