Debates of Sept. 27th, 2023

Taxation

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members to talk about the petition and not individuals. I want to make sure the member is talking about what is in the petition and not about the meetings he has had.

The hon. member for Regina—Wascana.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Madam Speaker, therefore, I am pleased to present two petitions today on behalf of the residents of the Gardens Condominium Corporation. The first petition calls on the government to scrap the carbon tax in its entirety, and the second petition calls on the government to at least stop collecting GST on top of the carbon tax. I am pleased to present these petitions here today in the House of Commons.

The Environment

[John Williamson, Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition that was collected by residents of Grand Manan Island in my riding. Over 300 people have signed it. After dredging work was done in North Head harbour under DFO contract, the debris was not removed by the contractor, Greenfield Construction. Today, over 35,000 tonnes of toxic rocks dredged from the harbour sit idle next to homes and small businesses. It has been like that for two summers.

It is clear from public documents that the requirements for construction companies bidding on this multi-million dollar debris contract were to remove the dredged material from North Head. Grand Manan Island petitioners are calling on the fisheries minister to quickly clean up this mess.

I would add that it is also important taxpayers are not being swindled again by Atcon/Greenfield, which is well connected to Liberal governments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I am not sure if that is in the petition. If it is not, then I would just remind members that they are to read what is in the petition and not add to it.

Presenting petitions, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

Pornography

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition from Canadians from across the country, including my own constituents, who are concerned about the age of consent and age verification of those depicted in pornographic material.

The petitioners note that the government should follow recommendation 2 from the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics report on MindGeek, which requires that all content-hosting platforms in Canada verify the age and consent prior to that content being uploaded.

Bill C-270, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act, would add two offences to the Criminal Code. The first would require age verification and consent prior to distribution, and the second would require the content to be removed if the consent is withdrawn. As such, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to speedily pass Bill C-270, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act.

Religious Freedom

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition I have to present today is from Canadians from across this country who are concerned about the human rights protections in India.

The petitioners say that according to the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, various actors are supporting and enforcing sectarian policies and seeking to establish a religious state in India. The petitioners say that Christians in India are being targeted by extremists who are vandalizing their churches, attacking church workers, and threatening and humiliating their congregations. They also say that crimes against the Dalit community, including Dalit women and girls, are increasing. The petitioners also note that Indian Muslims are at risk of genocide, assault and sexual violence.

The petitioners are asking the government to ensure that all trade deals with India are premised on mandatory human rights provisions, that extremists are sanctioned, and that the government promotes respectful human rights dialogue between Canada and India.

Human Rights

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who want Canadians to be protected against discrimination. Canadians can and do face political discrimination, and it is a fundamental right in Canada to be politically active and vocal. It is in the best interests of Canadian democracy to protect public debate and the exchange of different ideas.

Bill C-257 seeks to add protection against political discrimination to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, the people who have signed this petition are calling on the House of Commons to support and pass Bill C-257, which would ban discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity, and to defend the rights of Canadians to peacefully express their political opinions.

Pornography

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition is from petitioners from across the country who are concerned with how easy it is for young people to gain access to sexually explicit material online, including violent, racist and degrading explicit material. They comment on how this access is causing a public health crisis and is a cause for public safety concern.

The petitioners note that a significant portion of commercially accessed sexually explicit material has no age verification software, and, moreover, that age verification software can ascertain the age of the user without breaching their privacy rights. The petitioners note the many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material, including the development of addiction and the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and the harassment of women.

The petitioners are calling on the House of Commons to pass Bill S-211 and to protect young people from exposure to pornography.

Firearms

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the health and safety of Canadian firearm owners. The petitioners recognize the importance of owning firearms and are concerned about the hearing loss caused by the damaging noise levels of firearms and the need for noise reduction.

The petitioners acknowledge that sound moderators are the only universally accepted health and safety device, which is criminally prohibited in Canada. Moreover, the majority of G7 countries have recognized the health and safety benefits of sound moderators and allow them for hunting, sport shooting and noise reduction.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to allow legal firearms owners the option to purchase and use sound moderators for all legal hunting and sport-shooting activities.

Charitable Organizations

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition I am presenting is on behalf of Canadians who are concerned that certain charities could be targeted based on their views and forced into a values test. The petitioners note that the Liberals have promised to deny charitable status to groups whose views differ from the government's views on abortion. This could jeopardize the charitable status of hospitals, houses of worship, schools, homeless shelters and other organizations.

They also note that the Liberals have previously used a values test to discriminate against groups applying for the Canada summer jobs grant. The petitioners are asking the House of Commons to protect and preserve the application of charitable status rules on a politically and ideologically neutral basis, without discrimination on the basis of political or religious values or the imposition of a values test. They also ask for an affirmation of their freedom of expression as Canadians.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions for Papers

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

Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from September 26 consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I left off in my speech, I was talking about some of the stakeholder reaction to the proposed measure to remove the GST from purpose-built rentals.

The Squamish Community Housing Society from my riding stated that this “will have a real and meaningful impact on the delivery of critically needed rental housing” and “support lower rents for residents moving into newly constructed homes”.

The Sunshine Coast Affordable Housing Society stated that “The removal of GST on purpose-built rentals is an excellent example of a simple federal policy adjustment that when combined with other affordability measures makes a meaningful difference in local housing systems.”

The Whistler Housing Authority stated that “The removal of GST on new purpose-built rental housing will help to decrease the financial burden experienced by those who are trying to create much needed affordable rental supply across the country. Every financial consideration throughout the development process ultimately impacts the end user.”

From the Resort Municipality of Whistler, Councillor Cathy Jewett noted to me that it would save Whistler $725,000 on a rental project they are building, provided that it is eligible.

This gets me to the only gripe that I have with this particular piece of legislation, which is that we should really look to extend it to projects that are already being built by the non-profit sector. That way, future tenants will be able to benefit from lower rents from these projects; in the end, that is the entire point of this exercise.

I want to contrast this bill with the housing policy and legislation that has been put forward by Conservative Party members, as proposed by their private member's bill and otherwise. Believe it or not, Madam Speaker, their bill and policy would actually increase taxes on purpose-built rentals for projects meant for middle-class Canadians. It would take away the resources that would allow municipalities to get more housing built faster with things like the housing accelerator fund. Given that the Conservatives invested 13 times less on transit when in government than our government has, their commitment to withhold funding to municipalities unless there is sufficient density around transit projects is just another avenue where they would not only cut housing funding but also cut the pathetic amount of funding they delivered towards transit. Well-known housing expert Mike Moffatt said that this private member's bill is incredibly “weak” and would actually substantially increase federal bureaucracy. This is not serious housing policy. This is unintelligible housing policy as crafted by a bully, and Canadians deserve better than that.

The second aspect of the bill that we are debating today would make some significant changes to the Competition Act. It would increase competition in our economy and ultimately lower costs for Canadians. In particular, it would take aim at the failings the Competition Bureau had in ascertaining the reason for high grocery prices, because of some of the structural challenges.

The changes announced in Bill C-56 would amend the Competition Act to allow the Minister of Industry to direct the commissioner of competition to conduct an inquiry into the state of competition in a market or industry. It would permit the Competition Tribunal to compel information to allow it to do its work, as well as to look at vertical collaborations. It would also repeal the exception under the act for efficiency gains brought on by mergers. These new measures would allow the minister to ensure that the bureau is keeping a watchful eye on anti-competitive behaviours in different sectors.

By looking into the state of competition, for instance, in gas stations, we could answer the question of why gas prices are consistently higher in Squamish and Whistler than they are in metro Vancouver. They are often 10¢ a litre higher. Meanwhile, they do not have the 18.5¢ tax that the metro Vancouver transit authority charges at gas stations. By looking into the grocery sector with these new powers, we could answer the question of why the amazing small-scale farms on the Sunshine Coast and in the Sea to Sky corridor are able to produce delicious, nutrient-dense, organic produce at a lower price at farmers' markets compared with the mass-produced, non-organic produce that is found in a lot of grocery stores. I would suggest that these might be two areas that the minister should direct the bureau to investigate with these newfound powers.

Lastly, I want to talk about the efficiency defence. Long ago, Canada brought in the defence for a merger that otherwise would be anti-competitive, if it showed that it would allow businesses to be more efficient so that Canadian companies would become large enough to compete with foreign counterparts. Given how concentrated parts of these sectors have become and how large companies have become, this defence no longer makes sense, if it ever did.

Each of these changes to the Competition Act is very welcome, but much more can be done, and it must be done when a more fulsome update of the act is undertaken.

In particular, I would like to see stronger penalties for anti-competitive behaviour, and I would like for us to take a closer look at the thresholds to ensure that more regional monopolies are tackled as well. However, both the proposed changes to the Competition Act and the removal of GST on purpose-built rentals are very welcome; these things would make a huge difference in tackling the rising cost of living and the rising cost of housing.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I noticed my colleague is speaking about economic benefits, and he had spoken to somebody in a town in his riding; I think he mentioned Whistler. He talked about the importance of the GST benefit that is presented in this bill.

I just wonder if he had a date on that actual benefit. I think the Liberal government promised this eight years ago and abandoned it six years ago, but the GST benefit is starting to come back now. The member also criticized, and compared it to, the bill on the floor of the House of Commons put forward by my leader. That is interesting, because he took that shot, but we just had a federal budget here, and none of this was in it. It is late to the game for the government to say it is starting to recognize that there are things it should have been paying attention to for the last six years. Is this coming to the game late? Does he finally recognize this? Is it because we have actually identified this for years in the opposition that the lights are going on, they are seeing what is happening and people are talking about it to him in his riding?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I quite enjoyed working with the hon. colleague on multiple different committees.

The contrast with the policy that has been put forward by the Conservative Party is that it plans to get rid of the GST on only purpose-built rentals that are below market, not all rentals. Therefore, I think it is missing part of the puzzle to make sure we can get more rental housing built faster, particularly right now, when we are seeing high interest rates impacting the business case for making those projects happen.

I think it is a very important time for us to be moving forward on these measures because of that. Prior to this, we really tackled low-income and social housing with our national housing strategy. However, given the changing economic circumstances, it is really important that we are bringing forward this measure now.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, this bill is very worthwhile. It is welcomed by some, but it is getting a cooler reception from others, depending on the community. That just shows that we cannot please everyone.

Clause 3 of Bill C-56 seeks to amend the Competition Act by adding, after section 10, subsection 10.1(2), which reads as follows:

Before making the direction, the Minister must consult the Commissioner to determine whether the inquiry would be feasible, including with regard to its cost.

My question has three parts.

If the inquiry is feasible but the cost is too steep, does that mean that no inquiry will be conducted? How are we defining what constitutes too steep of a cost? If an inquiry is in the best interests of consumers but does not go forward, are we ignoring the interests of consumers? Whose interests are we then considering instead?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that good question.

We could invite experts to come to committee to get more details on these issues. I know that to conduct these studies, the bureau needs resources. I think that is an issue we should study a bit more. We gave more money to the bureau in budget 2022, but if resources are the problem, then we need to look at that too.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I note that this bill would suspend the GST on purpose-built rental housing, but the 2015 ministerial letter on this issue talked about giving tax breaks for the building of purpose-built affordable rental housing. Can my hon. colleague explain to the House why the present bill drops the word “affordable”?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is more inclusive. It is not just for below-market rental housing; it is for all rental housing, because we have a need right now to get as much supply to make sure we are able to meet the very high targets that CMHC said we need to meet: 3.5 million homes on top of what we are already building right now. A big part of this needs to be below-market rentals, but market rentals are also needed, so that we are able to bring down prices overall.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a true honour for me to speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of Davenport on Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, though I will note that the short title is the affordable housing and groceries act. It is an important piece of legislation. It would help build more rental homes that would be affordable for Canadians and help us to start making much-needed changes to the Competition Act. More competition will create a healthier and more prosperous Canadian economy.

There are two key changes within the legislation. The first would remove the GST from new purpose-built rental housing. The second would make changes to the Competition Act that would enable the Competition Bureau to conduct market studies and would remove the efficiencies exception from merger review. There are also a number of other changes that I will get into in the time that I have. I am going to speak for five minutes on the first part and five minutes on the second part because it is important for us to understand why we are introducing this legislation and why is it important right now.

As we know, over the last almost eight years, our federal government has done a lot on housing. I am very proud of our investments in all of the programs we have implemented. Since 2017, when we introduced the national housing strategy, we have introduced a number of programs. There are about 82 billion dollars' worth of programs that have been introduced. Their purpose is to build supply and support first-time buyers in purchasing their first home. I will run through some of the key programs and initiatives we have introduced.

There have been a number of incentives for more affordable rental units to be built. We have also introduced some disincentives for house flippers and foreign buyers. We have introduced the multi-generational home tax credit. We have made a massive commitment of $1.5 billion to build the next generation of co-op housing, and I am eager for that to get started. We have put in a historic amount of money for rapid or modular housing, which has been a game-changer for most of our big cities across the country. We have introduced a Canada housing benefit, a home accessibility tax credit, long-term supports for the homeless and a number of programs for Canadians trying to buy their first home: the first home savings account, the homebuyers' plan, the first-time homebuyers' tax credit and the first-time homebuyer incentive. We realize, as always, that we need to do more, and more is part of this legislation.

I spent a lot of time over the summer meeting with a number of groups, including groups trying to build deeply affordable housing within Davenport and Toronto, and I want to give a special shout-out to West Neighbourhood House and St. Michael's Homes. They took me through their examples of how they are trying to use the programs at all levels of government for additional housing. They did point out that there are some issues at all levels that need to be addressed, but they are not huge, insurmountable issues. They are working with our programs, are happy with our programs and look forward to us resolving some of the issues with the programs. They are very happy with the introduction of Bill C-56.

I have also met with a number of developers. I met with them not just over the summer but over the last year or so. They indicated that, due to inflation, many of the plans they had created a few years are just no longer viable. That is why our proposing to remove the GST on the construction of new apartment buildings to get more rental homes built faster is so important.

I am sure this has been quoted in the House, but there was a great article by the Canadian press, in which the CEO of Dream Unlimited Corp. said that high interest rates and construction costs had put many projects on pause, but given the federal government's announcement that it would eliminate GST charges off rental developments and the expectation that provinces would follow suit, this has changed the calculation for it. That is exactly the sentiment for many of the developers in my riding.

What are the actual changes being proposed in the bill? It would change the Excise Tax Act so that the goods and services tax would be removed from new purpose-built housing to encourage an increase in the construction of rental housing. These measures would modify the existing GST rent rebate by increasing the rebate rate from 36% to 100% and remove the rebate phase-out threshold for purpose-built rental housing projects.

What are experts saying about this? I took a couple of examples from a long list. Mike Moffat, one of Canada's leading housing experts, called this a “fantastic transformative step.” Toronto's former chief city planner Jennifer Keesmaat has said that this measure could be “the beginning of a sea change.”

This is very popular with developers in my riding and across Toronto. I want to note, before I go to the next section, that provinces such as Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nova Scotia are already following our lead by eliminating provincial taxes on new rentals. This would of course result in even more building of the affordable rental homes Canadians need.

The second part of this legislation is about measures that would begin a much-needed update to Canada's Competition Act. I sit on the finance committee. It has been just over four years that I have been on that committee, and we hear a lot of concerns from those in the business community, and many Canadians in general, who are worried about our competitiveness. They are worried about the limited number of large companies in what many feel are oligopolistic sectors. They worry about Canada's productivity. They worry about the little business investment we have had in our country, despite historic low interest rates for over 10 years, until a year and a half ago. There is a great recognition that we have a lot to do to improve competition in Canada.

I was delighted when our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry indicated in February of 2022 that he would undertake a review of the act. He wanted to begin with some immediate targeted improvements and follow up with some more consultations to consider some broader changes. We received a lot of feedback, so Bill C-56 gets us started on the changes that were suggested.

What would Bill C-56 do? It would provide the Competition Bureau with powers to compel the production of information to conduct effective and complete market studies; remove the efficiencies defence, which currently allows anti-competitive mergers to survive challenges if corporate efficiencies offset the harm to competition, even when Canadian consumers would pay higher prices and have fewer choices; and empower the Competition Bureau to take action against collaborations that stifle competition and consumer choice, in particular situations where large grocers prevent smaller competitors from establishing operations nearby.

Our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance spoke in the House on this bill the other day and said:

This bill also seeks to amend the Competition Act to give more power to the Competition Bureau so that it can investigate price gouging and price-fixing.

It would put an end to anti-competitive mergers that drive up prices and limit Canadians' choices. It would also enable the Competition Bureau to ensure that big grocery stores cannot prevent smaller competitors from opening stores nearby. Our [federal] government is relentlessly focused on building an economy with stable prices, steady growth, and abundant, well-paying, middle-class jobs.

While this bill includes these measures, it is only our initial response to the feedback we heard during the ongoing consultation on the future of competition policy in Canada. This bill's amendments strike at the core of Canada's competition law and would empower the Competition Bureau to better serve the public in its role as enforcer and advocate, and it would allow the country to reap the well-documented benefits of more competitive markets.

Now more than ever, effective and modern competition law and enforcement are necessary to promote affordability for Canadians and to help our economy grow. With our federal government's 2022 amendments to combat price-fixing and the changes proposed in this bill, our federal government is promoting greater affordability and the type of marketplace that allows our economy to grow.

In conclusion, our federal government is relentlessly focused on building an economy with stable prices, steady growth and abundant, well-paying middle-class jobs. That is why this legislation, Bill C-56, is so important. It would provide key changes that may help to stabilize grocery prices for Canadians and would help accelerate the construction of new apartment buildings that are affordable for all Canadians.