Bill C-56

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act

Part 1 amends the Excise Tax Act in order to implement a temporary enhancement to the GST New Residential Rental Property Rebate in respect of new purpose-built rental housing.
Part 2 amends the Competition Act to, among other things,
(a) establish a framework for an inquiry to be conducted into the state of competition in a market or industry;
(b) permit the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders even if none of the parties to an agreement or arrangement — a significant purpose of which is to prevent or lessen competition in any market — are competitors; and
(c) repeal the exceptions in sections 90.1 and 96 of the Act involving efficiency gains.

Fall Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2023

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, good afternoon to you and to all my hon. colleagues in this wonderful and esteemed House. It is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-59, the fall economic statement. Before I begin my formal remarks, I will say that it is really great to share our thoughts and be the voice of the residents of our ridings, whom we get to represent with much privilege and honour.

When we look at Canada today, the country we are blessed to call home whether we were born here in this generation or prior, like our parents and grandparents, however we ended up here, we are very fortunate as Canada is a land of opportunity for its residents, our constituents and our children. We are going to keep it that way. All 338 members of the House aspire for this country to be the best it can be, and to provide opportunity and fortune for our children and our prosperity.

Today the International Monetary Fund came out with its economic growth outlook projections, and the growth outlook for Canada looks quite impressive. In fact, in 2025, out of all of the G7 countries, Canada will have the fastest economic growth rate forecast for real GDP. We will grow at almost 2.5%. It is 2.3% to be exact. In 2024, we will be a snick behind the United States and will be the second fastest-growing country in the G7.

That does not happen by accident; it happens through the hard work of all our residents and entrepreneurs. It also happens through collaboration with government, labour and industry. That is how we grow an economy. That is how we create prosperity, by collaborating and working together.

As I was reading through the fall economic outlook today, it was great to see that the choices we have made and continue to make as a government are creating economic growth, jobs and prosperity for all Canadians, not only the wonderful residents in my riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge but also those across this country.

In the fall economic statement there is talk of the $4-billion housing accelerator fund. I was proud to stand with the Prime Minister of Canada and my mayor, the Hon. Steven Del Duca, to announce a $59-million investment into the city of Vaughan to streamline the processes to build housing to ensure that we prioritize housing near transportation infrastructure, much like is being done at the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and all along the Highway 7 corridor along York Region in the city of Vaughan.

We will continue to make those strategic investments in our communities. Why will we? It is because we believe in Canadians, and a confident government invests in its people, its entrepreneurs and its country. That is what we continue to do.

There is one measure I think we must all look at and applaud, which is the first-time homebuyer savings account. This account has been taken up by over 500,000 Canadians. It combines the best of the tax-free savings account and an RRSP account. It puts them together: tax-free in, tax-free out. People get a tax deduction for investing in the account, and when they use it to purchase a home, it is tax-free: tax deduction in, tax-free out. It is a powerful measure that 500,000 Canadians have taken advantage of.

On the building side, we put in place a 100% GST rebate with respect to new purpose-built rental housing. I know this is something that, for many years, rental builders across this country have asked for, and we have delivered that.

We brought in the Canada child benefit and an early learning and child care plan, which I know the Province of Ontario, under a Progressive Conservative government, is celebrating day in and day out, but the opposition apparently criticizes.

I would say “shame”, because we know, and the member opposite knows, that my riding, York—Simcoe, and all the ridings across this country are benefiting from the agreement we have signed with the provinces.

We know that Canadians are facing high consumer prices, which is putting pressure on their families.

Over the past year, the federal government has taken other measures to make life more affordable for those who need it most in our country. Those measures include doubling the GST credit for six months in the fall of 2022 and providing a new one-time grocery rebate in June 2023, which enabled us to deliver hundreds of dollars in targeted inflation relief to 11 million Canadian households.

On July 28, 2023, the government began distributing the first quarterly payments of the enhanced Canada workers benefit, a measure designed to help Canada's lowest paid but often most essential workers. A family could receive up to $2,461 this year.

The Canada workers benefit is like the unsung hero, the grinder on the ice, doing its job. This benefit has lifted millions of Canadians out of poverty. Almost two and a half million Canadians have been lifted out of poverty since 2015. The poverty rate has been reduced by more than half, 650,000 children. We will continue doing what is right. When the government does what is right, when a parent does what is right, when an entrepreneur does what is right, they know they are going in the right direction. We are certainly doing that.

These are just a few examples of how our government continues to support Canadians at a time when some prices are still too high.

Bill C-59 builds on these efforts by introducing new measures to further the government's economic plan and continue to support a strong middle class. We are seeing it. We have a AAA credit rating, and that is not by fluke; it was by hard choices made many years ago to keep that under all governments. We celebrate it. We maintain it. We have a strong fiscal foundation.

Our deficit-to-GDP ratio, across the board, is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in all the G7 countries, and it continues on the right path. We know that Canadians are feeling elevated prices, but we have made the right choices to support them, and we will continue to do so.

We will support Canadians' right to repair, preventing manufacturers from refusing to provide the means of repairing devices and products in an anti-competitive manner. We have further modernized merger reviews and enhanced protections for consumers, workers and the environment, including putting the focus on worker impacts and competition.

We empowered the commissioner of competition to review and crack down on a wide selection of anti-competitive collaborations.

Finally, we are broadening the reach of the law by enabling more private parties to bring cases before the Competition Tribunal and to receive payment if they are successful.

Bill C-59 and Bill C-56 would provide generational changes to the competition laws for Canadians.

Again, on competition, I love capitalism and I love the creation of wealth. That is what creates jobs. That is what drives prosperity, not only here in this beautiful country but across the board. However, we can do that only when we have a regulatory regime in place that ensures that anti-competitive practices, abuse practices on pricing, collusion and drip pricing, and all those of types of measures are looked at and examined, and folks are held to account.

We need to do that, whether there are circumstances like a few years ago with bread or in any circumstance today. We need to ensure that the commissioner of competition and the Competition Tribunal have teeth. We need to ensure that the law with regard to competition is on the side of Canadians, not on the side of corporations. Believe me, I want all companies and corporations to succeed, whether it is a limited partnership, whether it is a CCPC, whether it is publicly listed or a family business, or whether it is one of the 18,000 or 19,000 small businesses that exist in the city of Vaughan, literally the economic engine of York Region, the largest economic centre, with almost 1,300,000 residents.

Our government also recognizes the importance of enabling Canadians to access the mental health services and support they need when they are at their most vulnerable.

For example, therapy and counselling services play a critical role in the lives and mental health of millions of people in Canada, but they can also be costly. To ensure that Canadians can get the help they need, the federal government is taking the necessary steps to make these essential services more accessible.

We removed the GST-HST when an individual needs to go see a therapist of any sort. We know how important the mental health of our friends, families and loved ones is, especially in this world today, where we are so interconnected yet millions of people still feel alone. They need the help.

I see I have about a minute or 30 seconds left. I would like to say that I look forward to answering questions or comments from my hon. colleagues. I hope they and their families are doing well. Let us make sure that all the climate action incentive payments are received by all Canadians out there, including all the wonderful seniors in my riding, who I know are better off for receiving the climate action incentive payments.

I look forward to receiving and answering questions from the hon. opposition, as well as my colleagues.

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite pleased to rise today to speak to this latest budget implementation act by the government.

I have been listening closely to the debate, so I would like to start by offering some comments on it so far. Then I am going to talk a bit more about the bill.

I had occasion to ask the Conservative leader not long ago here in the House about the problem of inflation that Canadians are experiencing. We know they are experiencing it, as we all are. When we go into a grocery store, we see the rising prices. We know people are struggling to stay in their homes. We see it on the street in our communities. We see more people pitching tents in order to have a roof over their head at night, such as it is. We hear stories, unfortunately, of cities focusing their energy on clearing out encampments of people with nowhere to go instead of trying to figure out how to create better homes that provide more warmth and support in a challenging winter. We are hearing about it from constituents, for instance, who are having to choose to cut pills or pay the rent. There are all sorts of ways in which this really difficult economic time is affecting Canadians, so the question for us here in Parliament is what to do about it.

Certainly, the Conservative leader has a lot of opinions on that. My question earlier was why, when he talks about inflation and the hardship that Canadians are experiencing, he does not mention whether it is just in Canada. There have been some incredible studies here in Canada saying that price increases over and above the increase in costs for large corporations are responsible for 25% or more of the inflation that Canadians have experienced, so I want to be really clear that those are not price increases. We know that, particularly, a lot of small and medium-sized businesses in our communities are experiencing higher costs and have to pass them on to their consumers. Even some big corporations are experiencing higher input costs, and some of that gets passed on to consumers. However, we are talking about price increases that go above and beyond that increase in costs.

It is no excuse to say that they are simply passing on those costs, because they are not. If 25% or so of inflation is attributable to price increases above the additional costs, it means corporations are taking that 25% home in profits. When we look at the profits of oil and gas companies, which increased by 1000% from 2019 to 2021, as an example, those were not increases of passing on costs. Some increases contributed to inflation by being additional price increases just for the purpose of paying higher dividends to corporate shareholders and bigger wages to corporate executives. Therefore, how can the Conservative leader pretend to be serious about addressing the problem of inflation when he is completely silent about the corporate greed that is driving a quarter or more of that very inflation? I would submit that it is not possible. It is not credible.

I am proud to be part of an NDP caucus in which the leader is willing to name that problem here in the House of Commons and acknowledge that we will not have a solution to the inflation problem in Canada if big corporations continue to feel they can increase prices with impunity. That is a major driver of inflation and hardship for Canadians. I think it speaks to the electoral choices that Canadians have. We have a Conservative opposition here that would frame itself as an alternative to the Liberals. However, if we actually look at this blind spot, the corporate-controlled Conservatives are not willing to acknowledge it, or do not see it, whichever it is. I will not speak to the question of intention here, but I will just say that it is a blind spot, whether wilful or not. What this means is that, if they were in government themselves, they would continue to do what the current government does. They would be prone to saying that the problems will go away if we just trust the market to deal with them. They would refuse to acknowledge the role that unbridled corporate greed is playing in creating the economic problem that Canadians are facing today.

One example of the ways this has manifested with the current government is with respect to housing. The real meat of its housing proposal in the fall was all about “creating more room for the market to solve the housing crisis”.

I do not really think we are going to get market solutions to the housing crisis. I do not think that is a revelation. I do not think that is particularly controversial. I know that the market, since the federal government, in the mid-90s, stepped away from producing non-market housing, has had 30 years to solve our housing problems. Instead of solving them, it has created a crisis that is accelerating and getting worse.

Simply freeing up Crown land and handing it off to developers to do what they will is not going to solve the problem. The same motive of corporate greed has been driving this housing crisis for decades now and has become particularly acute in the last few years, and nothing about that basic structure will have changed if we are still just expecting market players to solve this crisis.

We heard at the finance committee, from home developers, financiers and real estate people, that the market is not going to solve this problem. That is not to say that we do not need more market housing. It is not to say that there would not be more housing built by the market; of course there will be. That is not where we need the attention of government, though. The attention of government has to be on the part that the market will not do and has not been doing, and that is non-market housing.

To say that we want to see the government focus specifically on non-market housing is not to discount the role of the market and market housing; it is just to say that the public policy attention of the government does not have to be there. In fact, the virtue of the market is supposed to be that the government does not have to get involved, so let them do their thing, but let us have the attention and the investment focus of our federal government be on addressing the very real problem of non-market housing, which has been neglected for 30 years and absolutely must return, in a significant way, in order for us to solve the housing crisis. It is a problem with the current government, and it will be a problem with any future Conservative government, because they share the same blind spot.

What are some of the other things we could do if we acknowledge the role that corporate greed is playing? That is where I think the NDP has played an important role in twisting the arm of the Liberal government to do some things, like a 2% share buyback fee, so that companies cannot just go ahead and, for various kinds of maximization of profit strategies for their shareholders or for the corporation itself, buy back shares as a way of transferring wealth to their shareholders without paying any tax at all.

It is of note, and something that New Democrats have been arguing for for a long time, well before this Parliament, that this legislation creates the possibility of implementing a digital services tax, which means a tax on the revenue of large, Internet-based companies, like Netflix and others, who, right now, are paying no tax in Canada at all. This does not make sense. They are not paying any corporate tax on the revenue that they raise in Canada. They get to walk it all out of the country for free.

That does not make sense, and it puts traditional broadcasters at a disadvantage. We are seeing the effects that is having on our media market and the ability to hire journalists and pay them to do the work that they do, which plays an important part. However much we may disagree sometimes with the way that news media outlets frame certain issues, their work is, nevertheless, important to a well-functioning democracy. The fact that their competitors have not had to pay any tax at all does a disservice not just to them but to Canadians, who rely on news content for the functioning of our democracy.

We have been pushing the government already in Bill C-56, and now again in the budget implementation bill, to make meaningful changes to the Competition Act that would allow for the Competition Bureau to play a greater and more effective role in ensuring that big corporations are not using their market power and their market position to pull one over on Canadians, to make the economy less competitive, and to have those outsized, excess price increases that I was talking about earlier, which are a significant factor in driving inflation.

Another thing we can do is to be willing to let corporations know, to the extent that they want to invest in Canada and create jobs in Canada, particularly in the natural resources sector, that there is an expectation that they are going to create good union jobs here in Canada in order to do it. That is why I am very proud of the labour conditions that are attached to the investment tax credits. This legislation would implement those labour conditions for the companies that are investing, with the use of this tax credit in clean technology, in carbon capture and storage. I am not actually that happy to hear about that technology, because I do not think that is the basket we should be putting our eggs in when it comes to emissions reduction; it's technology that has not been proven at scale. However, this government is determined to move ahead, and we hear a lot of positive comments about carbon capture and storage from Conservatives as well. Again, it is another shared blind spot of these two parties, the Liberals and Conservatives.

Nevertheless, if that investment is going to be taking place in Canada, I want it to create good union jobs, and I want companies to know that they have to be paying the prevailing wage of the collective agreements in the trade union sector. That means those companies are not going to come in competing on who can pay Canadians the least to do that work. They are going to come in and have to compete on the things we want them to be competing on: How efficient is the technology? How efficient are they at building it? What are their production techniques? That is the way they should be competing. When they are earning a contract, it should be on that basis and not on the basis of how little they are prepared to pay their workers.

Too often, in Canada, we have accepted a situation where we are happy to have companies come in and compete on the cost of labour and have a competition about who can pay Canadians the least to do a job that deserves a fair wage, good benefits and a proper pension. I am very proud that with this legislation we are going to be implementing, for the first time ever, conditions on an investment tax break that centres workers in the middle of it and has an apprenticeship requirement. Sometimes it can be a challenge to employers to hire apprentices. I have been an apprentice myself, and when I walked on the job site the first day, I did not know what I was doing. That is what an apprenticeship is like; it is meant to teach people. It is not always a profit maximization strategy for the employer in the short term.

In the long term, employers with foresight see the value of passing on that training and knowledge and creating a workforce they can avail themselves of, but we know there are employers for whom that is not their strategy. They have a short-term focus and want to bring on the journeypeople. They want someone else to train apprentices, and then they want to poach them later.

However, these tax credits will say that we, as a country, value training the trades workforce of tomorrow, and that if companies want a tax break on the investment, they have to be part of a culture of building that workforce and creating good jobs for Canadians, not just for today but also into the future, giving them the tools they need in order to be able to do that.

We saw a Conservative government in Ontario use bankruptcy laws to shut down a post-secondary education institution. My colleague for Timmins—James Bay did a lot of work on raising awareness about what was wrong with that; it should never be done again. New Democrats have spearheaded the effort to get that done, and in this budget bill what we see is a provision that says that the bankruptcy and insolvency laws of Canada and the CCAA will not be able to be used again in the future to perpetrate that kind of nasty closure on a public institution. I am very proud of the work my colleagues have done on that, and it is something that I think ought to go forward.

I want to come back to the housing question, because it is an important one. I said earlier that I thought in the fall that the Liberals' focus was on market solutions and that that is not where the focus of the government really needs to be, certainly not to the exclusion of working on non-market solutions. In this bill, what do we see? Well, the only thing that is really happening on the housing front is the creation of a new department of housing infrastructure and communities, which is just merging two departments that already exist. This is not what we do in the face of a crisis. This is not an administrative crisis; it is not that people are not pushing enough paper. It is that there is not enough housing getting built, and changing the name of the department without prioritizing things like recapitalizing the coinvestment fund, one of the few federal funds that is actually building non-market housing, does not make sense. It does not make sense to prioritize shuffling the words in the department name around over advancing that funding.

In the fall economic statement, the recapitalization that was much touted by the government as its action on the urgent housing crisis was back-loaded in the budget tables, meaning it will not be coming for another two years. This is particularly shameful when we consider that the territory of Nunavut alone has been asking, on an urgent basis, for $250 million to address the housing crisis that it is seeing and to meet the needs that the territorial government is being asked to respond to.

We did not see a mention in the fall economic statement, and there is nothing in the bill, around the Kivalliq hydro link, which is a project that will help deliver power into parts of Nunavut. I hope it will also be accompanied with more broadband access in order to set the stage for more economic development in parts of Nunavut, as well as to try to reduce the reliance in Nunavut on diesel in order to power communities instead of bringing hydro up or, in the long term, perhaps, being able to produce enough electricity in a sustainable way that it could become a seller and bring own-source revenues to Inuit communities in Nunavut. That is the kind of long-term infrastructure investment that would make a lot of sense and that we do not see.

Another important investment would be to upgrade the Cambridge Bay airport, which is an important hub for Nunavut. When we talk about Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic, we know that the best way to enhance it is to invest in the people who live there and provide them the tools and resources they need in order to have a strong economy, live in appropriate housing and have access to the services that people rightly expect in the 21st century.

Instead, the rumour we have been faced with now for at least a month on Parliament Hill, a little longer if we go back to early December, is that the government is contemplating deep cuts at Indigenous Services Canada. New Democrats certainly want to know more about what the government is contemplating and the effects it will have on first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across the country. It is an area of significant concern for us and something that is not addressed here but that we expect to see addressed in the budget in terms of what the government's plan is and how we are going to ensure that indigenous communities are not once again left holding the bag when a government decides it wants to save money and continue a culture of corporate tax cuts.

I want to come back to the question of the role that large corporations are playing in driving inflation. A report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer as recently as December 2021 said that just 1% of Canada's population owns and controls 25% of all of the wealth of the country, and the bottom 40% of income earners in Canada share just 1% of all of the wealth that is produced in Canada. If we think about it, that 25% number is 5% higher than it was at the turn of the century.

What has happened since the year 2000 is that the proportion of wealth controlled by the top 1% increased by those five percentage points. I do not mean it increased by 5%; I mean that it went from 20% of overall wealth to 25% of overall wealth. In the same time, the corporate tax rate came down from 28% to just 15% today.

We talk about Canadians feeling the squeeze and about the middle class being expected to pay more in taxes to make up for government spending, but the big hole in government revenue comes from the people in that 1%, who are walking away with that much more of Canada's overall wealth than they used to because they pay significantly less tax than they used to.

That is why people wonder why it is that government cannot have a robust housing strategy. We used to be able to do it, and we did it coming out of the war. Well, yes, the marginal tax rate that the richest Canadians paid coming out of the war was way higher than it is today, and the corporate tax rate was way higher than it is today. Those things provided the revenue to invest in the middle class that then became the foundation for economic prosperity that lasted for decades. The reason that economic prosperity is drying up and the middle class is feeling the heat so much is that successive Liberal and Conservative governments have let the people at the top off from having to pay their fair share.

That is what is making the difference in Canada. The fact that the Conservative leader will not name it means he will not fix it, and that is what Canadians need to know heading into the next election.

[Irek Kusmierczyk, Liberal, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really do appreciate hearing all the comments from my colleagues around the table. I very much welcome this discussion and debate. I think it's an important one.

I've been reading a book by Cass Sunstein, who was inside the first Obama administration. The name of the book is Simpler. I would recommend that all members pick it up because of what it's about. How do we make government and the economy simpler? How do we streamline things? How do we make them more effective? How do we make them more efficient? It's really interesting, because I think that is absolutely the goal of Liberal members of this government, as it was a priority in the Obama administration, a democratic government in the United States as well.

It's important to recognize that this is a priority, really, for all governments, so I welcome this discussion. I welcome this debate. I think it's an important debate to have. However, this motion, as it is currently crafted, is lazy and dim, and the only purpose it serves is as a slogan to gather clips. That's all it is. Let's just put all our cards on the table. Let's call a spade a spade and let's say what this motion is about. This is an important issue, but this motion is just poor. It doesn't meet the standard of what should be a very important conversation.

Our government is committed to cutting red tape. Let me give you one example of that. The most important issue right now facing our country is the housing shortage, the shortage of affordable housing, and the very purpose of our housing accelerator fund is to partner with municipalities directly to cut red tape and to make different types of housing legal again. A perfect example of that is working with our municipalities to provide funding to encourage municipalities that want to get more housing built to eliminate some of the red tape at the local level—specifically, rules that made it illegal to build four units “as of right” across cities. Twenty-eight municipalities have signed up to our housing accelerator fund plan. Twenty-eight communities have adopted four units “as of right” across their cities. They're cutting red tape, with our support, to help build more housing. Those twenty-eight communities have committed to building 400,000 new housing units in the next few years.

This is what a federal government that is collaborative and that understands partnerships looks like. It's working directly with municipalities to cut red tape to get more affordable housing built faster in our communities. It's odd that the Conservatives, who are so interested in cutting red tape and so interested in building more houses, voted against the housing accelerator fund and voted against Bill C-56. When we introduced a bill to cut GST from the construction of rental housing, they voted against it. You have a government that's committed to doing the right thing, to making sure we get houses built and to making sure we work with our provincial and municipal counterparts to get more houses built, in part by cutting red tape. That's what we're doing. Conservatives are against.

Let me give you another recent example: renewable energy and the Atlantic accords. Bill C-49 would extend the Atlantic accords to build offshore wind farms in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia. There's already a project being built. It's a billion-dollar project. There are billions of dollars waiting to be invested in offshore wind farms and clean energy in the Atlantic provinces right now.

We introduced Bill C‑49 to streamline that process to make it easier for investment in clean technology and wind farms across the Atlantic provinces. We're talking about billions of dollars to create tens of thousands of jobs in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. One of the foundations of that bill is to cut red tape and streamline the process.

By the way, the provinces all supported it. The premiers of those provinces signed on. Who voted against those accords? Who voted against streamlining the process to build offshore wind farms in the Atlantic? It was the Conservatives. They are the ones who are bringing forward a dim, lazy motion to cut red tape at this committee.

It's appalling. Enough with the politics. Let's talk a bit more about this preamble and some of the things contained in the colourful preamble that was introduced here today.

Let's talk about the economy. In the last year, Canada was the number one destination for foreign direct investment in the entire world, per capita. What does that mean? It means that more international companies invested more money in our country than in any other country in the world, per capita.

Businesses see Canada as the place to put their money because they know that it's a good investment. They know that this is where you have the best workforce in the world. This is where you have the best investment climate in the world.

Let's talk facts. That's Canada. It's the number one destination for foreign direct investment. That is businesses voting with their feet and with their money to come here. There's Stellantis in Windsor, which we know the Conservatives don't support. There's Volkswagen in St. Thomas. We know the Conservatives don't support it, even though their own member represents that entire community. There's Northvolt in Montreal. They don't support that. They don't support investments in clean technology.

There are 1.1 million more workers working in this country now than before the pandemic. That is a federal government working hand in hand with business to grow and strengthen our economy. That's a partnership. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any major developed country. We have a AAA rating from the credit agency. We were able to attract this investment. We were able to create jobs. We're on a sound fiscal footing as well.

Wages have been higher than inflation in the last year. In my community, we've seen unions negotiate historic deals with the Big Three, which are putting more money in the pockets of Canadians and workers. We're seeing workers earning more money today than in the past.

Let's talk about unions and red tape for a second. The Conservatives wanted to drown unions in red tape. They forget that. They introduced Bill C-377. My colleague across the way from the NDP remembers that. When they were in government, they wanted to drown unions in red tape with all sorts of different accounting paperwork that unions would have been forced to submit. It would have crippled them. It would have undermined unions' work by drowning them in red tape. These are the very same unions that have fought for higher wages and better work conditions for Canadians over the last number of months.

You talk about the economy. We are a trading nation. We export. Most of our GDP is created because we have companies that export goods to the United States and around the world. In my hometown, 80% to 90% of what we manufacture is for export. In Windsor—Essex, 90% of what we grow is for export.

This government has signed more trade deals than pretty much anyone. We have trade deals with just about every country on this planet. We wanted to sign a free trade agreement with Ukraine, which Ukraine herself asked for, that would not only support Ukraine in her time of need but support farmers in Canada and support Canadian businesses looking to do business in Ukraine to help in the future reconstruction of Ukraine. The Conservatives voted against that free trade agreement for the very same game of politics they're playing here today: slogans, politics, videos—yay.

Try governing. Try working with us to govern this country. That's what we're asking for: real policies, real ideas, real programs, real partnerships—none of these lazy, dim slogans.

The other thing I would say, on the issue of foreign doctors and nurses, is that the training of doctors and nurses takes place at the provincial level. The training of foreign international health care workers takes place at the provincial level. We know that. We understand that. We also understand that we have a role to play in that as well. That's why, literally four weeks ago, we announced, for example, that we are spending an additional $86 million to help 15 provincial organizations and associations speed up the credentialing of internationally trained health care workers. The credentialing of 6,600 health care workers will be sped up.

I want to quote what the minister texted just a few weeks ago. This is the Minister of Diversity, Inclusion and Persons with Disabilities—she herself a nurse—on the issue of foreign credential recognition. Here is what she tweeted out literally two days ago: “@PierrePoilievre, take it from me, a nurse: actions speak louder than words. You voted against the work we’re doing that’s speeding up foreign credential recognition. Your slogans won’t fool nurses, we know the only thing happening to healthcare under Conservatives is cuts.” Ouch.

It's the same thing, guys. We know your shtick. It's just slogans—empty slogans. There is nothing behind them, and there's nothing behind this motion. It's just slogans.

I'm begging you. Do the work that Canadians sent us to Parliament Hill to do. Work with us. Get serious. Cut the videos. Cut the slogans. Cut the politics. Do the damn work. Get things done.

With that, Mr. Chair, I thank you for this opportunity to talk about what I think is an important issue. There are many different aspects to this issue, but let's be serious about it. Let's toss this motion in the garbage bin where it belongs. Let's talk about this issue seriously and approach it from the many different avenues it deserves.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Matthew Hatfield]

Certainly. My apologies.

To me, this hearing's topic seems to be pinning down what's wrong with tech platforms and what our government can do about it. I'll try to answer that question very precisely for you.

What's wrong with tech platforms and their influence on society? It's three things: their size, their vast asymmetrical data compared to regulators and citizens, and the engagement algorithms that drive their business model.

Let's talk size. Platforms like Amazon and Google have a stranglehold on a huge share of Internet commerce, app purchases, advertising and more. They often use that power to set unfair terms vis-à-vis smaller businesses and consumers. I'll note, though, that Bill C-18 misunderstood the specific dynamic around news. It assumes that news has inherent value to platforms that, for Meta at least, it does not.

The good news about the size problem is that Canada is opening new possibilities to do something about it through competition reform in Bill C-56 and Bill C-59. In the U.S., several bills were proposed last year aimed at regulating how tech giants treat small businesses and consumers. They include the American innovation and choice online act and the open app markets act, both of which OpenMedia campaigned for. In Canada, the Competition Bureau has never had the legal basis to study platform power effectively, let alone change it. Soon they will.

My second point is about data asymmetry and privacy. Platforms like Meta and YouTube have an endless volume of sensitive data about each and every one of us. They use it for advertising and to feed recommendations, but not for much else. Partly that's to respect our privacy, which is a very good thing. Their data in the hands of a spy agency or law enforcement would be a dystopic surveillance nightmare and one that we must guard against. However, that lack of curiosity on the platforms' part is also self-serving. It makes it easy to bury accurate study of what may be going wrong for some of their users and, in the worst case, lead that minority to harm themselves or others. The limited research that exists on how platform models may sometimes amplify harms is done with very incomplete data or with crumbs of researcher data access, which platforms are quick to withdraw if their interests are threatened.

Here we need both an individual and structural remedy. The strongest possible privacy bill, Bill C-27, giving Canadians meaningful and unalienable control of our personal data, is one solution, but another must be a very strong provision for both regulator and approved academic researcher access to perform studies on platform data in our upcoming online harms bill. We can't intelligently regulate platforms if we don't understand how any harms they help produce actually occur.

Last but not least, let's talk about the algorithm. Without even noticing it, we've become a society in which most information we get is delivered because it keeps us scrolling and clicking, not because it is nuanced, well researched or true. For music or hobbies, that can be a wonderful tool of self-exploration. People are not passive consumers of our feed. We curate it heavily, pruning the algorithm to serve us what we like most. However, for facts and reporting, that same process is making us a less-informed, angrier and more polarized society. We all feel the impact and very few of us like it. That doesn't make solutions easy, although I would say that Bill C-292, Peter Julian's bill, is something worth considering here.

I'll give a couple of signposts for what might help. We welcome this committee's interest in a dedicated study of how to create a viable news sector in Canada that continues producing vetted information. There's a case that Canadian news needs permanent government support, but the more involved government becomes, the more urgent it is that funds move through a system that is fully transparent to the public, has clear and fair criteria for who gets what support and prioritizes funds where they're most needed, in local news deserts and public accountability journalism, not shovelling funds indifferently toward Bell or the CBC. The alternative of stacking complex funding band-aids one on top of the other until they represent the majority of news funding is not going to build public trust in truthful journalism.

We would also welcome a Canadian study of how social media algorithms are impacting society. However, regulating the algorithm, if it comes, must be aimed at expanding transparency and personal control over how it works for Canadian Internet users, not manipulating it for what the government thinks is best for us.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if the member takes the time to actually read the report that was brought forward in the form of a concurrence motion, he will find out that it is about affordability. That is, in fact, how I started my comments. I was talking about the issue of affordability in Bill C-56, the affordability act, and how that legislation was being filibustered by the Conservatives through a concurrence motion. The reason for this is that the Conservatives do not care about the issues of the day that Canadians are concerned about. Then I started to explain it.

Maybe members on the other side do not all fully understand it because they are following the lead that is coming from the leader of the Conservative Party's office and that House leadership team over there. Canadians have a right to know that the pattern we are witnessing in terms of the behaviour, the issues that are being brought up and the manner in which they are being brought up definitely deal with the issue of MAGA politics. The member across the way might disagree. Maybe he should talk to his leader, and his leader can explain exactly what the Conservative agenda really is.

When we think of affordability, let us think in terms of what the member for Foothills said. He tries to give an impression about the cost of food and inflation. He cites a report and says there would be a 34% increase in the next couple of years. Then he tries to say that this is a report that he was kind of quoting from.

I will tell members what the Conservatives are very, very good at, which is the same thing that Donald Trump is very good at: sending out information that is misleading. I am very kind when I say that. I could think of a lot of other words to use, so I am being generous. Let me suggest the reason. Let us think about it: The member is trying to plant the seeds of fear that the price on pollution is costing huge amounts of money toward the issue of food inflation.

Some of the members across the way actually believe the leader of the Conservative Party. I understand there is an obligation to listen to the leader because, after all, he is their leader. However, that does not mean they have to believe everything he says. I do not want to get into personalities, but it is like a snake oil salesperson. Let us think about this. Let us think in terms of—

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

Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the past, it is always a pleasure to be able to rise and address the House.

Obviously, what is taking place today is no surprise whatsoever. It is interesting that, on Monday, I was standing up and actually being critical of the Conservative Party. It is hard to believe, but I was critical because Conservatives had brought in a concurrence report to talk about Afghanistan and foreign affairs.

By doing that particular concurrence report, they prevented government legislation from being debated. Interestingly enough, the legislation that they prevented from being debated, which members could have stood up and talked about, was Bill C-56, the affordability legislation. Every word that the Conservative Party has actually said already this afternoon could have been said during that debate.

That is why I argued back then, as I will today, that the Conservative Party is very much out of touch with the realities of what Canadians are actually facing. They are more concerned about how to cater to the extreme right.

We hear the term “MAGA Conservatives”. I would suggest that, more and more, it is becoming something that all Canadians should be very much aware of. It is creeping out, coming from the south. It is that Donald Trump, “make America great again” theme, and the catering to the far-right there that is coming up—

Official Report

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to seek unanimous consent from the House to change my vote from last night on Bill C-56, Division No. 606, from nay to yea. I ran out of time and was unable to make that change then. I hope the House will allow me to change my vote.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, be read the third time and passed.

Justice and Human Rights

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see no reason for this to have been brought up for discussion. I came to the House prepared to debate Bill C-56. I have my own views on the competition clause in that particular bill. I had certain suggestions to make for the bill, such as how to improve competition while not allowing 100% foreign ownership in the Canadian banking sector, as well as how we can use the regulatory tools that are available to give credit guidance to the bank to increase competition within the banking sector. This would lead to economic advancement and economic prosperity, for the growth of the manufacturing sector in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member shared some of her personal stories on the issue, especially those from when she was a teacher.

I think a number of people would be offended by how this concurrence motion is being used as a tool to filibuster and prevent members from being able to speak to Bill C-56, which is all about affordability. When we take into consideration that the member made reference to international aid and how Conservatives intentionally and collectively voted against that money flowing, there seems to be a lot of irony there. Could she expand on that point?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member asked the question on the process and the process is such that there are many motions of concurrence on the Order Paper that could be introduced, not just this motion. The member would know that. The member would also know that the legislative agenda today was to deal with Bill C-56. The member would also know how many times the Conservatives will cry because they do not have enough debate time—

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

Madam Speaker, I think the most appropriate place to start off is the line of questioning that I just asked the member opposite. Prior to question period getting under way, we were having a healthy discussion at the third reading stage of Bill C-56. I know I was not the only one prepared to come to the House to debate Bill C-56.

What I would like to talk about for the next number of minutes is the purpose of moving concurrence reports such as this particular report. It is not necessarily to have the focus of the House of the Commons on debating the issue the member has attempted to bring forward. As we saw in a number of questions, issues aside from Afghanistan were raised. Rather, it is about a rationale and reasoning that I believe, as many others believe, we see from this particular member: He stands in his place time and time again in order to prevent debates of the government agenda. One only needs to look at the timing of when the member brings forward concurrence debates. They are all on the government's legislative dates when we are going to be debating substantive legislation.

This morning, as members would know, we brought forward Bill C-56. Prior to question period getting under way, I was the one speaking to it. Bill C-56 is very important to Canadians in a very real and tangible way. It is about an issue that Canadians are very much concerned about from coast to coast to coast. To amplify that, all one needs to do is take a look at the last remarks, because as we were getting to question period, I had to stop speaking on the legislation because we were entering into members' statements, followed then by question period.

It is interesting that a big focus of question period was in fact the issues I was talking about in the lead-up to members' statements. Also, if we go through members' statements, we will find that these were the issues being amplified. Members of the House, outside of the Conservative caucus, came to the House believing that we would be debating Bill C-56. That is not to say that what is happening in Afghanistan today and what has taken place since 2001 are not important issues. We recognize many of the horrors that have taken place in Afghanistan. We understand the important role that Canada has to play in it.

However, we also need to recognize at this point in time the types of tactics and efforts from the official opposition, the Conservative Party, a minority inside this chamber, today to prevent debates and legislation from passing. A very good example of this is in a question raised by the New Democrats. We talk about Canada and its role in Afghanistan, and the member talked about the alliance that seems to be out there, indirectly referring to Russia, Afghanistan and like-minded countries. Then he posed a question about the Conservative Party with respect to Ukraine. I think it was a legitimate question to be asking the Conservative Party. Again, we saw the tactics it used last Thursday and Friday. The response was laughable. The question was why the Conservative Party not once, not twice, but I believe three times in total voted specifically to deny Ukraine funds. One of those funds was with respect to the—

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

Madam Speaker, as many would know, very few if any members have brought forward concurrence reports as the member opposite has. That, as the member knows, prevents debate on government legislation. Today, we were supposed to be debating Bill C-56, and the member has chosen to bring forward another concurrence report.

Does the member not recognize or have any sort of desire to see government legislation? Why does he consistently want to bring forward concurrence reports to try to frustrate the legislative process here in Ottawa?

Affordable Housing and Groceries Act

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak on Bill C-56. It is yet another initiative the government is taking to support Canadians. From virtually day one, through the introduction of legislation and taking budgetary measures, as a government we have been very supportive of having the backs of Canadians, whether with the very first piece of legislation we introduced back in 2015-16 regarding a tax break for Canada's middle class or the many support programs put together during the pandemic that ensured small businesses and Canadians had the disposable income and supports necessary for Canada to do as well as it has. This was done through a team Canada approach, not only getting us out of the pandemic but putting our economy in a great position to do exceptionally well going forward.

This is reflected in one of the most important stats I believe we have, which is regarding employment. Employment numbers are very encouraging, especially when we compare Canada to other jurisdictions particularly in the G20 or the G7. Relatively speaking, Canada is doing quite well. It does not mean we let up. It means we need to continue to recognize the issues Canadians are facing on a daily basis, which is what Bill C-56 is all about.

Bill C-56 would be there to support Canadians. Before I speak about Bill C-56, I want to recognize this week is a very important week, because we are doing the formal expansion of the dental program. This will allow for seniors and people with disabilities to participate in the dental program, which is going to help literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians. Again, this is a very progressive move. It is a move that clearly demonstrates there are elements with the House of Commons today, contrary to the Conservatives', that are there to provide more hope and opportunities for Canadians.

Bill C-56 would, in essence, do a couple of things. I want to focus on two points. First and foremost is the issue of competition. Changes would be made to the Competition Act that would ensure we have more competition here in Canada going forward. For example, it would get rid of the efficiencies argument. The efficiencies argument is something corporations have used in the past in order to justify taking over large businesses. The one I have often made reference to is a very good example because it is relative to the debates and discussions we have had for a number of months now. It is about the price of groceries, the concerns over that and the steps being taken, whether by the Minister of Finance or the standing committee calling the big five grocery companies to come to Ottawa to be held more accountable for their actions. I see this as a positive thing.

Bill C-56 would provide more of an opportunity to ensure healthier competition into the future. The best example I can come up with offhand is when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the cabinet table of Stephen Harper and that government actually approved the Loblaws purchase of Shoppers Drug Mart. For individuals watching or listening in to the debate, I invite them to visit a Shoppers Drug Mart, where they will see a great deal of food products. We are talking about a multi-billion-dollar deal that took away competition. I do not know all of the arguments that were used at the time, but what I do know is that was the last time we saw such a major acquisition of a grocery line. I would suggest that was not healthy for Canadians, and we are starting to see that today.

We are now down to five major grocery stores and we are looking at having a grocery code of conduct. We need to establish that certain behaviours are not acceptable. I was pleased when Canada Bread actually got a fine through the courts. It was tens of millions of dollars because of price fixing. We need to ensure the Competition Bureau has teeth for this type of thing. Not only does it get rid of the efficiency argument, but it also increases the opportunity for fines and gives it more power to conduct investigations. That would make a positive difference. I think all members of the House should support this legislation.

The other part to the legislation is something that I believe would make a huge difference. We know housing is an issue in Canada. Never before have we seen a national government invest as much in housing as we have with this Prime Minister and this government. We are talking about historic levels of funding. This is in terms of our involvement, support and encouragement in housing, like non-profits, and that is what Bill C-56 would do. It would encourage the growth of purpose-built rentals. These things would have a huge impact. We are talking tens of thousands of new units. The policy is so sound that provinces are also looking at engaging with the provincial sales tax component. They realize this is a good way to ensure we build purpose-built rentals.

Ironically, as has been pointed out, the Conservative Party has taken a position that is very anti-housing. When the current leader of the Conservative Party was responsible for housing in Canada, it was an absolute disaster. The federal government did not do its work back then and that is very clear by the actions, or lack of actions, from the Conservative Party. He might say he was just following Stephen Harper's orders. Maybe that is his excuse. However, on Thursday going into Friday, there was a voting marathon. There was a vote dealing with housing and ensuring that the money would go to supporting over 80,000 new apartments, including an affordable home component. The Conservative Party members who showed up to vote actually voted no to that measure. That reinforces that the Conservative Party of Canada, under its current leadership, does not support housing.

When Conservative members raise issues about housing, they have zero credibility on that file. Never before have we had a government that has demonstrated as much leadership in working with municipalities and provinces, and invested more financial resources than this government in the history of Canada. On the other side, we have an incompetent Conservative leader who was a disaster when he was the minister responsible for housing. When there is such a huge demand, what does the Conservative Party do? The members who decide to vote, show up and vote against supporting housing. They are oozing with hypocrisy. Unfortunately, that example is not alone. I was listening to the back and forth, and the questions that were being asked.

Consistently, this government has recognized the importance of Canada's middle class and those aspiring to be part of it. We want an economy that is going to work for all Canadians in all regions. That is the reason we have invested so much energy into trade. Trade supports all of us.

It is surprising, when we think of affordability, that the Conservatives voted against the trade agreement. I have talked a great deal about that, the principles of trade and how important it is that we get behind the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Hopefully I will get more time to focus on that in a while, but I was shocked to see the Conservatives not once, not twice, but on three occasions vote against financial supports for Ukraine. There were votes on individual lines, and they voted against Ukraine once again.

It is a consistent policy with the Conservative Party. Whether on housing or trade, the Conservative Party is reckless in its policy development. A number of Conservatives have stood today on this legislation and talked about affordability. We recognize affordability. That is why we brought in the grocery rebate. That is why we have legislation such as this, which will have a positive impact. What is the Conservative Party's policy? It is very simple. It is a bumper sticker that says, “Axe the tax”.

The Conservatives' whole concept of axing the tax is stealing money from Canadians. That is what they are doing, because most Canadians get more money back than they pay for the price on—

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-56 once again and maybe take a stab at addressing some of the issues that have come up in debate. I will start just by saying, first of all, that New Democrats, of course, support this legislation.

What we said at the beginning in respect to housing was that it is good to increase supply but that it is not just any increase in supply that is going to help with the housing crisis. We have to be concerned about the various kinds of housing along the way and ensure that we are increasing supply in all parts of the housing spectrum where there is need. Of course, there is a need for more market-based, purpose-built rental and eliminating the GST off purpose-built rental is a way to incent the development of more market rent apartments. This will be great for Canadians who can afford market rent, which is certainly a smaller percentage of Canadians than it was just a short time ago. Nevertheless, for those who can afford it, are looking for it and cannot find it, more market supply will certainly be helpful.

However, we cannot wash our hands of the issue and think that the work is done simply because we have brought in a measure to incent the development of more market-based housing. A lot of other Canadians out there will not be able to access that market housing; nevertheless, they need to be housed, deserve to be housed and, as far as I am concerned, should have an enforceable right to be housed in Canada. That is why, from the word go, when this bill was introduced, New Democrats said that this on its own would not be enough. We want to see the government accompany this legislation with some measures for development of non-market housing, which does not always mean affordable or social housing. Non-market housing can be provided at market rents. We see that in some co-ops that choose to offer market rent suites to those who can afford them and, at the same time, offer some affordable rents or social rents, where rent is actually geared to folks' income. Therefore, it is only ever a percentage of their income. It does not eat up the entirety of a household's budget.

All this is to say that incenting more market supply is not enough. This bill would do that. It is one component of addressing the housing crisis. There is a lot more to do. New Democrats were certainly disappointed in the fall economic statement for not having been more ambitious on that front. There was a billion dollars announced for a replenishment of the coinvestment fund, but the fact that this replenishment does not come until 2025 is a serious issue. I think it is a sign that the government still does not understand the extent to which we need to confront the housing crisis in Canada with a serious sense of urgency.

Other housing that we need to look at, whether market or non-market, is housing to be able to address the concerns of many indigenous communities across Canada. I just want to take a moment to recognize the good work that my colleagues from Nunavut have done, both the current member for Nunavut and Mumilaaq Qaqqaq, who was the MP for Nunavut in the last Parliament. She spent a considerable amount of time travelling through her riding, the territory of Nunavut, documenting the serious housing need there: the overcrowding, the mould and the dilapidated condition of a lot of housing that has been built. I think it is important to note that taking the GST off purpose-built rental is not going to do a thing for folks in Nunavut and small remote communities, where there is not an abundance of contractors waiting to build housing. They are not looking to go there as a market.

We have talked a lot about the competition space, whether it is telecoms, grocery companies, banks, fossil fuel companies, where we have these oligopolies that have developed in Canada. Members can just name the market. We can talk about better competition policy until we are blue in the face. If we are talking about grocery prices at the one grocery store in a rural community where people have to drive hundreds of kilometres just to get to the next grocery store, the fact is that improving the competition framework is not going to do a lot in respect to pricing in a community like that. Taking the GST off purpose-built rental is not going to do a lot to incent the development of new housing in small and remote communities in Nunavut. That is why we have to go outside just thinking about the market and how to incent market players. What do we hope they will do? It is not profitable in the way that they are used to making profit in a place such as Toronto, Vancouver or even Winnipeg or Halifax.

It is not profitable to build up there, and folks certainly do not have the money to pay to make it profitable for somebody to build up there. However, we need people to do so. That is why we need good public policy that is not dependent on just trying to provide little carrots for profit-seeking companies in the market.

It is not that they are doing anything wrong. They are not bad people for not wanting to move their business from downtown Toronto, where they develop condos, to Nunavut and start building appropriate housing for people in small, remote northern communities.

We should not expect people to do that all on their own; however, one needs public policy in the context of a strategy that includes addressing workforce needs and training up local people to have skills. Such a strategy includes having the funding required, when they are done building homes in one community, to move that infrastructure and the people to the next community to do some of that building and to share those skills. It also includes having what amounts to an economic development plan that is about putting indigenous people back in charge of their own communities while ensuring that they have the resources to do something with their skills as they develop them.

The market is not going to do that. It is not meant to do that, nor is it interested in doing that.

We get up and talk a lot about these things. People say that we do not care about entrepreneurs, business or risk-taking. That is not true, but we understand the limits of it.

There is an intellectual and administrative laziness that permeates the Liberal and Conservative parties, where they would rather just pretend as though somehow, if one gives the market enough of a free hand, it will fix all these problems. It is not true.

The market is not designed to fix certain kinds of problems. Sometimes, the very problems that it is not designed to fix are some of the most important problems. The people who, not wrongly, but we all make choices, decide to live their life seeking profit in the market are not interested in solving these problems, because there is no money to be made in solving them in that way. However, they are life and death problems.

The problem of housing in Nunavut is killing people right now. It is making it impossible for them to get an education. We have heard stories about schools built in indigenous communities that were not even open for six months before they got shut down. A shoddy job was done of building the school, and they ended up having structural problems with the school right away. We were just talking about this last week.

If a child is fortunate enough to have a school, and they go to school, come back and try to do homework, but their home was built for five people and houses 15, we can be damn sure that this child is going to struggle to get their homework done. If they have to sleep in shifts because there are not enough bedrooms for people to go and lie down, the child will struggle to focus on learning.

We know that, even in major centres, kids in school right now are having a hard time concentrating. This happens more and more as Canadians struggle to afford food, because the kids do not have a full belly.

This is why New Democrats have been supporting the idea of a national school food program.

I am proud to say that this is a priority of the new government in Manitoba, and I look forward to it getting done. I do not think it should have to do it on its own. I think the federal government should be at the table doing that. We have heard a lot of words, but we have not seen a lot of action. We certainly have not seen any funding for that.

We need to get on with that. If we want people to succeed, if we want the “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” language to make any sense at all, it has to be in a world where people have the resources to be able to do that.

As a starting point, they have to be housed. They have to be fed. Their parents cannot be working three jobs just to make ends meet and never be around to have any time to provide support or direction.

These are some things that the market is not going to do for us. That is not what it is there for. It is all well and good for people who are well resourced, whose children have opportunities and who are well-supported, to say, “We did it. Why can't everybody else?”

The fact of the matter is that there are so many more children who can do it and would do it if they had the right start and just a little bit of those resources that so many of us have the privilege of being able to take for granted.

I say yes to eliminating GST from purpose-built rental, but we cannot then pretend that the work is done. I think the fall economic statement betrayed that the government does think that the work is done and that it can take its sweet time getting around to the rest of it. The government thinks it can say to the territorial government in Nunavut that if it wants money for housing, it will have to apply to the indigenous government that it already gave money to, failing to recognize that they serve different populations. There is a lot of overlap, but their mandates are not the same. Indigenous governments should get money to provide housing to people in their communities, but not in lieu of territorial governments getting resources to build housing in those communities. The deficit of affordable housing is large enough that we need both of these organizations, if they are willing, to be working together to try to meet the housing need.

We need to start addressing some of these things, just as we need to address some of the larger infrastructure required in order to build the housing. I think of the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link, for instance, which, if built, would deliver power to a community in Nunavut, as well as a mine. It is an important thing we could do, both to incent economic development in the region and also to make it possible to build housing. There is no point in building a house in the 21st century for somebody who does not have electricity. We need to find a way to get power to communities even as we think about building more housing in those communities.

I talked before a little about what I think is a kind of intellectual laziness and an administrative laziness, by which I mean governments that do not want to do the hard public policy work of developing an effective strategy, funding it and resourcing it. Let us be frank; I think we tend to dismiss the work of public administration. However, it is important to be able to have a plan and line up all the players, which includes market players. For instance, we are not going to have a housing strategy that does not involve talking to the people who build the homes. I am an electrician by trade. There is a lot of good information that can be gleaned from the people who actually do the work, as opposed to talking just to the engineers or the estimators.

To put together a public strategy like that, to bring all of those pieces together, takes a lot of time and a lot of work. It is also a unique set of skills that we do not necessarily see everywhere else. That is why courses in public administration are offered. For too long, there has been a prevailing attitude, in both of the parties that have governed since the mid-1990s, when they cancelled the national housing strategy, that we are here just to make it easy for the guys in the market to take care of it all, and that if cannot be taken care of by the market, it is not for us to worry about.

It is quite the contrary; that is exactly the thing that people in government should be worried about. It is exactly the job of government to take care of some of the very important things that the market will not take care of. However, first of all, we have to accept and admit that the market will not take care of every need if it is left to its own devices. Thankfully there is a lot of overlap between what one can make a lot of money at and providing services to people in good ways. We see that in many facets of our economy; small and medium-sized businesses, particularly, are very good at identifying gaps in the services in their local communities, and developing a product and selling it at a fair price. When we look at some of the larger companies, like telecom companies, oil and gas companies and banks, that is not what is going on. Even though they make a lot of money and benefit greatly from a public policy environment designed to help them make their money and defend their interests and power in the economy, they do not accept any reciprocal responsibility.

There are only three big Canadian grocery chains. Do they accept any responsibility for providing groceries at an affordable price to Canadians? No, it is very clear they do not see that as their job. Just take a look at the work that my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford has done, asking difficult questions of grocery CEOs at the agriculture committee. They made it pretty clear that they accept no responsibility. They have a completely privileged position in that market. Food is something Canadians cannot decide to do without. The CEOs accept no reciprocal sense of responsibility to Canadians for that.

We can look at oil and gas companies that have been making money hand over first lately, even while laying off more employees. Do the Canadian oil and gas companies think that they need to do anything to try to reduce the cost at the pump? Absolutely they do not. They see an opportunity. They see that they have a captive market. To the extent that they can push prices up, they certainly have been doing so.

Between 2019 and 2022, oil and gas profits in Canada rose by 1000%. This is not an industry that accepts any responsibility for the privileged position it occupies and the power that comes with it in the Canadian economy. The idea that we are going to leave it all to the market is, I think, a false idea, but unfortunately it has been the predominant idea for at least 30 years in Canada. We can trace it back at least to the original free trade agreement debate in 1988 and the years leading up to that. This is relevant to the point of competition, I would say. My Conservative and Liberal colleagues usually argue about who is the greatest supporter of corporate free trade.

It is interesting to watch, after the Conservatives voted against the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement most recently, how the argument goes. We see that the Conservatives voted against the trade agreement for no good reason I can identify except to make everything about the carbon tax. That includes things that are not about it, like a conflict half a world away that has everything to do with the preservation of democracy. Instead of taking that seriously on its own terms, they would rather make it about the carbon tax for their own domestic political needs. That is a sign of a government that does not have our back. It has been interesting to watch Conservatives try to defend their position as the greatest defenders of corporate free trade while voting against that trade agreement.

It has been interesting to watch the Liberals not just zero in on the Ukraine issue but also see this as their opportunity to establish themselves as the biggest champion of corporate free trade in the Canadian political space. That has been fascinating, because the thing about free trade is that it was supposed to bring us lower prices. I just heard a Conservative member talk about how there are only five big grocery companies in Canada, three Canadian ones and two American ones. He talked about how he wants more Canadian companies. That was the argument New Democrats were making in the free trade debate: that if we opened up the economy, what we would end up with is Americans coming over and taking over essential industries. Just watch.

There are Conservatives who believe we should deregulate the air industry and invite American airlines into Canadian spaces as a way to lower prices and improve service. Just wait until it happens; they are going to be singing the same crocodile tears song 20 years after it happens that they are singing now about grocery companies, as if anyone should believe them. Either we are of the point of view that we can take a strategic approach to certain pillars of our economy and believe that we need the tools at our disposal to protect those things and conduct business in a certain way, or we believe that we should open it up completely to competition and free trade agreements and even give foreign companies the right to sue the Canadian government, which is what Conservative and Liberal governments have done when they have tried to have a strategic economic approach.

Conservatives get up and cry foul, not just on groceries but also on the battery plant jobs and on workers coming in. Do they know how they are coming in? They are not coming in through the temporary foreign worker program, for the most part, although we would not know that when listening to the Conservatives. What is interesting on that point too is that the TFW program blew up under the Conservatives' watch and then had to be fixed because it had become such an exploitation of foreign workers. The workers are coming in under international labour mobility provisions negotiated in free trade agreements by the Conservatives. At the time, when we asked them if they knew that would mean that multinational companies were going to import foreign workforces when there is a big investment in Canada, they said that it would not happen, that they would just bring in supervisors who were going to help share some specific expertise and then move along. The jury is out on whether that is what is happening in the battery plants. The government owes Canadians a better answer and more guarantees for what it is doing for their tax dollars. The fact of the matter is that it is just egregious for Conservatives to get up and pretend they do not know how those international labour mobility provisions work or that they did not negotiate them.

I look forward to talking more about these things in the Q and A.