Bill C-352 (Historical)

Lowering Prices for Canadians Act

An Act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act

This enactment amends the Competition Act to increase penalties for certain anti-competitive acts. It also changes aspects of the review of mergers, including how gains in efficiency and market concentration are taken into account. In addition, it requires the Competition Tribunal to make an order dissolving a completed merger or prohibiting the merger from proceeding if the merger would result in excessive combined market share. The limitation period for the review of mergers is increased from one year to three years. Finally, it amends the Competition Tribunal Act to remove the Tribunal’s ability to award costs against the Crown.

Industry and Technology

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, in relation to Bill C-352, an act to amend the Competition Act and the Competition Tribunal Act.

This was, members will recall, a private member's bill from the leader of the NDP. The Bloc-Liberal coalition proceeded to delete every clause, including the apparently offensive title of the bill. I am reporting back, on behalf of the committee, a blank piece of paper for consideration in the House, because that is what has resulted from these amendments.

I am pleased to report that this bill now no longer has a clause in it, much like the blank slate or the blank commitment of Liberals on their promises.

Finance

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, it was my hand on the desk.

I was reading that in France the finance minister managed to secure an agreement from 75 of the top food companies to lower their prices significantly, but here in Canada, the Prime Minister has not even managed to get the big grocery retailers to sign on to a voluntary code of conduct that would not actually lower food prices.

Given the fact that the voluntary approach has failed so miserably, does the member not support more proactive measures to ensure that food prices come down? I hear his point around competition. Our leader has tabled Bill C-352, which is now making its way through committee. That process is going to take some time, and Canadians need relief, when it comes to food prices, now.

Would the member not support more proactive measures by the government?

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Elmwood—Transcona, for really shining a light on the fact that this government and the governments before it, both Liberals and Conservatives, walked away from those operating agreements. We knew for 10 years that those operating agreements would expire for social housing, community by community, and the governments did nothing. Therefore, I thank the member for sharing that.

Today, we are debating what is called the housing and groceries act, but I would like to call it the “finally addressing corporate greed act”, because this is about the fact that corporate greed has been unchecked through a series of Conservative and Liberal governments. It is now at the point where it is harming people and communities to epic proportions.

No longer is every Canadian able to have the essentials of life, starting with having a roof over their heads and food to eat. It is unbelievable that in Canada not every Canadian has a roof over his or her head or food to eat. In Ottawa today, I walked along Sparks Street. We know people are living on Sparks Street and Bank Street. We know them by name. It is unacceptable that they are having to live out in the cold, in the rain, their sleeping bag covered with a tarp, yet the Liberals, who have the power to change this, walk by them every day.

I want to share a story from my community, the juxtaposition of the massive numbers of luxury condos that are going up and at the same time an increase in the number of community organizations that are trying to feed the community through food rescue and recovery.

Food rescue and recovery is a brand new area since COVID. It came out of the need during COVID-19. When shutdowns first came, a lot of food inventory was in restaurants, airline food that needed to be redistributed and all kinds of redistribution. The community groups came to help. They jumped into action. They came to redistribute that food. It is has remained because the grocery chain CEOs saw an opportunity window.

There was a conversation happening in the media that input costs, transportation costs and all kinds of other costs were increasing, so consumers were ready to accept some increases in the cost of goods. However, the grocery chain CEOs saw an opportunity to skyrocket food prices and to take advantage of consumers. In that window since COVID, food prices have become out of control and food rescue and redistribution has become a necessary staple in our community.

Just last week, I was visiting some of those food rescue and food recovery organizations in my community. One of them is operated out of the legion. People were lined up looking for a healthy meal and food for their kids. Kids, seniors and families were all looking for an opportunity to have a healthy meal. The Liberal government has put this burden on communities and community groups with no resources.

At this point in time, I want to talk about an organization in my community that feeds over 3,000 people a month,. It has over 130 volunteers. The logistics of this are very difficult, but the volunteers do it because they love the community and they know people need it.

They applied for the local food infrastructure fund. Someone from the ministry came out, saw the organization and said, yes, that these were the amounts of the grants. The local food infrastructure fund recently responded to the community group, saying that while the program received a high volume of excellent project applications, only $10 million were available for the whole country. As a result, only a portion of project applications submitted would be given consideration for funding and that the group's project application would not be considered.

These are on-the-ground community groups, feeding 3,000 people a month, and the government has a $10-million program for all these kinds of organizations across the country. This is totally unacceptable and it is totally not enough resources.

Just this week, HUMA is doing a study on volunteerism. Those volunteer community groups, including food banks, are saying they are desperately in need of infrastructure money to keep these programs growing. I say this against the backdrop of the fall economic statement and the fact that the Competition Tribunal payment alone in regard to the Rogers-Shaw merger is $13 million, more than what the small groups in our communities that are keeping people fed get.

I will go back to the corporate greed that is harming people in our community and talk about persons with disabilities.

CEOs of corporations not paying their fair share of taxes is hurting persons with disabilities. Right now, the Liberal government is holding back on the Canada disability benefit. It is law. The whole House has said that it wants the Canada disability benefit out in our communities. The government is holding back by not taxing super-wealthy corporations efficiently so we can fund people living on disability pensions who are making less than $10,000 a year. Women with disabilities are disproportionately affected by this, with 58% living on less than $10,000 a year. This month is 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. We know that women are already at a higher risk of gender-based violence, and women with disabilities even more so. This is totally unacceptable.

I recently sponsored a petition from a disability community. The government filed its response yesterday, and it is not going to do anything about an emergency response benefit for persons with disabilities. There was an article in the newspaper last week about a gentleman who lives on the island. His family was renovicted, demovicted, from its accessible, affordable home. The family members are living in a hotel, using 84% of their income, because it is the only place they can get right now to have a roof over their heads. Those are the choices that the Liberal government has made.

This all relates to Bill C-56. The NDP is going to support bill because it makes some small movements toward addressing corporate greed in the grocery industry and in housing, but it is definitely not enough.

I also want to take this opportunity to talk about why it is not enough and why corporate greed has really taken over the essentials and the necessities of life.

I think about the fact that the Liberal government and the Conservative governments before walked away from social housing. What did they do? They commoditized housing. They made it okay for large corporations and real estate investment trusts to buy up apartment buildings and then chop them up into shares, or units, and trade them on the stock exchange. They actually made housing a commodity, literally allowing it to be traded on the stock exchange. Those are the reasons our rents are going up in our communities. It costs $2,600 a month for a one bedroom in my community.

Again, the NDP is supporting the bill. We are happy to see movement, although it is very small. I just want to point out that Liberal and Conservative governments have, for 30 years, let corporate greed go unchecked. It is literally starving out our communities.

The member for Burnaby South has an additional bill, Bill C-352, to address this corporate greed. I hope everyone in the House takes this very seriously. People are living on the street without food.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on the comments that my colleague from North Island—Powell River just made on how the grocery chains have made it harder for people to eat healthy food. This morning, there was a meeting of parliamentarians, senators and stakeholders on anti-poverty, and when I say “parliamentarians”, I mean all but the Conservatives. They came together to talk about the intersection of health, housing, food security and disability. The urgency that I heard in that room is not being expressed by the Liberal government in the House. This follows up on the idea that the fall economic statement was a real disappointment for many of those groups. It was certainly a disappointment for the disability community.

It was the expectation of the community, the NDP and other members in the House, that the Canada disability benefit would at least get a mention in the fall economic statement, and it did not. I am here to say that that is not acceptable. As my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby said earlier tonight, New Democrats expect to see some movement on the Canada disability benefit right away. People are suffering, and not just at the grocery store, but also when it comes to housing, which is the next thing I want to talk about.

When we talk about the housing and grocery affordability act, we have to acknowledge that people are losing their housing every single day in this country. We are losing affordable housing at a rate of 15 to one. It was mentioned earlier that seniors are being renovicted today. As we have the debates today, seniors are getting notice of above-guideline rent increases. Their rents are going up 30%, 40% and 50%. They cannot afford it and are out on the street.

I am getting phone calls at my office from residents who have lived in the same units in my community for 20, 30 and sometimes 35 years, and they are being renovicted. They are in their seventies, and they have nowhere to go. Their safety net is their community, and they have nowhere to live because of, as one of my colleagues said earlier today, the financialization of housing. I blame the Liberals and the Conservatives before them for not protecting people's right to housing and allowing large corporations to buy up affordable housing and not replace it.

As has been said earlier today, the NDP is supporting Bill C-56. This is a move toward affordability in the areas of food and housing, but, at the same time, there is so much more to do. I think about the fact that purpose-built rentals in this country have not been invested in for decades.

I can talk specifically about what happened in Coquitlam. I was a city councillor at the time, and an application came forward for a purpose-built rental building. The Liberals at the time, in 2015, had promised a GST exemption on purpose-built rentals. A company came forward in good faith to build purpose-built rentals. It was expecting relief on the GST and was going to pass it down to renters. The company was excited to do that work in my community to make housing affordable for frontline workers, whether they were nurses, firefighters or people who worked in grocery stores. It was excited to do that work, only to be disappointed with the Liberal government not following through on its promise of a GST rebate.

The Liberals, at that point, decided to go with their corporate buddies who were asking them to please give them low-interest loans instead. The commercial loan interest rates were so low, but still the Liberal government decided to follow up with their corporate buddies and give them low-interest loans. That would contribute to the loss of 15 affordable units to every one that was built.

I cannot express my disappointment enough that the Liberal government waited eight years to bring this GST rebate forward. I am happy we have it. The Liberals have at least moved the needle a tiny bit, but they really need to start taking this seriously because, as I said, people have lost their homes today.

I want to note the infrastructure gap, which is so wide. We are talking about the small movement on groceries and the Competition Act, which we are happy about, and we are happy about housing, although there is so much more to do. I want to speak about infrastructure because mayors and councillors were in town all of this week talking about the massive infrastructure gap, and my colleague from Nunavut was talking about the exorbitant infrastructure gap in northern Canada, in Nunavut, and the housing crisis going on there. The federal government has walked away from almost $8 billion in funding for indigenous communities and infrastructure. That is totally unacceptable, and we expect to see that rectified in the spring budget, that is for sure. We cannot continue to not invest in infrastructure and we cannot continue down this path of abusing human rights in this country.

I am going to zip my speech up, but I want to make sure that I talk about transit. When we talk about affordability, we need to talk about public transit. The mayors out in my area of British Columbia have been talking about the fact that they expect the federal government to be involved in funding public transit. If we are going to make these investments in housing, which are desperately needed, if we are going to make these investments in accessibility, which are desperately needed, and if we are going to really get serious about reducing emissions in this country, we need to invest in public transit. The mayors out in British Columbia are asking for that, and I am expecting the infrastructure minister will come forward with the public transit funding that has been promised. We cannot wait until 2026 to get transit funding. We need to change behaviour now. We cannot wait.

I want to close out by talking about the member for Burnaby South, who has a bill on the floor, Bill C-352, that also addresses the Competition Act. NDP members are so proud of this bill and of the fact that we are finally in this country going to force the government to get serious about the Competition Act. We know that Canadians right now have the highest cellphone bills and the highest Internet bills. We are now looking at conglomerations of the largest banks, which already charge too much in consumer charges. We need to stop this conglomeration of the largest corporations in this country and give some power back to consumers.

I am looking forward to the passing of Bill C-56. I am also looking forward to the passing of Bill C-352.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing to see that the House will have to once again sit until midnight to discuss this bill. Why? Because this government chose to impose a super closure motion. We think that this approach, the muzzling of parliamentarians, makes a mockery of democracy. Everyone here was elected by the people in our ridings, and this government should give more weight to our voices. This just shows how much respect the Liberals have for our democratic institutions.

An even more serious problem with this super closure motion is the short period of time allocated to study the bill in committee. Only two evenings are allocated, and that is it. Even though my party supports the principle of the bill, we think it is essential to study it in depth in committee. However, this super closure motion forces us to skip over the study in committee. It would therefore not be surprising if there are still problems with the bill after it is studied in committee, and that is really disappointing.

Let me give an example. The first part of the bill exempts rental property construction from the GST. It applies as of September 14. If the bill becomes law, construction projects undertaken on or after September 14 will be able to benefit from the measure. However, the bill does not say what constitutes the start of the project. Is it when the first shovel hits the ground? Is it when the first payment is made for the plans? Is it when the land is purchased? If the building has a dual purpose, what constitutes the beginning? We have no idea, because the bill does not define these concepts.

Let us use a concrete example to illustrate the uncertainty this creates for businesses. A company is planning to build a rental property. The ground floor will be occupied by commercial premises, so not part of the project, but all the upper floors will be used for rental housing. On September 14, work had not yet started on any of the rental housing floors, but work had begun on the ground floor. I repeat, the ground floor will be used for commercial purposes, so it is not a part of the rental project. The company does not know whether it will be entitled to benefit from the measure for the upper floors because of the date and the lack of definition in the bill. We also know that with skyrocketing construction costs, high interest rates and a shortage of skilled labour, developing a housing project is complex, and not having clear information from the government about its bill does nothing to help the company in its current choices. The fog caused by this bill, which was drafted too quickly, is creating uncertainty for businesses.

Will we be able to clarify the situation in committee in just two evenings? There are no guarantees. We will work on it, but I would like to remind the House that it would have been really important not to shut down the committee's work in this way.

As members know, Bill C‑56 has two parts. The first part provides a GST rebate to the builder of a rental housing building. The rebate will be given during the sale or pending sale if the builder becomes an owner.

The rebate does not apply when the buyer is already totally exempt, as in the case of a government agency or a municipality, or partially exempt, as in the case of a not‑for‑profit organization or a housing co‑operative. Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects. It only pertains to private housing.

In practice, the rental housing builder will bill the GST to the government instead of to the buyer at the time of sale. To qualify for the rebate, the building will have had to have been under construction between September 14, 2023, and December 31, 2030, and the project will have to be completed before December 31, 2035.

However, the bill does not include any details on the type of building or housing nor does it specify any affordability requirements to qualify for the rebate. Instead, the bill gives the government the power to clarify these issues through regulations. We are seeing the government gloss over its bills by giving too much power to the minister, who will be able to complete the bill with his own regulations once it has been implemented. That is not an approach that we appreciate.

It would be hard to impose affordability criteria on builders because they do not own buildings once they are built. However, it is possible to make the buyer pay the GST after the fact if the units are rented at exorbitant prices. These are the kinds of amendments and clarifications the committee should look at, but will it have time?

I would also point out that, in our view, it would have been possible to do more to promote the construction of housing, particularly social housing, by allocating the same amount, but implementing other measures. Obviously, we are debating what the government is proposing, and that is what we will be voting on, but we will continue to make suggestions, just in case it decides to listen.

The second part of the bill makes three amendments to the Competition Act.

The first amendment gives the commissioner of competition real power. Right now, when the Competition Bureau examines the competitive environment of a given sector, it cannot compel anyone to testify or order the production of documents. It will be able to do so under Bill C-56. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for that change for 20-odd years.

The second amendment broadens the scope of anti-competitive practices prohibited by the act. Right now, the act prohibits agreements between competitors to remove a player from the market. With this bill, it will also be prohibited to reach an agreement with someone who is not a competitor in order to reduce competition. Let me give an example. When a grocery store rents a space in a mall, it is standard practice for the contract to contain clauses prohibiting the landlord from renting a space to another grocery store. This type of practice, which limits competition, will now be prohibited under Bill C-56. We applaud that measure.

The third amendment will make mergers and acquisitions more difficult. Currently, when a company wants to buy a competitor, the Competition Act states that the Competition Bureau will allow it if it can be demonstrated that the takeover will result in efficiency gains, even if the merger shrinks competition. This provision, which favours concentration and is unique in the industrialized world, is repealed in Bill C-56. We have also been calling for this change for a long time, and the member for Terrebonne has been particularly keen to see it.

We strongly support the principle of this second part and even feel it is long overdue. We have been asking for these changes for years, decades even.

We understand that, thanks to the government's super closure motion, Bill C-56 is going to be amended. Government Business No. 30 authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance to broaden the scope of the bill to make three amendments.

The first change is an increase in fines. It is taken directly from Bill C-352, which was introduced by the leader of the NDP and amends the Competition Act. Many of its provisions would become obsolete because of Bill C‑56. The other two changes have to do with abuse of dominance and investigating powers when the Competition Bureau conducts a market study. Subject to the wording of the amendments to be submitted in committee, these changes have no real effect. They were probably added to the motion to please the party that is supporting the closure motion, but the changes will have no real effect.

Let us come back to the first change, which is to “increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum)”. As I was saying, that is taken from Bill C‑352.

Currently, in addition to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years for executives who commit an offence under the Act, the bureau and the tribunal can impose a maximum fine of $5 million on the offending company. The motion proposes increasing the maximum fine to $25 million, and to $35 million for repeat offenders. In the case of a large company, the maximum penalty could be even higher, up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the practice.

We know that the NDP bill went even further and specified the following: “if that amount cannot be reasonably determined, 10% of the person's annual worldwide gross revenues”. Clearly, the government was not prepared to go that far. It is a good change. The maximum fine of $5 million could be seen as the cost of doing business. The revised amounts are designed to have a real deterrent effect. That makes the Canadian legislation comparable to the U.S. and European laws.

The second amendment is “allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced”. The Competition Bureau has significant power. It can compel witnesses to appear, demand documents and request searches if necessary. However, these powers are available to the bureau only when it is investigating a clear infringement following a formal disclosure. The investigation then becomes quasi-criminal.

However, when the bureau is conducting a study to determine whether competition is working properly in a given field or market, it has no such powers. For example, in its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June 2023, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. They refused to hand over the documents it had requested and refused to answer some of its questions. Bill C-56 solves that problem and gives the Competition Bureau investigative powers when it is conducting a market study.

The NDP's Bill C-352 did basically the same thing. Government Business No. 30 proposes a technical amendment to the manner in which the bureau can initiate a market study, but it does not really do much to change the current practice. This aspect was likely only added to the motion to please the NDP, but it really does not do anything.

It is the same thing for the third amendment, which proposes to “revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market”.

Currently, a company that monopolizes a significant share of the market cannot take advantage of its dominant position to limit competition, for example, by preventing a supplier from working with a competitor. The existing act prohibits several of these kinds of practices, which effectively limit competition, prevent it from working properly or make it virtually impossible for a new player to enter the market. On the other hand, there is nothing stopping a company from taking advantage of a lack of competition to sell products at excessive prices. If, for example, a grocer enjoys a monopoly in a given region, there is nothing to stop that grocer from taking advantage of the monopoly to gouge consumers by charging exorbitant prices.

Bill C‑352 addressed this loophole. A whole range of anti-competitive practices were already prohibited, and it added a new one: “directly or indirectly imposing excessive and unfair selling prices”. It was a good measure, but clearly the government did not want to move in that direction. To please the NDP and hide the fact that it has given up on defending consumers against the major players, the government's motion adds a procedural amendment to Bill C‑56 to give the tribunal the power to prevent an anti-competitive practice that the current law already prohibits anyway. Again, it is nothing but hot air.

The day before yesterday, the Minister of Finance tabled the fall economic statement. As we all know, an economic statement is not quite as big a deal as a budget. It usually includes measures the government intends to take to deal with emergencies that have arisen since the budget was tabled.

There are emergencies aplenty, including the housing crisis, homelessness, the media, the rising cost of living, the small business emergency account deadline, seniors' buying power and scandalous oil industry subsidies, not to mention EI reform, the plight of seasonal forestry workers following the summer's forest fires, support for culture, support for the market garden and horticulture sectors following the summer's floods, and the funding that was promised for school breakfasts but has not yet been delivered, to name but a few.

However, the only emergency mentioned in the economic statement has to do with housing. Ottawa does need to do a lot more for housing, especially social housing. Unfortunately, the government's response is nothing more than what has already been announced in Bill C‑56. In fact, the rest will not be delivered until after the next election, and only if the Liberals are re-elected. Responding to the urgency of the housing crisis with election promises that are two years or more away is simply unacceptable, especially when we know that once the money is available, it takes two to three years before it is actually flows. It is like the $900 million that was finally announced for Quebec this fall, but that had been budgeted two years earlier.

We in the Bloc Québécois had proposed an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations, as well as an interest-free or very low-interest loan program, to stimulate the construction of affordable social rental housing, while waiting for a comprehensive policy in the next budget.

Still on the subject of housing, I would like to point out that the minister brought forward a good measure concerning Airbnbs, which will have to comply with municipal rules, or else the people and businesses that manage them will no longer have access to federal tax deductions for their operations. It remains to be seen whether the Canada Revenue Agency will be able to properly apply this new constraint.

One not so good measure is the creation of a new department that specializes in interference: the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. The purpose of that department is to impose its conditions on Quebec, the provinces and the municipalities. If they do not abide by the interference, Ottawa will cut their transfers. The Liberals come here to steal the only bill that the Conservatives introduced, their plan to build more housing, by threatening the provinces and municipalities with cutting their infrastructure funding. I should note that it was the Conservative leader himself who introduced Bill C‑356 in the House.

With this bill, Ottawa would impose an obligation to increase housing starts by 15% compared to the previous year on all municipalities where the cost of housing is high, and that list is growing longer and longer. If the housing starts in municipalities do not increase as required by Ottawa, the Conservative leader would cut their gas tax and public transit transfers by 1% for each percentage point shortfall under the target that he unilaterally set.

For example, housing starts in Quebec dropped by 60% this year rather than increasing by 15%, largely because of rising interest rates. If the Conservatives' bill were already in force, this would mean a roughly 75% reduction in transfer payments to the Quebec government. This is a really dangerous and unfair bill that centralizes power in Ottawa. The fact that the Minister of Finance is making use of the principle of that bill is a major offensive action in terms of centralization of power. We will have detailed numbers shortly.

I would like to say a few more words about the new department of housing, infrastructure and communities. This announcement essentially creates a federal department of municipal affairs. Since municipal affairs fall under provincial jurisdiction, this is nothing less than a department of interference, which is threatening to cut transfers, exactly as the Conservatives are hoping for and proposing in their bill.

Here are a few more details about this new department. It is worth noting that Trudeau senior's government tried to do much the same thing. In 1971, it created the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs. A Library of Parliament research document states that, “[g]iven the inescapable constitutional limitations, the ministry had no program responsibilities”. Faced with a lack of co-operation from the provinces, this attempt from Trudeau senior's government to interfere in municipal affairs ended in failure. The research document also states that “[i]n view of the Ministry's lack of credibility and the government's desire to cut expenditures, the [Ministry of State for Urban Affairs] was abolished on 31 March 1979”.

In the coming years, we will see whether Quebec and the provinces will once again be capable of defending their jurisdiction against this new department. This is the same story a generation later, so I would like to quote a philosopher: “All great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce”. I believe that is what we are witnessing now.

In closing, let me reiterate that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C‑56 because it contains a few good measures and nothing that is downright harmful. However, Bill C‑56 is but a drop in an ocean of need. On housing, there is no indication that the bill will help lower the cost of rent. If nothing is done to correct this problem, we are headed for a major national tragedy. We need three times more rental housing in new construction to stop the housing crisis from getting worse. If Bill C‑56 did even a little to increase the proportion of rental units in new construction developments, that would be something, but we are light years away from meeting those needs.

The changes to the Competition Act are good, and the Bloc Québécois wholeheartedly supports them. Still, the government's claim that these changes will help lower grocery bills seems like misrepresentation. Removing from the act the section that called for mergers and acquisitions to be allowed if the company could demonstrate efficiencies is a good thing. This section of the Competition Act encourages concentration, which often leads to higher prices.

Since 1996, the vast majority of grocery chains have disappeared and been bought up by competitors. I am talking about companies like Steinberg, A&P and Provigo. IGA was bought by Sobeys, and Adonis by Metro. The same is true in Canada. Think of Woodward's, Commisso's, Safeway, Whole Foods, T&T, Longo's, Farm Boy and so on. Of the 13 chains we used to have, now there are only three, or five if we include Costco and Walmart. They control 80% of the market. It is an oligopoly.

While Bill C‑56 proposes some good measures, it is inconceivable that this is the government's only response to skyrocketing housing and food prices. When it comes to housing, we need to review and improve the failed Canada housing strategy.

Regarding competition, we need to review the concept of abuse of dominance to prevent the big players from taking advantage of their disproportionate share of the market to increase prices will, for lack of competition, or to abuse farmers and processors, whom they are holding hostage. These two things need to be done, whether or not Bill C‑56 is passed.

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

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say what a privilege it is for me to be able to speak in what is an important debate for all parliamentarians and to again speak on behalf of the good people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. For their benefit, I will explain that we are debating essentially two things today. Nominally, this is about Motion No. 30, the programming motion, but it is also about Bill C-56, the actual bill that the motion is seeking to get through the House to committee, where important work has to be done.

I will start with Motion No. 30, because it has to be put in the context of what the NDP, with our 25 members, has been able to do in this Parliament. I want to give particular thanks to my leader, the NDP leader and member for Burnaby South. We have to make mention in this place of his private member's bill, Bill C-352, because important elements of that bill were adopted in Motion No. 30. I will highlight some of the relevant parts of Motion No. 30 for the benefit of constituents back home.

Essentially, the really important part of Motion No. 30 centres on a number of things that would include some of the elements of the private member's bill from the member for Burnaby South in Bill C-56. I think this would strengthen the bill through a number of measures, such as increasing maximum penalty amounts for the abuse of dominance so that whenever we have market concentration and some corporate entities are abusing their dominance, we would have increased fines to make sure they are brought into compliance. Another measure is allowing the Competition Bureau to conduct market studies and inquiries if it is either directed by the minister responsible for the act or recommended by the commissioner of the Competition Bureau. Another is to revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged either in a practice of anti-competitive acts or in conduct other than superior competitive performance.

In other words, these are three important measures in the motion that are basically lifted out of the PMB from the member for Burnaby South, showing once again that, as New Democrats, we are here to strengthen government bills, respond to the needs of our constituents and make sure we are passing laws that would address the serious issues of today.

I will now move to Bill C-56, which is not a very big government bill in the scale of things but one that essentially seeks to do two things: remove the GST from construction costs on new rental units and enable the Competition Bureau to better conduct investigations, while removing efficiency exemptions during mergers to improve competition. That is the specific section of the bill we would be improving through Motion No. 30.

Before I go on, I think we need to place the conversation around Bill C-56 in a larger context. I want to go back to when this Parliament started. Canadians are very familiar with the fact that in both the 2019 and the 2021 elections, Canadians, in their wisdom, decided to return minority Parliaments. I think that was the voice of the Canadian people saying that they did not trust all of the power in this place to any one party. It was a resounding message that parties had to come here and find ways to work together.

At the start of this Parliament in 2021, we as New Democrats essentially had two choices. We could have chosen to stay on the sidelines, like my Conservative friends, and just complain while achieving nothing, or we could have realized that Canadians expected us to roll up our sleeves, put our heads down and get to work. We chose the latter option, and that is why, thanks to New Democrats, we are achieving some incredibly concrete things for Canadians.

Dental care is a massive program that is going to really help so many Canadians. We know that millions of Canadians are unable to afford to go to the dentist. Thanks to New Democrats, we are pushing that forward so the most disadvantaged people from coast to coast to coast are going to be able to afford and get proper dental care.

We forced the government to double the GST credit. Of course, something I am personally very proud of having done, both here in the House and at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food, which does specifically relate to the conversation we are having today, is that we also started an investigation into food price inflation. I think it was the public and political pressure of that moment that led us to where we are today, talking about Bill C-56. Not only did I get a unanimous vote in the House of Commons, so I believe that all parties unanimously recommended that this was an issue of great concern to their constituents, but we also got a unanimous vote at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-food to really put the issue of food price inflation under the microscope and to do a deep dive into the real causes. I will be happy to talk about that a little bit later in my speech.

We also forced the government to come up with a grocery rebate and anti-scab legislation that is going to help unions realize the collective bargaining power they have. When we are talking in this place about helping the working class, we need to make sure we are actually standing up for legislation that would do just that. For far too long in our country's history, working men and women who belong to the trade union movement have been at a disadvantage when it comes to the relationship with their employers. Employers have considerable financial resources. They have been able to wait out workers. They have been able to use replacement workers. In some cases, they have just waited for Liberal and Conservative governments to come to their rescue with back-to-work legislation. It is time, thanks to the NDP, that someone in this place truly stood up for the working class, not just with words, like the Conservatives are fond of doing, but with real action, actually changing our laws so an employer, with all of their resources, would no longer be able to undermine working-class men and women with replacement workers. One of the most powerful things the working class has at its disposal is the guaranteed freedom to withhold its labour in order to fight for a better deal.

Thanks to the NDP, we are going to change federal laws so we have the backs of workers in federally regulated industries, whether they work in the train system, in shipping, in the banking industry, etc. We are going to make sure the legislation before us gets over the finish line and serves as an example right across the country for all provincial jurisdictions. I am also very proud that, thanks to the NDP, we are leading the way in developing a sustainable jobs act. It was thanks to the NDP that we got labour at the table with the government and brought in those changes to the law before it was finally introduced. Again, this demonstrates that when it comes to defending working people in Canada, the NDP is the party that is pushing the ball here, not just with words but also with sincere action.

Something I am incredibly proud of, as we work toward the end of the 2023 year, is that we are actively working with the government on bringing in pharmacare legislation. Again, the cost of living crisis is something that Bill C-56 is inherently trying to deal with. We have to make sure we deal with the economic shortfall that so many working-class Canadians are experiencing. In addition to lack of dental care, one of the biggest challenges for families is their inability to pay for expensive medication because they do not have the benefit of a workplace plan. Often, I have spoken to constituents who are skipping their medications altogether or are cutting them in half, and that can lead to extremely poor health outcomes later on. Yes, it might seem like a significant investment, but we have to put it in the context of the billions of dollars of savings that would result, not only for working families' budgets as we are trying to help them get by, but also for our health care system as a whole. When we look after people and establish methods whereby they can seek preventative health measures, this is how we save our health care system money, and it is how we look after families' budgets.

I am proud to be a member of a caucus that is standing up for all of those measures. I think there are days when my Conservative friends must be incredibly frustrated that they are being outworked and outdelivered by a party with a quarter of the number of their seats. I want to highlight a few examples because I listen to Conservatives talk every single day about the cost of living crisis, and I want to highlight a few of the hypocrisies we hear in this place from that particular party.

Number one is the carbon tax. I do not think that the oil and gas industry actually needs to spend all of that money on lobbying the federal government, because it already has a political party that does it for free. The Conservative Party's members stand in this place and, at every single opportunity, rail on the carbon tax while completely ignoring the oil and gas profiteering that has been happening over the last three years. It is a real disservice to the substance of the debate.

We only need to look at the evidence. We have seen this at committee, not only when we were dealing with food price inflation but also in a whole host of other committees. The evidence is there for everyone to see. If someone wants to see the real driver of inflation, they only need to look at some key industries and how much their profits have increased over the last three years. The most notable example is oil and gas. Since 2019, the industry's net profits have increased by over 1,000%. The Conservatives want to concoct a fairy tale that the carbon tax is the root of all evil, when we know that the wild price fluctuations we see on the cost of fuel are the result of market pressures and of corporations' gouging our constituents. However, there is not a word from my Conservative friends.

I have to single out the member for Carleton, the Conservative leader, because he has the temerity to stand in this place and vote against dental care for his constituents, for my constituents and for people from coast to coast to coast while having enjoyed taxpayer-funded dental benefits for the last 19 years as a member of Parliament. I guess the Conservative motto is “It is okay for me but not for thee.” That is essentially the message I am getting from him.

Of course, there was a vote earlier this week on the Ukrainian free trade agreement. The Conservatives were absolutely grasping at straws to find a way to vote against it. At a time when Ukraine needs solidarity from the people of Canada, it would have sent a strong message if we could have had a unanimous vote in the House of Commons to show the Ukrainian people that we stand firmly with them. That is something President Zelenskyy wanted, yet one party decided to vote against the free trade agreement, and that was the Conservative Party. The shocking thing is that a vote at second reading is a vote for the principle of a bill. The principle of the bill is free trade with Ukraine. Someone may have problems with the bill, and that is fine, but do they agree with the principle of the bill? I do not always agree with bills that I vote for at second reading, but I do it under the condition of getting better results at committee. It is a strong message. Does one agree with the principle of the bill? Unfortunately, I think the Conservatives scored on their own net with that vote.

Let us talk about the housing crisis, because a significant part of Bill C-56 would be the removal of the GST for new rental units. There is a fairy tale being concocted in this place by my Conservative friends. They want people to magically believe that the housing crisis started just in the last few years, or eight years ago in 2015. That is absolutely false. The housing crisis we are seeing today is the natural conclusion of over 40 years of neo-liberal economic policy that has been pursued with glee by both Liberals and Conservatives. It did not start just with the current government and the current Prime Minister. It was happening over Stephen Harper's time, Paul Martin's time, Jean Chrétien's time and Brian Mulroney's time. We could not get to the shortfall we have in affordable housing just overnight. It is the result of a systematic abandoning of the federal government's role in building affordable housing, and the chickens are coming home to roost right now.

Again, we do need serious action, and Bill C-56 would be a small measure, removing the GST to spur on more housing development. If we look at the recent fall economic statement and at some of the spending items in the next few years for affordable housing, the Liberals have decided to delay spending on critical areas until the 2025 fiscal year. It is a totally shameful response and extremely inadequate to the crisis moment so many Canadians are facing right now.

With food price inflation, I think Canadians are sick and tired of both parties taking potshots at each other when, for 20 months now, we have seen food prices rise at such a high rate, a rate far higher than the general rate of inflation. The Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry made that grand announcement in October, when he said he was going to summon the grocery CEOs to Ottawa for what amounted to a stern talking to. What did we learn today? We learned from Metro's CEO that discussion had zero impact on food price inflation.

This is why the agriculture committee is again examining this issue. It wants to hear from the minister and the grocery CEOs. It was my motion that sent for the corporate documents, which are now under lock and key at 131 Queen Street, so we can see what the corporations have agreed to and what their plan is. We also want to hold the government to account to see exactly what promises the minister tried to extract.

We are facing a situation where Canadians have been playing by the rules and doing everything right. However, there is corporate gouging in multiple sectors. In the housing market there are increased rents and renovictions and the buying-up of affordable housing stock. Grocery and fuel prices are constantly going up. It is all a result of corporate profits driving inflation, and there is only one party in this place that is daring to call it out.

I think back to the old tale, Mouseland. Canadians are being asked to pick between the black cats and the white cats, but they are both cats. They are both going to pursue the same economic policies. I think, at their heart, Liberals and Conservatives believe in the same thing. They believe in market-based solutions, which is what have gotten us into the mess we are in. They like to show the differences between the two, but I fundamentally believe those two parties are but two different sides of the same coin. If we want something different, we cannot keep doing the same thing. Trading Liberals for Conservatives is simply going to continue us down the path that we have been on for the last 40 years.

Canadians deserve a break. I am proud to say that through New Democrats' efforts on Bill C-56 and Government Business No. 30, we are delivering concrete results. We have rolled up our sleeves to get to work to improve this bill and insert some language that I believe is going to make the bill stronger and finally give the Competition Bureau the muscle, resources and legislative flex it needs to tackle the extreme marketplace concentration that we see in so many sectors, whether it is the grocery sector, telecommunications, oil and gas, name it, it is time.

I believe, Madam Speaker, I am getting a signal from you that—

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

Madam Speaker, I will no doubt pick up roughly where my colleague from Mirabel left off. He painted a good picture of the political context. He concluded by speaking to the bill. I will go a bit deeper into the bill.

The government proposal grants the Standing Committee on Finance the power to expand the scope of the bill by incorporating three substantial changes.

First, there is the amendment seeking to increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. The amendment changes the Competition Act and will render several of its elements obsolete once Bill C-56 is passed. The two other amendments, which deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies, although subject to the wording of amendments to come, appear to have limited scope. Their inclusion seems to be rather intended to give the New Democrats a symbolic victory in order to paper over a major concession on their part. Let us review these three amendments.

The first aims to increase penalties for abuse of a dominant position to $25 million for a first offence and $35 million for subsequent offences. This is taken directly from Bill C-352, introduced by the leader of the NDP. Currently, the maximum penalty that can be levied by the bureau and the tribunal is $5 million for an offending company, along with prison sentences of 14 years for directors who breach the act. This proposed revision is therefore significant, dispelling the idea that penalties are just an inherent cost of doing business. They could now have a deterrent effect comparable to that of European or American legislation. Again, as my colleague asked, if it is already in force elsewhere, why has it taken so long for Canada to wake up? I believe the explanations in the last speech were very powerful.

The second amendment, which gives the Competition Bureau the option of conducting market study inquiries at the direction of the minister or on the recommendation of the commissioner of competition, while requiring prior consultation between these two officials, is quite significant. Currently, the bureau has strict investigative powers, but only if there is a clearly defined infringement. This adopts a quasi-criminal approach. The amendment proposed seeks to address this shortcoming when market studies are conducted in order to ensure greater effectiveness in assessing the dynamics of competition.

The third amendment, which reviews the legal grounds prohibiting abuse of dominance, aims to prevent anti-competitive practices that impede or significantly decrease competition in a relevant market. Even though the current legislation prohibits various restrictive practices, it does not address predatory pricing by businesses in a dominant market position. The NDP's Bill C‑352 sought to fill this gap by specifically prohibiting the imposition of excessive prices. Despite the provision's obvious value, the government still seems resistant to passing it, offering instead a procedural amendment to the existing legislation through Bill C‑56, without really reinforcing consumers' defences against such practices.

Although it makes positive changes to the Competition Act, Bill C‑56 hardly seems an appropriate response to the housing crisis and soaring food prices. An in-depth review of the national housing strategy remains essential, as does redefining abuse of dominance to prevent price increases resulting from a lack of competition. These critical areas persist, independently of whether Bill C‑56 is passed.

The Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the motion and the bill, recognizing certain positive measures and the absence of any downright harmful elements. However, we should point out that it is only a drop in the bucket in terms of current needs. With respect to housing, there is no reason to believe that Bill C‑56 will help reduce rental costs.

At the briefing offered to members on September 21, officials were specifically asked to provide the studies on which the Minister of Finance based her claim that Bill C‑56 would impact rents. To give credit where credit is due, the question was asked by my colleague from Joliette. Their response to my colleague's question was evasive, suggesting they did not have these studies. That suggests an uncertain future as to the supposed effectiveness of the measures.

It is not very likely that landlords will decide to lower their rents simply because they did not pay GST on the purchase of a new building. Furthermore, the increase in interest rates, affecting all real estate and leading to higher mortgage rates, is a major factor influencing future costs. With or without Bill C‑56, tenants might very well have to live with them.

In the best case scenario, eliminating taxes on rental buildings could encourage some builders to choose that type of construction over condominiums, potentially providing a glimmer of hope in this growing housing crisis. However, though it will not have a direct impact on prices, Bill C‑56 could still help alleviate the housing shortage, which may get worse in the years to come.

Right now, the Société québécoise des infrastructures says that only 14% of new housing units built by 2030 will be rentals, despite the fact that almost 40% of Quebec households are renting. This growing imbalance foreshadows a terrible national tragedy, and three times as many new constructions will need to be rental units if we want to resolve the housing crisis.

If Bill C‑56 manages to increase the proportion of rental housing, even slightly, it would be a modest step forward, but that will not be enough to meet the crying need. However, we note the lack of specifics regarding the types of dwellings or buildings, and the absence of accessibility requirements to be eligible for reimbursement, which hands the government the power to regulate those factors.

During the information sessions for parliamentarians, which my colleague from Joliette attended, we asked officials why the act contained no eligibility criteria, which is an unusual exception in tax matters. Their answer clearly conveyed a sense of urgency and poor preparation, which definitely suggests an off-the-cuff approach.

We can all agree that it would be difficult to impose affordability criteria on builders. They are not the future owners of the buildings under construction. However, the GST could be imposed on buyers if the housing units were rented out at sky-high prices; this is a measure that could be examined in committee to improve the bill's effectiveness, which so far is pretty limited. That might be a good idea.

While amendments to the Competition Act deserve the Bloc Québécois's support, to suggest that they will have any impact on grocery bills is wishful thinking and a misrepresentation of reality. We support the bill, but we have no pats on the back for Ottawa.

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

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying hello to the people of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou and paying my respects to the Cree nation following the death of Charly Washipabano, who was a member of Hockey Abitibi‑Témiscamingue's board of directors and a program coordinator with the Eeyou Istchee Sports and Recreation Association.

I am rising in connection with the debate on Government Business No. 30, which seeks to impose a gag order and make amendments to Bill C‑56. This bill, which aims to eliminate the GST on the construction of rental housing and amend the Competition Act, was introduced in the House in September by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance.

The government's motion authorizes the Standing Committee on Finance to expand the scope of the bill in order to amend it in three ways.

The first amendment would increase the penalty amounts. This increase is right out of Bill C-352, which amends the Competition Act and contains several elements that would become obsolete with the passing of Bill C‑56. The motion proposes to “increase the maximum fixed penalty amounts for abuse of dominance to $25 million in the first instance, and $35 million for subsequent orders, for situations where this amount is higher than three times the value of the benefit derived (or the alternative variable maximum)”. In the case of a large company, the maximum penalty could be even higher, up to three times the value of the benefit derived from the practice.

The second and third amendments deal with abuse of a dominant position and the Competition Bureau's powers of inquiry when conducting market studies. As currently worded, the amendments being submitted to the committee have no real effect. The goal is to “allow the Competition Bureau to conduct market study inquiries if it is either directed by the Minister responsible for the Act or recommended by the Commissioner of Competition, and require consultation between the two officials prior to the study being commenced”.

The Competition Bureau has significant powers. It can compel witnesses to appear, demand documents and request searches if necessary. However, these powers are available to the bureau only when it is investigating a clear infringement following a formal disclosure. The investigation then becomes quasi-criminal. However, when the bureau is conducting a study to determine whether competition is working properly in a given field or market, it has no such powers. For example, in its report on the state of competition in the grocery sector, published in June 2023, the bureau noted that the grocery chains did not really co-operate with its study. They refused to hand over the documents it had requested and refused to answer some of its questions.

Government Business No. 30 includes a proposed technical amendment to the way the Competition Bureau can conduct a market study, although it does not change much from current practice.

The third amendment will “revise the legal test for abuse of a dominant position prohibition order to be sufficiently met if the Tribunal finds that a dominant player has engaged in either a practice of anti-competitive acts or conduct other than superior competitive performance that had, is having or is likely to have the effect of preventing or lessening competition substantially in a relevant market”.

Everyone knows that there is a serious housing crisis in Quebec and across Canada. We often hear about rising prices and housing shortages in major urban centres, in big cities, but it is also an issue in rural regions and smaller towns. The housing crisis is in its 18th straight year, and its impact is being felt more and more in the towns, villages and communities of Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. In Val‑d'Or, for example, the vacancy rate is now around 1.4%, adding pressure to the average cost of rent, which has jumped by 5.4%.

The housing shortage, combined with higher rent, is directly impacting the most vulnerable, by which I mean people living alone, single-parent families, women, young people, seniors, first nations and Inuit people, immigrant families, and persons with disabilities. Unfortunately, some of these people often end up having to stay in shelters longer or live in apartments that do not meet their needs, and that is unacceptable. We also need to consider the growing number of people left homeless by this crisis. It is important to find real solutions to this problem. The ongoing housing crisis is adding to the already pressing needs, and the homelessness problem is only getting worse.

The social housing stock is also aging. The government needs to upgrade and renovate it as quickly as possible, while ensuring that rent remains completely affordable for the low-income families living there now or in the future.

The government's national housing strategy, which was launched in 2017, falls far short. The funding allocated for social housing, both to maintain existing units and to build new ones, is not enough to meet the needs of all the nations.

When it comes to housing, there is nothing to indicate that Government Business No. 30 will add any value to Bill C-56 in terms of lowering rents.

It would be surprising if a property owner decided to lower rents just because they did not have to pay GST on the new building they bought. What is more, it is important to remember that the cost of higher mortgage payments will likely be passed on to renters.

I understand the minister's intention in moving this motion, but the measure to provide a GST rebate on the cost of labour and materials will apply to future rental properties, regardless of the market value and rental prices.

I represent Nunavik, where residents experience the impact of the housing shortage in many persistent ways. In Nunavik, 47% of Inuit live in overcrowded housing, compared to 7% for Quebec as a whole. This means their situation is seven times worse. The housing problem in the Far North is nothing new. Nunavik has been short on housing since the 1990s, when Ottawa stopped funding housing construction for five years. We have never caught up since, and now that has to change.

We have a moral responsibility, from one nation to another, to ensure that Inuit communities have decent housing. Housing is definitely one of the most important social issues in Nunavik. It is not uncommon for five, six, seven, eight or even more people to live together in a two-bedroom dwelling. If one of these people has social problems, the entire family is affected. The situation is far from ideal for raising children and supporting their education.

There can be up to three generations living in one house without much privacy. This has numerous consequences for their quality of life. Some 98% of Nunavik's Inuit residents live in social housing provided by the Kativik Municipal Housing Bureau. Approximately 1,000 families are hoping for housing, yet only about 100 units are built each year. Construction costs are astronomical, at least three times higher than in southern Quebec. Materials arrive by boat, and it is difficult to build more than 100 homes a year. Even at that rate, we cannot keep up with population growth.

It is important to note that, in my community, the housing shortage is also affecting the economy. Large mining and forestry companies would like to bring workers to the region. However, they hit a brick wall when it comes to housing. Companies have no choice but to reserve homes and rent housing for fly-in, fly-out workers, which reduces housing availability for the rest of the population.

As the families, children and social development critic, I feel it is important to address the impact that the housing shortage is having on families and children.

In its eighth report on housing and poverty in Quebec, the social housing group Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain states that three out of five renter families have had to cut back on activities, clothing and even groceries in order to pay their rent. According to the same report, no less than 30% of parents with children aged five and under live in a home that does not meet their needs, often in terms of space, because of the lack of housing in their price range.

What is the government waiting for? Why does it not take action now? The situation is urgent.

Canada—Newfoundland and Labrador Atlantic Accord Implementation Act

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, it is a practice of the House that, when a member realizes that he or she has a matter affecting the privileges of the House, the matter ought to be drawn to the attention of the House at the earliest possible opportunity. Therefore, it is my obligation to inform the House that a letter from the Ethics Commissioner confirming the existence of such a matter arrived in my email inbox just after 2:00 p.m. on the most recent sitting day before the present day, that is to say, on Friday, October 6.

The House rose less than half an hour after I received this email and today, therefore, represents the first reasonably available opportunity.

The matter in question relates to subsection 12(1) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons. Subsection 12(1) states:

A member who has a private interest that might be affected by a matter that is before the House of Commons...shall, if present during consideration of the matter, disclose orally or in writing the general nature of the private interest at the first opportunity. The general nature of the private interest shall be disclosed forthwith in writing to the Clerk of the House.

On September 19, I wrote to seek the commissioner's advice as I am the chairman of the board of a family business, Giant Tiger stores. Although my family business is a small player in the great scheme of things, having a sales volume that is only about 5% that of Loblaws, it is nevertheless a significant player in the discount side of the grocery industry. Therefore, it seemed advisable to me to ask the commissioner whether, in order to remain compliant with the code, I might have to recuse myself from certain debates in the House and elsewhere.

As noted earlier, the commissioner responded to me just after 2:00 p.m. on October 6, advising me that, in his view, I would have an obligation, pursuant to subsection 12(1), to report to the House if I am present in the House during any debate or a vote on Bill C-56 and also that the same restrictions apply to Bill C-352, a private member's bill covering much of the same subject matter.

I can advise the House that in anticipation of precisely such a response from the commissioner, I have been at pains to avoid being present during any such debates. However, a strict reading of subsection 12(1) would suggest that the reporting obligation is triggered by the mere fact of being present during a question period when questions on the subject are raised by any party and that, as well, if I were to participate electronically in any vote on the subject, even if my intention is simply to electronically vote to register a formal abstention, I would trigger subsection 12(1).

Therefore, pursuant to subsection 12(1), I am tabling the following four documents.

The first is the letter that I wrote to the commissioner on September 19, in which I laid out the general nature of my private interest in my family's business.

The second is an email thread containing subsequent correspondence with the commissioner and his staff, leading up to his response email on October 6, in which he advised me that I should not merely recuse myself from debates in the House of Commons but also that I should exclude myself from any discussion, debate or vote on these two bills that might take place during the Conservative caucus meetings.

The third is a further letter that I sent this morning to comply with the commissioner's further instruction that I will need to formally inform the Conservative caucus vice-chair, or the individual who would chair the meeting in their absence, of my private interest regarding Bill C-56 and Bill C-352 and provide a copy of the correspondence to his office. I was told it will then be made public in accordance with the code.

Finally, the fourth is the cover letter to the commissioner delivered to his office earlier this day in which I confirmed to him that I have complied with this further instruction.

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

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

Madam Speaker, everyone knows that times are really tough right now. Canadians are suffering; housing and grocery prices are higher than ever, and they continue to go up. There is a real need for the government to intervene and adopt public policies to try to circumvent these circumstances that Canadians find themselves in.

Bill C-56 is a good step toward accomplishing some things, and certainly there are some things in this bill that, for years, New Democrats have called for. However, I have to say that this bill is a very small step. There are so many things that people need from the government to help with affordability.

The bill introduced by the leader of the NDP actually even goes further with regard to the Competition Bureau, which is a part of Bill C-56. His bill, Bill C-352, would impose harsher penalties on companies that fix prices and would better rein in and regulate monopolies in the industry. Currently, the onus to prove that mergers or monopolies are harmful to Canadians is placed upon the Competition Bureau, and that needs to change. We think that the burden of proof should fall to the companies; they should have to prove that their activities are in the interests of Canadians. Bill C-352 would do this. It would better protect Canadian consumers.

Not a day goes by that I do not hear from constituents who are struggling to pay for their groceries, rent or mortgage. I meet with community groups, food banks and shelters that are trying to stretch their services and programs so that they can help and cover more and more people. The people in London—Fanshawe are incredibly generous. When a neighbour needs help, there are many who will do what they can and give what they can, but the government needs to learn from them. It seems to be concerned only with these incremental supports. It is really quite disappointing.

We have had federal governments in power, time after time in this country, that have no real interest in actually ending poverty. They only perpetuate it. In fact, it would cost us less to eliminate homelessness and poverty entirely. We have had both Liberals and Conservatives in government that are only truly concerned with ensuring that those who hold the majority of power, keep it.

We need to deal with the core problem here: For years, there has been a growing divide between the richest and the poorest among us. The truth of the matter is that this country was built by everyone, by all citizens, but not all citizens are getting an equal return on that investment.

I am extremely disappointed with the Liberals' approach of calling in the grocery CEOs for a meeting, wagging their fingers at them and asking them to please do better. It is a government made of people, and it needs to govern for all people. All people have to pay their fair share. We have a responsibility to draft laws to ensure that equality.

The Conservatives would have us believe that the carbon tax is the only thing driving up grocery prices, but if that were the case, then the CEOs' profits would not be growing in the way we have seen them grow. If they were just passing along the increased costs from inflation or from the carbon tax, Loblaws, Sobeys and Metro would not have made $3.6 billion in combined profits in 2022. Those profits are growing by far more than the increase in input costs. Any government or any party that wants to form a government with some common sense and with a seriousness about addressing the challenges that Canadians have been facing at the grocery store has to recognize the role of corporate greed in the equation. Nothing will change for people until we do that.

Long before the pandemic, before these incredible increases in inflation, New Democrats were recommending a windfall profit tax. Other governments around the world are doing this. We can use our legislative powers to stop price gouging, price-fixing and greedflation. We need to address the extreme profits these companies enjoy at the expense of people in my riding and in all our ridings.

I also want to talk about the other piece of this bill concerning the removal of the GST from construction costs on rental units. Again, this is a good first step, but it is a small one. It is one that New Democrats have long been calling for. When it comes to housing, we have seen Liberal and Conservative governments ensure that housing is entirely a financial issue.

I believe that housing is a human right. We cannot rely solely on a market-based solution when it is about a human right. If we truly want to resolve the housing crisis that has been growing for over 30 years in Canada, we need a wide range of solutions.

New Democrats have made several proposals. One I would like to talk about right now is the inclusion of an acquisition fund for non-profit organizations. This would give them an opportunity to buy affordable social housing when organizations or companies decide to sell them. This non-profit acquisition fund could help alleviate the housing crisis.

We have seen a lot of real estate investment trusts or big corporate landlords swoop in and buy buildings. They have fast access to capital, and they have a lot of money in reserve that they can use to buy these places.

Again, in my riding, there are residents who live in the Webster Street Apartments, and they are being renovicted. I have raised this issue in the House a number of times, asking for the government to help them. Sadly, my calls have fallen on deaf ears.

Ultimately, a Toronto-based corporation purchased rental units in my riding that were formally reasonably priced. They made small renovations, sometimes painting or removing partial walls, and then they told the existing residents that they would be charged an additional $1,000 a month in rent. These residents are seniors, people living on ODSP, single moms and people on fixed incomes. They cannot afford that significant increase in their rent.

They are now having to leave their homes. Some of them have lived there for decades. They have created a community. They feel truly a part of the building with their neighbours; they know who their neighbours are. However, they are being forced to leave that home.

The creation of a non-profit acquisition fund could have helped stop that kind of renoviction and helped the people in my constituency who live on Webster Street.

The government must also adopt policies that will help address the critical shortage of social and affordable housing. There is no mention of that in Bill C-56. We know that there are opportunities to work with the government and other parties to ensure that Canada can take strategic approaches, including non-market solutions.

There is no doubt in my mind that a public policy intervention is required in order to get a handle on this situation. We have reached this moment of crisis because, for 30 years now, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have largely said that they will leave housing up to the market. However, the market has not produced solutions around affordability.

The market has an important role to play in the building of housing or the delivery of groceries, for that matter. However, the government has to create a balance. There is currently no balance. We cannot leave it solely to the market. A lot of housing needs in Canada will never be met by the market; meeting these needs would not be profitable enough.

That is why we need a strategy that pushes private actors into making affordable suites available as part of their holdings. It is why we need governments to take responsibility, as they did in the 40s all the way up to the 90s.

Unless we get governments back to the table and take responsibility for the creation of social housing, we are not going to see an adequate resolution to this crisis. That is one of the things that has changed significantly in Canada since the 1990s, where the government said that it actually did have a responsibility and an obligation to invest in social housing. Sadly, we had a Liberal government that stopped that. In Ontario, we had a Conservative government that stopped that in the 90s.

We need to get back to that level of investment and commitment. We cannot continue to see current governments, such as Doug Ford's provincial Conservative government in Ontario, being in the back pockets of wealthy developers. Again, this is about balance.

We need a meaningful engagement of not-for-profit and co-operative sectors to build social housing. I need to see that in Bill C-56. I would love to see that in the bill.

There are so many things I want to talk about in terms of affordability and housing, but I will conclude with this: Food and housing are not just commodities. These are not things people can do without. They need them to live. They cannot solely be the subject of profit-driven markets, with no checks or balances or regulations on that greed.

My constituents, and all people in Canada, have the right to live a dignified and healthy existence; we have an obligation here in this place to give that to them. New Democrats will always fight for that equality and fairness.