Debates of Sept. 27th, 2023

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for York—Simcoe has time for a brief answer.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always thank my colleague for his support of my plastics bill. I think he has spoken 96 times now on the importance of my plastics bill, Bill C-204, that is going through the Senate again. It will be back in the House.

In support of Lake Simcoe, I am glad he also supports our plan to put 15% of federal government properties into houses that people can afford.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise to address Bill C-56, our affordable housing and groceries act, as affordability is an issue of great concern to many of the constituents in the riding of Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, which I have the privilege of representing.

Affordability continues to be a major challenge for Canadians. Despite the inflation rate decreasing from a high of 8.1% last June to 4% last month, prices remain high. As we all recognize, global events, including COVID-19 and the post-COVID economy, the climate crisis and, of course, the unconscionable invasion of Ukraine by Russia have contributed to high inflation worldwide. Even though the Canadian economy has done well, compared to most other countries, it is of little solace to Canadians who are struggling. While global inflation was not caused by the Government of Canada, it is the responsibility of us all to continue to put forward measures to help Canadians.

The pandemic created a unique challenge through the closure of businesses, the creation of labour shortages and the disruption of supply chains. For the first time, for many, we saw some of the worst consequences of an interconnected global economy. The reality was exacerbated by extreme climate events such as flooding, forest fires and heat waves that have swept across countries and continents. In fact, 2023 was the worst year on record for wildfires in Canada. In addition to all that, the war on Ukraine impacted vital food exports that Canada, as well as many other countries, rely on. This conflict has increased global commodity prices, further exacerbating inflation and affordability issues here at home.

Inflation in Canada has decreased to 4% from a high of 8.1% in June 2022, as I have already said, and that is considerable progress. However, the stark rise in oil and gas prices due to large cuts by the Saudi Arabia energy minister and OPEC highlights the precarious nature of this commodity and illustrates that we are not yet at the stable prices Canadians need. A lot of the increase in inflation recently was due to the rise in oil and gas world commodity prices.

A noteworthy point by Tiff Macklem asserts that the source of inflation is from these impactful global events and not, as the opposition believes, that putting a price on pollution is the driving force. In fact, Tiff Macklem, who the opposition loves to quote, calculated that the price on pollution only contributes 0.15 percentage points to inflation, a very small percentage of the inflation we have experienced. This does not take into account the cheques that Canadian households, in provinces that are part of the federal backstop program, receive four times a year, which help to offset these increases. Additionally, while we have no specific estimates of the inflationary impact of climate events, we do know that there has been a great deal of money spent fighting these events. The decreased food supply due to climate change has had an additional impact on inflation rates.

While we must fight the climate crisis, we must also fight the affordability crisis. Thus, we are introducing additional measures to do just that. We are introducing measures to respond to the affordability challenge. With Bill C-56, our affordable housing and groceries act, we are proposing amendments to the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act to make rental housing more affordable and encourage greater competition to stabilize prices.

First, we are removing GST on new rental housing for apartments, student housing and senior residences to encourage newbuilds to support the housing crisis. It is not the only answer, but we have heard from many housing advocates that this will definitely help. Increasing supply in all sectors of the housing market will drive down rental rates. This measure is being applied to all rental units that are being built. This plan is a continuation of the Liberal government's 2015 commitment to affordable housing with the social infrastructure funding stream and other programs, so this is building on actions that have been taken.

This government has been putting forward measures to address the housing affordability crisis for years, but we see that more is needed. This is an additional measure that will help increase supply and bring down rental costs. This is also meeting the SDG objectives of reducing poverty, inequalities, improving health care and creating economic growth.

Additionally, we have done many things to address the cost of groceries. I sit on the agriculture committee. We have had two studies on food prices, one on food security and one on grocery prices. A number of recommendations were made in these studies, and the proposed changes to the Competition Act would address many of these.

However, we still need to do more. Therefore, the government, the Prime Minister and Minister Champagne called in not only the heads of the major grocery chains but also the heads of the—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I realize I said a name I should not have.

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

Yes.

The hon. member may continue.

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, they have called in the heads of the grocery chains as well as the heads of major food manufacturers to come speak with the government and work together to come up with further solutions, because we all have to work together. We know when grocery chains are making record profits and CEOs and others in the C-suite are getting high-level bonuses that Canadians need to know they are also concerned about other stakeholders, such as their loyal customers and their frontline employees, who need help given to them as well.

We are proposing reforms to the Competition Act to foster competition across the economy, with a focus on the grocery sector, in addition to these other measures we have taken. Of course, we also gave the grocery rebate to try to help with affordability.

We have modernized competition law and the necessary enforcement to combat price-fixing in all sectors by applying some of the highest penalties in the world. We did it with the help of public consultation to ensure Canadian voices were engaged and heard.

We would also introduce amendments that would eliminate big business mergers with anti-competitive effects, enable the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and stop anti-competitive collaborations that stifle small businesses, especially small, local grocers.

We also need to take the necessary steps to collect public data on the costs throughout the agri-food supply chain, including disaggregated data on costs of primary agriculture food and beverage processing and food retail sectors. We know farmers are working hard across Canada. We know they need support and we do not want to see any more pressure put on them.

In addition, there would be funding for indigenous-led initiatives in remote and northern areas to improve infrastructure that supports food security in the communities. The recommendation recognizes the unique challenges attributed to vulnerable communities in times of crisis and would facilitate measures to support and protect them.

There were several other recommendations made in these studies, and we are following up on most of them.

We know this government has lived through some of the most challenging global events in history. The opposition likes to confuse correlation with causality, but just because something happened at the same time as something else does not mean it is caused by it. We have heard time and time again experts who have cited that the causes of this global inflation are the three Cs: climate change, COVID and conflict. Those are the three major reasons for this inflation, and we are doing everything we can as a government to try to help Canadians fight inflation and deal with the issue of affordability.

All of us here will continue working on affordability to ensure a prosperous marketplace that fosters economic growth and a comfortable standard of living for Canadians and their families. We see them, we hear them and we are acting to correct this affordability crisis.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill C-56, would the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill agree that a band-aid covering an infection does not actually heal the infection and only makes it worse?

When I look at the farmers in my riding, they are the only people I know of who buy retail and sell wholesale. Putting a carbon tax on top of their monthly bills does directly affect our economy. Would she agree with that?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member asked a couple of different questions.

Band-aids do not heal wounds, it is true, but Bill C-56 is definitely more than a band-aid. We know we need more housing, and this would provide more housing. We have heard it from many experts. This would help Canadians get more affordable housing, especially in the rental sector.

Additionally, on the subject of farmers, absolutely farmers are hard-working. I come from a family of farmers. In my Dutch background, my mother's family are all farmers, and they talk to me. They recognize climate change is a reality and that we need to work on this as well to help them deal with climate events.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Since Parliament resumed, we have often heard the Liberals brag about holding a major summit with the heads of large grocery chains. It is a big show that promises potential commitments, but none of that is binding on the big grocers. We were expecting a response within three weeks, so there is still a week and a half left.

What will happen if the grocers do not decide to voluntarily lower prices? Will a surtax be imposed? Will we go on the offensive on that? Will the government use a coercive approach? After that, where will that tax show up? Will it be passed on to consumers? How will prices be brought down? Will the Liberals impose an obligation to deliver?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are having meetings currently. We believe that the grocery chains and the large manufacturers will come forward with solutions.

In Canada, we all work together. I believe they understand that the thing to maximize is not only shareholder value, it is also stakeholder value in other areas, such as employees and customers.

We are working with them. We will come up with solutions. Certainly, the last thing we want to do is increase prices for consumers. Whatever solutions we come up would not be passed on to consumers.

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

Madam Speaker, for months now, large grocery chains have been ripping off consumers. People are paying crazy prices while the companies make record profits. Now, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry is going on bended knee to the CEOs of those companies to ask if they can stabilize prices. Prices are already too high. Even if prices can be stabilized, people will still be paying too much.

Is that the Liberal plan? To stabilize extortion?

[Leah Taylor Roy, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the prices are too high. We all understand that. We have all seen that.

We are asking. We are not on our knees, we are meeting with the heads of these companies, both the grocery chains and the manufacturers, to talk to them about what they could do voluntarily to address this with us.

We are willing to see that these exceedingly high profits and bonuses are not okay when people are suffering, unlike the Conservatives who like to blame everything on the price on pollution, not at all looking to the profits that are being made by both the grocery sector and the oil and gas sector when Canadians are struggling.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise for the first time in this session of Parliament to speak to Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act.

The lack of affordable housing has been top of mind in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound as home and rental prices have continued to increase over the last eight years.

To give members some data, in 2015, when the current government took office, rental units were on average $700 a month, I did have a fairly wide variance as I represent a large rural riding, but now that rent is well over $1,000 per month. An average house price in 2015 was $311,000 whereas now it is over $608,000. Further complicating this is home sales are down over 27% below the five-year average, and over 31% below the 10-year average.

This speaks directly to the impact the Liberal government's inflationary deficit spending is having on the economy and the ability for people to get into homes, not only to get them built, but to afford to build them or to move into rental units. This has finally come home to roost with the Liberal government, which is acting now, albeit far too late. It is funny that it finally comes forward with a bill to help make life more affordable for Canadians at the same time that the hon. leader of the official opposition introduced his bill, the building homes not bureaucracy act. It liked the bill so much it decided to take a piece of it and call it its own. I guess we could say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I would offer that it could save itself a lot of work by just passing the more comprehensive bill from the Leader of the Opposition.

One of the aspects of the bill that I question is how it is going to address the immediate housing crisis that Canadians are facing right now. If we read the bill, these rental housing units do not even have to be completed until 12 years from now, in the year 2035.

This housing issue has been going on and I have been hearing about it almost the whole time since I was elected. I hosted a housing task force meeting just over a year ago back in my riding because I recognized that this issue transcends all levels of government, elected officials and stakeholders. Everybody has a piece to play in solving this. Those stakeholders included my counties, health units, realtors, builders, chambers of commerce, not-for-profits, co-op housing groups and the construction sector. I would like to paint the picture of the complexity of this issue we are facing and why this bill does not go far enough. There is the increasing cost of land to build on; rising interest rates; the Nimbyism that is existing at all levels, but in particular at the municipal level; development charges and red tape; labour shortages in the construction sector; high inflation on building goods and everyday goods caused by not only supply chain issues, but more importantly, the carbon tax; and the deficit spending of the Liberal government.

This cost of living crisis has basically exhausted the not-for-profits in my area as the demand for aid continues to increase. They have been calling for the removal of the GST on not-for-profits as well, not just what is being proposed in Bill C-56. Existing landlords are hesitant to rent out their properties due to the challenges that so many Canadians are facing because of a frequency of home takeovers, and the excessive red tape for private investment because federal government programs are too restrictive. Ultimately, removing the GST from eligible purpose-built rentals is just one small drop in the bucket for what the residents in my riding of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound need to see in order to fix this housing crisis.

The government likes to talk about some of its other programs, like the housing accelerator fund. I had the privilege of sitting on the HUMA committee when we first studied the housing accelerator fund, but it has failed to demonstrate its utility. Today, I am only aware of one announcement of any funding going out under that program.

When I asked the minister specifically at committee a year ago about how this is going to help a large portion of Canada, i.e., those of us who live in rural Canada, he admitted on the public record that this funding is geared toward the major urban centres in this country, not for the rest of Canada.

I was lucky enough to question the president of the CMHC at that committee as well about the level of bureaucracy and complications. I will mention a specific example of the challenges that not-for-profits were facing. Ultimately, I was successful in advocating for a change.

There was a not-for-profit senior housing development that was running into roadblocks because of the Liberal government's inflationary spending and the costs that have gone up, as I highlighted earlier, to the point where it had to buy down, according to the CMHC, through its financial institution, the actual lending rate.

It was not allowed to talk or renegotiate that, because now the prices had doubled. I will get into specifics a bit later. It was being told it could not communicate in it. Fortunately, when I had the president there, we were able to come to a solution, but the point is that too much bureaucracy is causing the problems. We need fewer gatekeepers, not more.

I will get into some of the specifics I just mentioned. In this case, the construction costs had gone from $3 million to $7 million for this not-for-profit. That is why it is so important that we change it.

In prepping for this speech, I reached out to a number of stakeholders and not-for-profits in my area to ask how this would help them. They feel it is a step in the right direction, but there are plenty of tangible steps the government needs to take in order to make more substantial changes.

I mentioned charities and not-for-profits. I have Habitat for Humanity in my riding; it is a charity that builds homes for low-income residents, and it suggested removing the GST from the sale of homes being built for charities as well, because that is not mentioned at all in the bill. A challenge it specifically faces is that, when fair market value rises, so does the GST, which makes it more expensive for charities such as Habitat for Humanity to build these homes for low-income Canadians, especially given the affordability crisis that Canadians are facing, which has now reduced the charitable donations these charities are receiving.

Additional feedback I got from charities was to remove the compounding carbon tax and clean fuel standards, as they increase costs significantly for charities, which receive no rebate off these additional taxes.

Ultimately, Bill C-56 contains a number of half measures, ideas taken from opposition parties, including, as I already mentioned, the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and, on the competition side, from my colleague from the Bay of Quinte. They have an overreliance on existing programs that are obviously not working, and they are just redoing funding announcements. As I said, while there are some solid measures in this bill that may encourage the construction of more homes, more must be done now to catch up and ensure that Canadians have a roof over their head immediately.

Specifically regarding the housing portion of the bill, the reality is that there is a lot more value in the hon. Leader of the Opposition's building homes not bureaucracy act as a bill, because it goes far beyond just removing the GST from certain new builds. It sets out a road map for bringing homes that people can afford to more Canadians.

Ultimately, if the Liberal government is serious about addressing housing affordability, it would fast-track the Leader of the Opposition's bill and make it law today.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say, I am somewhat disappointed in the Conservative Party today. It is not recognizing the many different things that this legislation would actually do.

It is very easy to critique the legislation and underestimate the degree to which it would help Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In fact, yesterday we saw on the floor a concurrence motion to prevent debate on this particular piece of legislation. There is no sign the Conservatives want to let up in terms of allowing the bill to go to committee.

Does the Conservative Party support the legislation today? If Conservative members support it, do they believe the legislation should get to committee some time this month or next month? It would provide relief to Canadians. When do Conservative members feel the bill should go to committee?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not shocked that the member for Winnipeg North is disappointed; I am frequently disappointed in a lot of the stuff that comes from that side of the aisle as well. I am not shocked by his comments.

My point back would be that I believe every MP in the House should have the right to speak to every piece of legislation, because a lot of MPs do not have the opportunity to speak as often as that member does in this chamber. If he would have listened to my speech, he would know that this is one of the most important issues that Canadians are facing in every riding. Every MP in here, if I asked for a show of hands, I am sure would stick up their hand and say that housing affordability is one of the primary issues they hear about daily.

We need to be able to share that, and we should all have the opportunity to speak to it.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's last comment about how much speaking time certain members get. I want to congratulate him on his speech.

I am wondering about something. For some time now, certain Conservative members from Quebec have been passing themselves off as champions of jurisdictional issues in the House. We in the Bloc Québécois are quite accustomed to seeing the Liberals interfere in areas of jurisdiction that are not theirs. Much to our surprise, this bill does not encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces or the municipalities. However, in what my friend described as the Conservative Party's proposals, I see interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. In case my colleague needs a little reminder, subsections 92(13) and 92(16) of the Constitution Act, 1867 give the provinces legislative jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

Am I to understand from this afternoon's debate that the Conservative Party does not want to respect the Canadian Constitution? What is going on?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I apologize to my colleague for not breaking out the French today, but I want to try to get a serious reply back to his question.

We absolutely believe in the Constitution, but as I said in my speech, the challenge we have with housing is that it transcends all levels of government. It requires everybody to work collaboratively and co-operatively together. If he actually reads what we are proposing from the Conservative Party, he would realize that our bill would offer incentives. It would not be interfering in different levels of jurisdiction; it would incentivize municipalities to get more houses built to meet targets. If they cannot do that, ultimately, they would not actually be trying to help solve the problem we are facing, which is that Canadians need a roof over their head. Therefore, they would not get that money, or as much money;

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I are both Ontario-based MPs. It has been asked in the House several times, and yesterday, during conversations about the bill, I was asking about the Conservative housing plan. One of the key things that strikes me is that they want to sell off public assets, yet we have seen the Doug Ford Conservative government do that in a very problematic way in Ontario. It is at the point where it has been quite controversial, in fact.

As such, I want to hear that the Conservatives would not specifically do that at the federal level and that they would not follow their Conservative colleagues in that regard. What is their plan, specifically, for selling off those public lands?

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am not going to get into the specifics of our plan. Our job right now is to criticize. Maybe that is even too harsh of a word. I would like to say that we will hold the government to account to ensure the legislation it is putting forward is the best possible for all Canadians.

If the member is concerned about provincial politics, I encourage her to resign as a federal member of Parliament and run for provincial parliament. I am sure there are openings available. We will have a plan as soon as the next election is called, and the NDP—

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

I have to resume debate.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services.

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

Madam Speaker, today I rise to address this chamber with respect to Bill C-56, specifically its amendments to the Competition Act. This is the regime that enables the Competition Bureau to protect our economy from actors and acts that would unduly and artificially increase prices and decrease product choice for consumers. An empowered Competition Bureau means a Canadian marketplace that is more innovative, efficient, and, most important, affordable. In my home province of New Brunswick in particular, where household incomes on average are lower than in the rest of the country, we need to use every tool at our disposal to bring down food prices for Canadians and their families.

The series of proposals enclosed in Bill C-56 may be part of the response to a global inflation crisis driving up the costs of Canadian necessities, but they are also a long-awaited package that would better align our competition framework with international best practices.

The bill includes three significant changes to the Competition Act: the abolition of the efficiencies exception in merger review, the ability to compel information during a market study, and the ability to review agreements between non-competing actors that are designed to reduce competition.

The efficiencies exception, a defence that allows anti-competitive mergers to survive a challenge if the corporate efficiencies they are expected to generate are greater than the harm to competition, is unique among advanced competitive regimes. It allows a merger to proceed knowing full well that consumers may pay higher prices, to help the merging companies save costs.

The European Commission, one of the most active and visible competition authorities around, does not treat efficiencies in this manner. Our European counterparts will consider efficiencies as relevant only when those efficiencies are likely to benefit consumers; they never rely on corporate efficiencies to justify an anti-competitive merger.

In Australia, the law itself does not list efficiencies as a factor to consider in deciding merger cases. In fact, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has published guidelines stating that it will not clear anti-competitive mergers even if the new firm would enjoy a lower-cost structure.

Of course, the comparison often used, given our proximity, is the United States. The courts in our neighbouring jurisdiction have specifically ruled that possible corporate efficiencies from a merger cannot be used as a defence to justify an anti-competitive merger. Efficiencies must be pro-competitive and passed through in some capacity to the marketplace and not just the merging companies.

In this way, Canada is out of step, which is illustrated perfectly by the fact that the U.S. Federal Trade Commission has successfully challenged a Canadian merger that our own Competition Bureau could not, because of claimed efficiencies. For example, when Superior Plus Corp. was going to acquire Canexus in 2016, the bureau found that the competition would suffer materially in a number of markets. It predicted a lack of remaining competition and higher prices for consumers. Nevertheless, because of the provision in the Competition Act, the bureau had no choice but to refrain from challenging the transaction, as the efficiency gains could be shown to outweigh the anti-competitive impacts.

With no similar constraints, the United States Federal Trade Commission mounted a challenge because of what would be the resulting high rate of concentration in the sodium chlorate market. It also found evidence of the acquiring party's desire to restrict output post-merger, an increased ability to collaborate with competitors, and its desire to neutralize Canexus as a disruptive lower-price alternative.

Without even delving into the important question of whether promised efficiencies are ever delivered, it should be clear that this defence can lead to detrimental effects on competition. It is about time that Canada joined the rest of the world in putting competition first.

I would now like to speak specifically about the market study powers. Our current market study framework is another area where we are out of step. The bureau can periodically study industries to better understand their competitive dynamics and make recommendations to government, such as the retail grocery market study that it released last June. However, the bureau has no means to compel parties to provide any information and instead relies on voluntary submissions, public data or information it already happens to have.

This is not the case in comparable jurisdictions, once again. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has the authority to demand a compulsory special report that answers specific questions about an organization's business, conduct, practices, management and relationship to other parties. The European Commission can conduct studies into sectors or agreements across various sectors and can request necessary information or carry out inspections. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can also ask the treasurer to instigate a price inquiry that allows authorities to access information on a wide variety of topics.

All of the above jurisdictions have serious sanctions for failure to comply, ranging from the ability for the enforcers to conduct a much wider study to fines based on the company's annual turnover. Moreover, these studies have proven to be a valuable tool for market insight. The USFTC, when faced with the novel problem of serial acquisitions by dominant tech platforms, launched its version of a market study to compel information on relevant mergers.

Similarly, in 2022, the United Kingdom's competition authority concluded a market study in the music and streaming industry to better understand why there had been a 40% revenue drop over 20 years. The retail grocery code that is currently in effect in the U.K. is also the direct result of recommendations by the competition authority after a detailed market study. Also, the Government of Australia, in response to ballooning electricity prices, ordered a price inquiry that resulted in a series of high-impact recommendations to government, many of which were directly related to enhancing competition.

Canada has had five market studies since 2007: retail grocery, digital health care, financial technology, self-regulated professions and the generic drug sector. Were the bureau empowered with the ability to compel information from elected companies, it is not difficult to imagine just how much more fruitful these studies really could have been.

Lastly, the third reform in this bill concerns agreements in restraint of competition that are made between parties who are not competitors. Sometimes this is called “vertical collaborations”. This has been identified as an issue relevant to restrictive clauses made between commercial landlords and supermarket tenants to keep grocery competitors out of the property, thus limiting competition. The Competition Act has a number of provisions that could apply to some vertical collaborations, but will not necessarily if the specific facts do not quite line up perfectly with the statute. Its most basic provision on anti-competitive collaborations meanwhile is limited to those between real or potential competitors or horizontal collaborations.

Once again, we are the outlier in this approach. Our peers in the United States, Europe and Australia can examine vertical agreements that limit competition, such as by restricting distribution channels or territories of operation. In one notable case, the United States' Department of Justice challenged Visa and Mastercard for their contract terms with merchants that limited consumer options. When our own Competition Bureau tried to mount a similar case, the limits of the Competition Act meant it was forced to bring the case under an ill-suited provision, and it lost. The Competition Tribunal could not issue an order, even though it recognized the competitive harm. It was a viable lesson in the importance of a modern legal framework that reflects how today's marketplace operates.

We have seen that it is time for Canada to join the club, so to speak, and emulate the best practices of our peers. This is why I encourage my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill's passage.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member on her expanding role, having started in a different political party, moving over to a new political party and actually getting a parliamentary secretary position. Her trajectory is clearly on the rise here, and I congratulate her for that. There is a life in politics, obviously, that requires a lot of advancements and those kinds of things.

I will ask the member clearly if she thinks that advancing this legislation through Parliament would be better served if she paid attention to the bill that was being brought forward rather than just trying to reinvent a new bill. If she were actually serious about it, like her party should have been serious about it, it would have been in the budget last year.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Fredericton, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. colleague for his kind words. I certainly paid attention, and I pay attention to all the happenings in the House.

Consultations began on this quite some time ago. I think it is important to look at the process when we bring in legislation and involve multiple provinces and territories, and have conversations with retailers and everyone who is going to be involved in what we are trying to achieve here.

There is never a better time to put forward legislation. I am glad that we are certainly stepping up and acting because, as we have clearly stated in this House, affordability and grocery prices are what we are hearing from all of our constituents. As I said, we have to use every tool at our disposal. I am happy to see the legislation now, and again, those consultations began quite some time ago.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, a bill that seeks to eliminate the GST on housing construction should be based on one obvious principle. It should significantly lower the rent paid by current tenants who are having a hard time making ends meet.

Make no mistake, the crisis is affecting all of Canada and Quebec. The cost of housing in Abitibi—Témiscamingue is almost as high as it is in Montreal. How will abolishing the GST on new housing construction lower the price of existing housing? Should we not be looking for a solution that regulates or lowers rents instead?