Debates of Nov. 6th, 2023

Lowering Prices for Canadians Act

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

moved that Bill C-352, An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to rise today to speak to my private member's bill, the lowering prices for Canadians act.

There is too much corporate control in Ottawa. The corporate-controlled Conservatives set up a system that continues to benefit wealthy CEOs. The big lobby Liberals continue to protect the interests of those greedy CEOs. We have seen multiple opportunities that both of those governments had to go after these greedy CEOs who exploit Canadians, but they did nothing to take on their greed. As a result, people are struggling.

The Liberals tried to ask nicely of the CEOs and the read-grocery-flyers tactic to bring down prices, and that failed. In fact, that was not to bring down prices; it was to stabilize prices. We know that the corporate-controlled Conservatives will never take on the greed of these CEOs. We want to crack down on the power of the greedy CEOs, bring more power to Canadian consumers, families and workers, and that is exactly what my bill, the lowering prices for Canadians act, would do.

Right now, we have two Canadas. In one Canada, corporate CEOs of large grocery stores have made record profits, and I will go through some of those profits. The three largest grocers, Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro, made a combined $3.6 billion in profits in 2022. The CEO of Loblaws, Galen Weston, compensated at $11.79 million per year, was deemed to be underpaid even though that was 431 times higher than the average salary of a worker at his company.

What is the reality for the rest of Canadians? Food prices are up by 30%. We have record usage at food banks. Workers at those big grocery chains cannot even earn enough to grocery shop at those very same chains. This is a rigged system, rigged by Liberals and Conservatives, and we want to change that. We want to tip the scales back in favour of working people, back in favour of the consumer, and that is exactly what our bill, the lowering prices for Canadians act, would do.

The establishment Liberal Party and the corporate-controlled Conservatives refuse, again and again, to do what is right.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Last week, you reminded us that we were not to use any nicknames for different parties. I take exception to being called a “corporate-controlled Conservative”. No one controls me.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

I thank the member for raising this issue. Indeed, I did make that statement, but quite quickly it was brought to my attention by some hon. members that the adjectives used were considered to be fair game. Therefore, I have relented in pursuing that point.

I thank the hon. member, and I would encourage all members to try to be judicious.

Continuing debate, the hon. member for Burnaby South.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear again. The establishment Liberals and the corporate-controlled Conservatives both had the opportunity to take on the powerful interests of these CEOs, but they did not and have not done it.

Like the majority of Canadians, I believe that corporate greed is driving up the cost of food. That is what Canadians believe, because they know it to be true. However, the corporate-controlled Conservatives and establishment Liberals will not do anything about it. We will. That is what our bill is about, giving more power to consumers and less power to greedy CEOs.

Canadians have a major problem. While they are struggling to pay for groceries, Loblaws was making excessive profits of $1 million a day in 2022. What is even more frustrating is that the Liberals and the Conservatives think that is acceptable. The Liberals are protecting the profits of CEOs by sitting back and doing nothing. As for the Conservatives, it is simple. They want to put more money in the pockets of CEOs.

I have had enough of this system that favours the ultrarich. That is why I introduced the lowering prices for Canadians bill, which will give less power to CEOs and more respect to Canadian consumers.

Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Conservative Party have private chefs and folks who go grocery shopping for them. Therefore, maybe it is not a concern for them, because they do not realize the struggles of everyday Canadians. However, for everyday Canadians things are tough. If they do not have a private chef like the Leader of the Conservatives or the Prime Minister, things are tough.

Things are tough for people like Ambyr, who I recently met. She broke down in tears because, after doing her household budget six times, she still could not figure out how to balance the rent, the cost of putting gas in her car to get to work and the cost of groceries. Something had to go. She has a good job, is working hard and doing everything right, but she is still falling further behind.

It does not have to be this way; it should not be this way. It is this way because corporate-controlled Conservatives and big lobby Liberals have set up a system that benefits the rich CEOs and hurts the working people. We are going to change that. That is why we brought forward our bill, the lowering prices for Canadians act, that would force those corporate-controlled Conservatives and Liberals to support our motion that would benefit working people and ensure that the CEOs pay what they owe. We would take on their corporate greed.

The Leader of the Conservative Party is not who he says he is. He says that he is someone who cares about working people, but that is not the case when we look at his track record and at who runs the Conservative Party. It is interesting to know that 50% of the governing body of his party is made up lobbyists for greedy CEOs. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the Conservatives continue to side with greedy CEOs and end up hurting working people. That is who they are. That is who they are governed by. That is who their leader is.

In fact, let us look at the increase in prices when the Conservatives were in power. It turns out that food prices went up by 25% when they were in power. Let us break that down: ground beef went up by 128%; coffee went up 89%; and apples, and I know the Conservatives love apples, went up by 43%. What went down in that same period were the taxes those corporate grocery stores paid. The reality is that the Conservatives gave massive tax giveaways to the richest corporations, hurting Canadians and benefiting their rich friends.

It does not have to be this way. That is why we are putting forward our bill, the lowering prices for Canadians act, which would bring down prices for Canadians, take power away from those greedy CEOs and give it back to the working people.

Under the Liberals, the cost of groceries increased by 30%. Instead of taking real action, they keep on wasting people's time.

When I was in university, I had to provide food and shelter to my younger teenage brother. I had to work hard at minimum-wage jobs. At today's prices I do not know what I would have done. The average family with young teenagers faces impossible odds. That is what motivates me to fight for people.

My bill on reducing prices for Canadians will increase fines on companies that abuse consumers and give the Competition Bureau more power to protect people. It will give less power to CEOs and more power to consumers. It will allow for more competition and better prices for people.

With the lowering prices for Canadians bill, we have an opportunity to see where the Liberals and Conservatives stand. Do they stand with their rich CEO friends or will they stand with working class Canadians? Will they stand with workers, families and people who are having a hard time buying groceries?

For eight years, we have seen where the Liberals have stood. For eight years, they have shown very clearly that they continue to protect the ultrarich.

We know where the Conservatives stand, because 50% of the Conservative Party's governing body is made up of corporate lobbyists for greedy CEOs. They work hard to protect the interests of their rich CEO friends. Let us see where they stand. When the Conservatives were in power, they gave $66 billion in tax giveaways to the richest corporation, which ended up hurting Canadians and families.

Let us see where they stand now. In March 2022, the Liberals and Conservatives opposed our efforts to make greedy CEOs, like Galen Weston, pay what they owed and bring down prices for Canadians when it came to their groceries. I invite the Liberals and the Conservatives to stop listening to their CEO friends, start listening to working Canadians and support our bill to bring down prices for all Canadians.

Canadians deserve a break. We have seen how high the cost of living is, and Canadians are hurting. Our bill would tip the scales back in favour of Canadians. It would increase penalties for corporate grocery stores that engage in price fixing or price gouging. Our bill would help support smaller independent grocery stores by stopping the anti-competitive behaviour of these large corporate chains. Our bill would increase consumer protections and give the Competition Bureau more power to crack down on the abuses by these large corporations. Our bill would also stop mergers, which end up hurting Canadians, like the merger of Rogers-Shaw, which reduces competition, increases prices and means a loss of jobs.

Everywhere we go, we hear Canadians saying they are paying more. This is our opportunity to put a stop to it. I challenge the corporate-controlled Conservatives and the big lobby Liberals to stand up for working Canadians instead of their CEO friends and support our bill.

I am tired of seeing people struggle while CEOs are rolling in dough. Food banks are busier than ever. Big grocery stores are making massive, record profits. Inflation means that people are not eating as well, and that is causing health problems. Meanwhile, the Liberals are telling people to look at the flyers if they want lower prices. They are mocking Canadians. We have to change that.

My bill will increase penalties for consumer scams, help small grocery stores by protecting them from the anti-competitive tactics used by big chains, give the Competition Bureau more power to crack down on abuses such as price gouging and stop mergers that reduce competition and hurt Canadians, like the recent merger between Rogers and Shaw.

It is time to lower people's bills. That is exactly what our legislation will do.

I want to close by talking about a serious problem. In Canada, there is a massive lack of competition. Whether we talk about banking, cellphones or grocery stores, there are massive oligopolies that basically control these markets. In each of these areas there is a handful of companies that control the market and it means that Canadians do not have real competition and do not have real prices that are fair for them. Compared to prices around the world, we are paying some of the highest prices when it comes to our cellphone fees. Our grocery prices are skyrocketing. It is a direct result of these oligopolies that Conservatives and Liberals have allowed to exist.

As a result of greedy corporations making huge profits, Canadians are struggling. When we ask Canadians, they agree. They believe the number one reason driving up the cost of groceries is corporate greed. I believe we need more competition and not less. I believe we need more protections for consumers and not more power for CEOs. That is exactly what our bill would do.

Contrary to the corporate-controlled Conservatives who want to give CEOs a free ride and the big-lobby Liberals who want to keep on helping out their CEO friends, our bill would take away power from the CEOs and put power back in the hands of working people, put power back in the hands of consumers and ensure that prices are lower and prices are fair. That is what our bill, the lowering prices for Canadians act, would do.

This is an opportunity to see where the Liberals and Conservatives stand. Do they stand with the CEOs or with working people? Do they stand with our bill, which would reduce the abuse of consumers; or will they continue to allow CEOs to make profits off the backs of Canadians? We will see very shortly where they stand.

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

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the fourth party mentioned the big-lobby Liberals and how they were involved in greed. I would like to remind the leader of the fourth party that his partner, the Prime Minister, is the one who spent time at the cottage of Galen Weston.

Given the shambles, incompetence and corruption that we have in the federal Liberal government, there is a possibility that the New Democrats could become the official opposition one day. Should that happen, would the leader of the fourth party eschew having a cook in his house at Stornoway?

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are up against right now is that Canadians are struggling with the cost of their groceries. We are proposing a bill that would bring down the price of food for Canadians. Instead of focusing on the private chef of their Conservative leader or the Prime Minister, I am focusing on making sure that prices are lower for Canadians. Our bill would increase protection for consumers and take away power from the CEOs. Will the Conservatives stand with workers or will they continue to stand with the CEOs, like their board that governs their party would like them to do since it is made of 50% corporate lobbyists for these greedy CEOs? That is the real question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting to hear my colleague, the leader of the NDP, talk about wanting to introduce a bill to help bring down the cost of groceries. As I just mentioned, we know that everyone is frustrated about the cost of groceries. It is nice to see him take an interest in the price of groceries.

I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that the same party leader is a partner in a coalition with the government opposite, which has said that there is no longer a problem. The minister, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, in the Shawinigan region, said that he looked at the flyers for the weeks before and after Thanksgiving and that he had solved the problem.

If that is the case, why do we even need such a bill? I would like him to comment on whether the problem has been solved or not.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals clearly do not have a plan because they said people should go look at the flyers to see that prices are coming down. In addition, the minister stated that he did not know if the plan was working or not because the CEOs have a secret plan. Obviously the Liberals are acting like they are doing something because they are plummeting in the polls. That is why we are tabling our bill.

This bill will force the big CEOs of those grocery chains to do what needs to be done to bring prices down by giving the Competition Bureau more power with stronger, firmer penalties. This will bring down prices and increase competition to help Canadians. The question is, will the Liberals and Conservatives support this bill that will help consumers and disempower the CEOs?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is refreshing to see somebody stand up and talk about the cost of living and not blame it all on the price on pollution. However, one would think that, if all these grocery stores are making so much money, there would be an unholy competition to drop prices to get more customers into the store and get more market share.

I am wondering if the hon. member has thought about doing the deeper dive and going to the producers of the food. We have seen shrinkflation, and we have seen a lot of things happening a layer below the grocery stores. I am wondering if he has thoughts about that aspect.

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP, Burnaby South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from a member from the Liberal Party who, instead of agreeing with our bill, which would take power away from CEOs, is trying to defend the CEOs of these large corporate grocers and saying that maybe it is not their fault. We know with clarity, and the Competition Bureau has confirmed, that the large corporate grocery stores are indeed experiencing a massive increase in their profit margins. They are making more money than ever before, and their greed is driving up the cost of food.

Our bill would strengthen the rights of consumers and take away the power from these greedy CEOs. Will the Liberals and the Conservatives stand with CEOs or working Canadians? That remains to be seen.

[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.

[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.

[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 a 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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today and contribute to the debate on what I take to be an important bill. I want to thank the NDP leader for having brought it forward. It gives voice to the elephant in the room, which is the role that corporate profits are too often playing in making life hard for Canadians.

Earlier we heard from the member for Bay of Quinte who said that it is not corporate profits. However, we know that this is not the case. It is more of what we often hear from the Conservatives, which is making excuses for corporations that are gouging Canadians in a very difficult time.

What I like about this bill is that it does not accept that we should be quiet about corporate profits or suppress debate on the role of corporate Canada in attacking the pocketbooks of Canadians. Instead, it says that we should do something about it.

What am I talking about when I talk about the role of corporate profits? Since 2019, corporate profit per unit of production in Canada is up by 50%. For every unit that we produce, the amount of money that goes into corporate profit is up by 50%. That is from Jim Stanford at the Centre for Future Work. Over the last number of years, since 2019, profits have grown three times faster than wages have.

Sometimes we hear from right-wing economists that wages are really what is driving inflation, and workers should lower their expectations and get used to the idea of having less-powerful paycheques. We hear this whether they are friends of the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party or whether they hang out at the Bank of Canada. However, nobody is telling that to corporate Canada, except the NDP. Corporate paycheques are getting a lot more powerful, three times faster than the wages of Canadian workers.

In the period from 2019 to 2022, if we dig down by industry, we would find obscene levels of additional profit. In the oil and gas sector, we saw a 1,000% increase in profits. Let us just think about that and the reality that Canadians are living. More and more Canadians than ever before are lining up at food banks. Meanwhile, oil and gas companies are charging just about everyone in the country in some way, shape or form, whether it is when they fill up at the pump in order to fill their car to get to work or whether it is when they turn up the heat at this time of year in order to heat their home.

It is not as though Canadians have a choice to do without oil and gas in the current economy. Therefore, to see the companies that are the gatekeepers of that important resource getting 1,000 times more in profit is a significant issue for a lot of Canadians, and it is part of the reason so many Canadians are standing in food bank lines across the country.

What could we do about it? One of the remedies is competition. Historically, that has not been Canada's forte. In big industries, where the cost of getting in is very high and capital-intensive, we tend to see oligopolies form in Canada. This is true in telecommunications, oil and gas, and the grocery sector.

We need strong regulation in order to be able to try to create the kind of competition that could lower prices. What have we seen instead? Just recently, respecting the Rogers-Shaw merger, the Competition Bureau wanted to get more information, but it actually does not have the power to compel companies to hand over information. That is a broken piece of the puzzle. Then, even though the Competition Bureau advised against that merger and went to the Competition Tribunal to make the case, it lost the case in front of the tribunal. Just to add insult to injury, the tribunal ordered the Competition Bureau to pay $13 million in costs for its trouble.

Who ends up footing the bill for that? The taxpayer does; the very same Canadians who are struggling because telecommunication companies are charging among the highest rates in the world then have to dish out another $13 million. This is because their own Competition Bureau had the audacity to challenge telecommunication companies and demand that they show that this would actually benefit consumers and was of the opinion that it would not.

What have we seen since the Rogers-Shaw merger? We have not seen lower prices. In fact, we got a call from a guy in B.C. just looking for a sympathetic ear, who was saying he was now getting double billed. He had been sent a SIM card by Rogers, and until he took the time to figure out how to switch the SIM card, activate the new one and do all the things, he was getting a bill from Shaw and a bill from Rogers. That can be a real pain in the arse, and he had not gotten around to it yet. How are people supposed to make ends meet when a company is charging them twice for the same service?

There is a high level of corporate gall, and it is why New Democrats are concerned about empowering the Competition Bureau to get the information it needs in order to give meaningful penalties to companies trying to skirt the law. These are just some of the things this bill would do. It is about trying to create a culture of more corporate accountability.

There are issues with the government sometimes. We raise issues with what the government does all the time in this place. However, contrary to what the Conservatives often try to portray, it is not just government that is the problem when we look at the track record of corporate profits in the last three or four years, and even before that. In a period of declining corporate tax rates, we have seen corporate profits go up and up.

Is that money being reinvested into the Canadian economy? No. In fact, I hear Conservatives themselves complain about the lack of business investment and productivity in Canada over the last 20 years. That period coincides with the Conservatives getting their way on the corporate tax rate and with a less regulated economy.

If the so-called solution is producing results that are not what we want, it is time to rethink the solution. The member for Burnaby South, the leader of the NDP, has begun some of that work in this bill, and I urge all members in this House to support it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member. When we come back, he will have three minutes to finish his thoughts.

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Bill C-34—Time Allocation Motion

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

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-34, An Act to amend the Investment Canada Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage and one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill; and

That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at report stage and on the day allotted to the consideration at third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67.1, there will now be a 30-minute question period. I invite hon. members who wish to ask questions to rise or use the “raise hand” function so the Chair has an idea of the number of members who wish to participate in the question period.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is in relation to the amendment we are debating now at report stage. We are dealing with section 15, which basically takes cabinet out of the beginning of the process and says the minister only has to go back to cabinet at the end of the process if a national security review says there is a problem. If not, the minister does not have to go back.

Does the minister not believe that we get better decision-making by having all cabinet colleagues involved in the decision-making, not just an individual industry minister making that choice?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a time to think, a time to debate and a time to act. I am pleased to report to Canadians watching at home, and I am sure there are many on this Monday morning, that not only the bill but also the amendments have received unanimous support from all parties in this House.

I am a bit surprised to see, even today, the hidden agenda of the Conservatives to block this bill from going forward, because, as we can see from the record, all parties have agreed to it and all the amendments have been agreed to. We should be in a place today where we can say to Canadians that we take national security seriously and that we want to act in the interests of Canadians.

That is exactly what we are proposing today. We want to move to a vote so we can better protect Canadians by having more tools in the tool box. I would say that my colleagues on both sides, and my respected colleague, would agree with that because the whole purpose of this bill is to have more tools in the tool box. We live in a time of a lot of uncertainty and geopolitical challenges. We welcome foreign investment, but obviously we want to make sure we have the tools in the tool box to protect Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister can provide his thoughts on this. The Conservatives often talk about the issue of foreign interference. Here we have legislation that looks at it from a different perspective, an economic perspective. That is one of the reasons it is important to see this legislation ultimately pass. I would be interested in his comments on that and why the Conservatives continue to not want to see the legislation pass, which is to the detriment of Canadians as a whole.

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

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in this bill that would help Canadians. Members should think about that. We are going to reduce the net benefit threshold review, which is something a lot of members in this House have been asking for. We are going to expand the jurisdiction of the ICA to include asset sales. At this time, we need these kinds of provisions. We are going to have stronger penalties. We are going to have more tools. Imagine, for example, being able to accept undertakings or prevent a transaction from going forward as the government is studying it in the interests of Canadians. Think in the context of IP.

The last time this bill was amended, and members should hold on to their seats, was in 2009. That is the last time it was looked at. If we think about the lapse of time and how the world has changed, obviously we need to act.

This House has had a lot of time to look at this. We introduced the bill on December 7, 2022, so members can imagine that Canadians at home are anxious to see every member of this House acting quickly in order to protect their best interests.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the member that perhaps many people in this House are wondering about. Why do the Conservatives continue to obstruct important business from moving forward, even when it is legislation they support? Can he share his thoughts on that? How do we move forward to get things happening in the House in the timely manner we need to see?

[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.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the minister on his intervention.

Bill C‑34 is certainly well intentioned. We also recognize the work that was done in committee, which enabled us to add to the bill the concept of sensitive sectors, including intellectual property and data banks that contain personal information.

However, the bill is still incomplete and that is the problem. If we were to apply the new rules proposed in Bill C‑34 to the projects submitted in 2022, only 24 of the 1,255 projects would be reviewed. That is not even 2% of all the projects. I would like my colleague to explain whether he agrees that we need to lower the review threshold to cast a wider net and have better rules that will make it possible to review all the projects so as to protect the local economy and prevent any loopholes in foreign investments.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows how much I respect him. He is one of the members of the House that always contribute to the debate.

The problem is that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill, and people likely do not understand the situation. The Bloc Québécois supports the amendment. Everyone has spoken and everyone has voted in favour of the bill and the amendments. We are asking our colleagues in the House today to put it to a vote. Everyone is in agreement. The members from my colleague's party are in agreement. They voted in favour of the amendments and the bill.

Today we are saying that we need to work in the House in the interest of Canadians. People watching us in the galleries and at home are wondering why we have not started voting. That is the real question today. I do not believe I have heard any of my colleagues give us a good reason not to vote when everyone is in agreement. Today's debate is all about moving the bill forward.