Majid Jowhari

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 26th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, any opportunity to improve Bill C-56 to ensure that we can increase the supply of housing, specifically purpose rental housing, is considered. I suggest that we pass this bill and get it to committee so that we can actually have the conversation that we need to have on that.

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 26th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make is that if we ensure that the bureau can review the agreements when the sale of a grocery store or a grocery chain has taken place and the land is not made available to other competitors of the same kind, specifically grocery, that violation is what we are going to look into, and that is what this bill intends to address.

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 26th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the hon. member across the aisle for advocating for independent grocers, as I have been in my riding.

There are two pieces to that comment. One is about international grocers and collaboration. As members know, our government called on at least five of those grocers, along with some of the manufacturers, over the last week or so to have a conversation with them and to work collaboratively to come up with a solution to reduce prices. On the other hand, I come from a riding that is highly diverse and the small grocers who provide to some of the ethnic community play a huge role, so this is welcome news. Bill C-56 is welcome news for those independent, ethnic-based grocers who are providing products for those types of communities.

[Affordable Housing and Groceries Act, September 26th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to discuss Bill C-56. This affordability bill has two important parts: the temporary removal of the goods and services tax, the GST, from new purpose-built rental housing, and a significant improvement to the Competition Act. On September 14, the government announced that the GST would be temporarily removed from new purpose-built rental housing to encourage an increase in the construction of rental housing. This removal would be in effect until the end of 2035.

That being said, I would like to spend the rest of my speech today on the second part of this bill, which is about enhancing the Competition Act. Bill C-56 would make three targeted improvements to the Competition Act. It would stop big-business mergers with anti-competitive effects, would enable the Competition Bureau to conduct precise market studies and would stop anti-competitive collaboration that stifles small businesses, specifically small grocers.

Canada's current Competition Act was first passed in 1985. It is an understatement to say that since then, our market has evolved. For this reason, the government launched a wide-ranging consultation on competition legislation and what ought to be done to modernize it and make sure it serves the best interests of Canadians. One thing we know for sure is that over the years, there has been an increase in mergers and market concentration in many Canadian industries, such as retail grocery. Canadian consumers have made it very clear that they have concerns about how the competitive landscape has changed in these markets and that they believe the law needs to be changed to that ensure the marketplace is fair.

Business collaboration can take all sorts of forms, from innocuous dealings to the problematic anti-competitive agreements. In this latter category, we have the sorts of practices that are always considered harmful under our competition law, such as cartels to fix prices, allocate markets or restrict production. Rigging bids in response to a call for tenders is also treated in this manner, as now are wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements between employers, because of changes we introduced in 2022. These forms of agreements are criminal offences. They are the most direct and straightforward way to undermine marketplace competition and are illegal, no matter their results.

There are other sorts of collaboration, however, that are not so clear-cut. One might think of joint ventures involving two competitors, or an agreement to share certain information or jointly conduct research. These agreements are not cartels but may, nevertheless, still lessen competition because they involve co-operation between parties that are meant to compete. The Competition Bureau may examine these kinds of collaborations, and if it finds that they harm competition, the bureau may apply for a court order to remedy that. There is one hitch, however. The bureau can look to remedy these agreements only if they are struck between real or potential competitors in the same market.

Most other countries have a more straightforward rule, which is that an agreement made to restrain competition can be remedied. It is as simple as that, because there are cases where we should be concerned by an agreement made between two companies that are not direct competitors. Imagine, if we will, that a large grocery retailer opens a store in the only shopping plaza in the community and that, as part of its agreement with the landlord, it indicates that it does not want another supermarket or maybe even a specialty food store to open in the same plaza. The supermarket does not want a competitor eating into its profits. The landlord agrees because it wants the big grocery retailer to come to the plaza and generate traffic. The landlord is still free to rent other spaces to hardware stores, furniture stores or even pet shops. It is a win-win between them, right? It is not really. The end consumer is actually the one who loses.

First and foremost, the consumer misses out on the benefits of competition. The supermarket can raise prices because of its territorial exclusivity. How about a local entrepreneur who would like to open a butcher shop or a bakery? Unfortunately, they will be cut out of the list of potential tenants because the landlord made a promise.

What I have shared is not just a hypothetical scenario. Earlier this year, the Competition Bureau conducted a retail grocery market study. In its report, the bureau shared that it heard from Canadian businesses that said they have been unable to open stores in places they wanted to set up shop, because of property controls. As the bureau would conclude, these property controls limit entry by new grocers and deny consumers all of the benefits from added competition, like lower prices and more choice.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, or CFIG, raised an even more worrisome version of property control in its submission to the government consultation. CFIG raised the topic of restrictive covenants, which arise when a retail store is sold but the vendor wants to protect the land it is leaving from any rivals. When the chain sells its space, it may negotiate a covenant into its sale agreement with the purchaser, preventing any future owners from ever using the property to operate a grocery store. This can happen with lease agreements too, shielding the plot of land from new entrants even after the original supermarket has left.

CFIG and the Public Interest Advocacy Centre both point to this practice as contributing to so-called food deserts in many communities. This is not a good outcome, and it is the result of restraints on competition. It is time for Canada to update our legislation and ensure that we catch up to our international counterparts at the forefront of promoting fair competition. Amendments to the Competition Act would ensure that the Competition Bureau can review agreements like these where their very purpose is to restrict competition, even when they are made between non-competing parties like landlords and tenants. If the collaboration would substantially lessen or prevent competition, then the bureau would be able to seek a remedy, including an order to shut down the activity.

I wish to highlight that our office places great importance on proactive community engagement. To this end, we have established five community councils, among which the Affordability Council stands as one of the most actively engaged. It is with eager anticipation that I intend to present the affordability bill to my local Richmond Hill Community Council.

The matter of affordable housing and access to essential groceries stands as a paramount concern for constituents, and we are committed to addressing these critical issues through this affordability bill. I look forward to working with members of the House on passing this important piece of legislation.

[Excise Tax Act, September 25th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite difficult to deliver this intervention after the conversation we just had in the House. However, the business of the government has to continue.

I appreciate the opportunity to take part in today's second reading of a private member's bill, Bill C-323, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act in relation to mental health services. As we know, this bill would exempt supplies of psychotherapy and mental health counselling services from the goods and services tax and the harmonized sales tax, or the GST/HST. At the outset, I am pleased to announce that the government and I will be supporting this private member's bill to go forward to committee for further study.

Our government has a proven record of supporting the delivery of mental health services for Canadians, and we look forward to building on this record with Bill C-323. At the same time, my colleagues will know that our government also likes to ensure that we get things right.

The creation of tax legislation is an area of public policy where we certainly do not want to get things wrong, as the results can be particularly costly and unfair to Canadians. That is why our preference is ordinarily that tax changes, such as those proposed in Bill C-323, be undertaken through the budget process. This enables us to fully consider trade-offs, balance priorities, close potential loopholes and undertake new fiscal commitments only to the extent that they are fair and affordable.

This sort of policy safeguarding is typically undertaken by the tax professionals and lawyers at the finance department. However, when it comes to this private member's bill, Bill C-323, this responsibility will fall to us as parliamentarians. There are some important considerations that we will need to address in this regard before moving the bill past the House.

As I am not sitting on the finance committee, and I understand this bill would go to the finance committee, I would like to talk about some of the policy considerations regarding Bill C-323. I hope my colleagues, especially the member proposing the bill, whom I have the honour and privilege of sitting with on the health committee, will take note of this.

We know, for example, that the policy underlying the GST/HST treatment of the health care sector generally exempts basic health care services from the GST/HST. We also know that, to determine which services should be considered basic health care services for the purpose of ascertaining eligibility for this exemption, the federal government looks to provincial funding and regulatory practices as key criteria. This is appropriate, since they are on the front lines in delivering health care to Canadians. More specifically, if a service is covered by the health care plan of two or more provinces, it may be exempted from the GST/HST in all provinces. Likewise, if a profession is regulated as a health care profession by at least five provinces, the services of that profession may be exempt from the GST/HST in all provinces.

Under the status quo, psychotherapy and mental health counselling are not covered by the public health insurance program of any province and are not regulated in at least five provinces; this is why they are not eligible to be considered for a GST/HST exemption. Psychotherapy services provided by a psychologist or other health professional, such as a physician, nurse or social worker, are already exempt if the services are within the scope of practice of their profession.

In short, provincial policies currently determine what medical services should be considered for a GST/HST exemption, and it is based on these policies that psychotherapy and mental health counselling are not currently exempt from the GST/HST. I think we have to bear this in mind and remain sensitive to the fact that we are doing a bit of an end run around this process as we move forward with Bill C-323.

Exempting the GST and HST on psychotherapy and mental health counselling services, as proposed by Bill C-323, could undermine the long-standing criteria established by deciding whether services of recognized health practitioners should be GST and HST exempt. This, in turn, could make it more difficult to make objective decisions on any future requests to exempt other services.

There are important questions related to this bill that must be examined more closely at committee. The most fundamental one is whether this bill will apply in the same way in each province. This is a basic question of fairness for all Canadians. I think we need to also better understand how each province regulates the health care practitioners this bill targets and how each province defines the services it provides for the purpose of health care.

Should this bill make it to the finance committee, with our government's support it is our hope that provincial health officials, mental health service providers, mental health advocates and other experts can testify to shed light on these issues that I have discussed.

On a completely personal note, since 2015, I have had the honour and privilege of being a member of this House. I have always advocated for parity when it comes to mental and physical health. I believe this might be a gateway for us to open that conversation. Although I know this is a narrow passage, I think it is a great opportunity for us to engage in a broader conversation. Naturally, it will not be at the finance committee. However, it is something we should consider.

I just want to quickly talk about a few of our government's achievements and focus in support of mental health since 2015. Canadians can rest assured that our government has already made it a top priority to invest in mental health services for Canadians and will move forward on this basis.

I want to talk about the most recent budget, budget 2023, which proposes to provide a total of $359 million over five years starting in 2023-24, with $5.7 million ongoing, and a $1.3-million remaining amortization in support of the renewed Canadian drug and substance strategy, which will guide our government's work to save lives and protect the health and safety of Canadians. Also, our government has provided about $158 million over three years, starting in 2023-24, to the Public Health Agency of Canada to support the implementation and operation of the 988 suicide prevention line.

In conclusion, I would like to highlight the fact that we are making investments because a strong and effective public health care system is essential to the well-being of Canadians, which includes mental health care. It is also an important foundation of a growing, healthy economy. Our economy is stronger when people are healthy and can get the care they need before a complication arises or they are in crisis. Our government will move forward in supporting Bill C-323 on this understanding, but we also want to make sure that we get it right. We look forward to hearing from key stakeholders at the finance committee.

Once again I thank my colleague for bringing this bill forward. Many constituents in my riding are looking forward to having this bill passed, and hopefully amended, to address the concerns we have so they can get the services that are much needed in the community. I look forward to the debate on the bill at the finance committee.

[Mahsa Amini, September 21st, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, today, Jina Mahsa Amini would have celebrated her 23rd birthday. Now, we are commemorating her passing.

A year has passed since the tragic murder of Jina Mahsa Amini, but her story and the names of countless others reverberate through the hearts of Iranians everywhere. Today, on the remembrance of her birthday, we reunite in commemorating her life, amplifying the Iranian people's persistent call for freedom and an end to such violence.

The global community has heard this call, and Canada has stood vigilant, watched, listened and responded to the evolving circumstances with more and more strict sanctions, as their pain is our pain, and their fight is our fight. This journey is one with promise, as we move towards a future where voices resonant freely and where rights are unassailable.

From the floor of the Canadian House of Commons to all Iranians in Iran and across the world, our message is clear: Canada stands with them today and always.

Women, life, freedom. Zan, zendegi, azadi.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that it would, because there was a gap and through consultation and through the agreements across all the provinces and territories and all the chiefs of police we agreed that this is the logical next step to take. Is this the end solution to all the crimes? It is absolutely not, but this is a good step forward, and I am sure that as we roll out the new bill, Bill C-48, it will highlight other opportunities for us to be able to enhance and strengthen the bill. I look forward to working with all members of this House to further strengthen any bills that come to this House that protect Canadians and their trust in their government.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, like all my colleagues, I had the opportunity to talk to my chief of police and hear from many of my constituents. The beauty of this bill, aside from the fact that it is amending and the fact that it is really focusing on repeat offenders and strengthening the bill is the fact that it had unanimous support. Why it has unanimous support and why it took some time, as I know the number of 200-some days was shown, is that this was collaborative and fact-based, and that we talked to all provinces, all chiefs of police and all stakeholders. This is what signifies Bill C-48, and that is why our colleagues across the aisle agreed with us and unanimously passed it.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for showing candour and acknowledging the candour I have shown. However, let us remember what the focus of Bill C-75 and the focus of Bill C-48 are. They are to ensure that we keep Canadians safe. They are to ensure that we put the right legislation in place. Naturally, no legislation is perfect, and we have to make sure that as time comes and as evidence presents itself, we amend the existing laws to ensure that we continue to keep Canadians safe and ensure that our laws are representative of the facts of the day and are strong in protecting Canadians.

[Criminal Code, September 18th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak today in support of Bill C-48, an act to amend the Criminal Code, otherwise known as bail reform.

It looks like my intervention is going to come after the unanimous motion that was tabled by the Conservatives and passed by all members of this House. First of all, let me congratulate all parties and all members of the House for passing this bill and getting it to the Senate. It is my desire to see the Senate pass it in an expedited manner as well.

Since the passing of the motion a bit earlier today, a lot of focus has been shifted toward how inadequate Bill C-75 was. It was not a perfect bill, but I can say that it is not as bad as some of my colleagues across the aisle are making it out to be. I think it might not be a bad idea for the sake of Canadians, now that they are reassured that the amendments in Bill C-48 are going to pass, to spend a bit of time trying to understand not only what Bill C-75 was and what some of the challenges were, but also the regime in the bill, which needs a bit of demystification.

I want to start by noting that Canada's bail regime works well, not in all cases but in most cases. However, the government has recognized the growing concerns relating to repeat violent offending and offending involving the use of firearms and other weapons resulting from the recent and horrific acts of violence committed by some individuals while out on bail. This has to do with members of our community: repeat offenders who are out on bail. That issue has to be addressed, and Bill C-48 is addressing it.

Naturally, all Canadians deserve to feel safe where they live and work, during their commute and in the duties they attend to every day of their lives. That is why we have identified problems and are trying to deal with them. The federal government has introduced Bill C-48 in order to address these concerns, promote community safety and reinforce public confidence in the administration of justice.

I am not going to spend a lot of time on the details of Bill C-48, although that was my intent, but I will briefly touch on them. The bill proposes reforms to create a new reverse onus to target repeat offending involving a weapon, add additional firearms offences to the existing reverse onus provisions, broaden the reverse onus targeting repeat offenders of intimate partner violence, clarify what constitutes a prohibition order in an existing reverse onus for offences involving a weapon and require the courts to consider an accused person's history of conviction for violence, and community safety and security concerns, when making any bail decisions.

We have seen examples of violent crimes in communities across our nation. I think colleagues across the aisle raised this to the next level, but the fact is that those offences are happening. I mourn for the families who have lost loved ones through these senseless acts, and I want to assure them that our government cares deeply, not only for them but about protecting public safety. We stand with all Canadians on issues of public safety and their and their families' security. After all, we know that Canada is known as a country of democracy where public safety is at the forefront.

What do safer communities and safety look like? True safety requires both holding criminals to account and attacking crime at its roots to prevent violence from occurring in the first place.

I was glad to hear some of our NDP colleagues actually talk about some of the root causes and how we can address some of them. That was welcome news to me.

Our government believes fervently in both objectives. We will not sensationalize violence. We will not use catchy slogans to argue for draconian measures, and we will lead with evidence-based policies that make a real difference.

My remarks today, as I said, will focus on the core principles that underpin the law of bail in Canada, on clarifying the impact of the former bill, Bill C-75 and on our bail regime, with a very light touch on Bill C-48.

Accused persons are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty of the offence charged, and they have a constitutional right not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I highlight "reasonable bail". As such, they must be released on bail unless their detention in custody is required in order to ensure their attendance in court; for the protection or safety of the public, including any victim or witness of the offence; or to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. There are fundamentals in place. I just highlighted the conditions that need to be considered when an individual is requesting bail, and these conditions are reviewed by the judge.

Accused persons who are released on bail may be subject to release conditions linked to the accused's risk related to the three statutory grounds for the detention I just mentioned. For example, the court can impose, and I emphasize this, any reasonable condition that it considers desirable or necessary to ensure the safety and security of any victims or witnesses to the offence. The point here is that the law is there and the court is empowered through the law to be able to consider the safety and the security of the victim and the witnesses and also assess the risk.

Such conditions could include that the accused remain in a specified territorial jurisdiction, abstain from communicating with any victim or witness to the offence, abstain from going to a specific place or geographical area, or deposit their passport as specified in the order. Once again, as we see, the guidelines are clear. The tools have been given to our justice system to be able to find that fine balance between doing the right thing and ensuring that we protect the community.

I will close by referring to some of the decisions that were made in the past. In the St-Cloud decision from 2015, the Supreme Court emphasized that, in Canadian law, the release of an accused person is the cardinal rule and detention is the exception. In its 2017 decision in Antic and its 2020 decision in Zora, the Supreme Court held that for most alleged crimes there should be release on bail at the earliest reasonable opportunity, with minimal conditions.

I am bringing up these three cases because we are trying to say that although Bill C-75 was not a perfect solution, and hence we have Bill C-48, we will see that fine balance, that it protects the rights of individuals in the Charter and that it allows them to benefit from the opportunity of receiving bail if they are a first-time offender and the crime is not extensive. However, all of the tools are provided to the justice system and to the bail law to ensure that repeat offenders can be punished.