44th Parl. 1st Sess.
December 11, 2023 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, on many occasions I had the fortune or the misfortune to observe that when a member of the Bloc Québécois uses the old expression “it is about time” in the House, most of the time, unfortunately, it is a euphemism. Unsurprisingly, that old saying “it is about time” applies well to the bill before us today.
Currently, when the Competition Bureau studies the competitive environment in a given sector, it cannot compel anyone to testify or order the production of documents. That is not very convenient. However, with the passage of the Bill C‑56, it will be able to do so. When I say it is about time, that is because the Bloc has been calling for this measure for a good 20 years.
On the other hand, I would be lying if I said that Bill C‑56 did not lack teeth. I will spoil the surprise right away: I will vote in favour of Bill C‑56 like my Bloc Québécois colleagues. Here are the reasons why. This bill contains some good measures. Most of all, it does not contain any that are outright harmful. Let us just say that I expected more. For me, this is just a drop in an ocean of needs. Now I will explain my thoughts in greater detail.
Part 1 of Bill C‑56 modifies the Excise Tax Act. It extends a GST rebate, 5% of the sales tax, to builders of rental housing. The rebate will occur at the moment of sale or alleged sale if the builder becomes the owner. The rebate does not apply when the purchaser is already entirely or partially exempt. For example, this is the case for government organizations, municipalities, not-for-profit organizations or housing co-ops. That means that Bill C‑56 will have no impact on the cost of social or community housing projects because it concerns only private housing.
Part 2 makes three amendments to the Competition Act. The first, as I said earlier, gives real investigative powers to the commissioner of competition. The second broadens the range of anti-competitive practices prohibited by law. At present, competitors cannot agree to push another player out of the market. Bill C‑56 will prohibit agreements even with non-market players aimed at reducing competition. For example, when a grocer rents space in a shopping centre, it is common for the lease to contain clauses prohibiting the landlord from renting to another grocer. Such practices that effectively limit competition will be prohibited under Bill C‑56.
The third amendment to the Competition Act will make mergers and acquisitions more difficult. Today, when a business wants to buy a competitor, for example the Royal Bank's proposed acquisition of HSBC, the act states that the Competition Bureau should allow the merger if it can be proven that the purchase will result in a gain in efficiency, even if the merger will reduce competition. This provision, which appears to favour concentration, will be repealed by Bill C‑56. The Bloc Québécois and my colleague, the member from Terrebonne, have been asking for this measure for some time now.
As I said at the start of my speech, Bill C‑56 contains a number of good measures and, more importantly, none that are outright harmful. However, I also said I believe it is but a drop in an ocean of needs.
In housing, there is real urgency. However, nothing indicates Bill C‑56 will do anything to reduce rents. It would be astonishing if a landlord dropped rents just because they no longer had to pay the GST on a new property, especially since interest rates alone are driving up mortgage costs. This increase will greatly exceed the GST exemption on new rental units. When landlords renew their mortgage, who will they pass the increase on to? The question is rhetorical. We can expect prices will keep rising, with or without Bill C‑56. At best, by removing the tax on rental buildings, Bill C‑56 might entice some developers to build rentals instead of condos. It might simply become more profitable for them. Again, this is just speculation.
Although Bill C‑56 will not directly affect rents, it could help alleviate the housing shortage in some small measure. If Bill C‑56 increases the percentage of new rental housing construction even a little, it will be a good thing. However, we would still be light years away from meeting needs.
I repeat: There are some good things in this bill, such as the amendments to the Competition Act. The Bloc Québécois fully endorses those. On the other hand, we consider it misleading to claim that the bill will help lower the cost of groceries, as the government suggests.
Giving the commissioner of competition real investigative powers when carrying out a study should enable him to get to the bottom of things when it comes to the competitive environment in a given sector. That is very true. Now, learning more about an issue is a good thing, but it does not increase competition and it certainly does not bring down grocery costs.
Since 1986, the vast majority of grocery chains have disappeared, after being bought out by competitors. Steinberg disappeared. A&P disappeared. Provigo was bought by Loblaws. IGA was bought by Sobeys. Marché Adonis was bought by Metro. Of the 13 grocery chains that existed in 1986, only three remain. If we include the two American big box stores that also sell groceries, Costco and Walmart, that means that five players control 80% of the market.
While it is true that a number of factors are contributing to the increase in food prices, it is important not to lose sight of the grocers' profit margins. When prices go up, profits go up. However, according to the Competition Bureau study published last June, grocers did not just maintain their profit margin, they increased it.
When a merchant can raise prices at will, it is a blatant sign of a lack of competition. The amendments to the Competition Act found in Bill C‑56 will certainly prevent the situation from worsening, and they will make mergers and acquisitions harder to do in the future. However, they do not resolve the situation. The damage is done and, unfortunately, Bill C‑56 will do nothing to fix it.
In short, even though Bill C‑56 does put forward some good measures, this cannot possibly be the government's one and only response to the skyrocketing cost of housing and groceries. When it comes to housing, the government needs to review and improve the national housing strategy, which, let us face it, has failed.
In terms of competition, they need to review the notion of abuse to prevent the big players from endlessly profiting from their disproportionate market share. Those two initiatives must be undertaken, and we are just starting both, whether Bill C‑56 passes or not.
To end my speech, I would like to say the following. The Bloc Québécois's support for Bill C‑56 is certainly not a motion to congratulate the government, quite the contrary. However, we do see it as a step in the right direction. The Bloc Québécois's support today is like a pat on the back. It is like a nod of the head, but coupled with a “what comes next?”.
I suspect that I may have to wait awhile before the government actually takes any further action, but I hope I will not have to wait too long.
1313 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
The problem that we have with this provision, which seeks to eliminate the GST on the construction of rental housing, is that the government is making assumptions. The government is trusting the private sector to bring prices down. It is always a bit risky to trust the private sector to lower prices. There is nothing to guarantee that, once the rental units have been built, private builders will pass those savings on to renters in the form of lower rental costs. The government is making assumptions.
That is why we do not think that this is the answer to the problem we are facing. However, as I said in my speech, this measure could result in the construction of more rental units, which would reduce pressure on the market by increasing availability, but there is no guarantee of that. The government is hoping that is what will happen if it implements this measure, but we are not convinced that it will have such a major impact on lowering rent. In fact, we are not convinced that that will happen at all. That being said, we will not vote against Bill C‑56, because it contains good measures and nothing harmful.
211 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie and I generally agree on that.
Quebec is a unique ecosystem. In fact, we call that a distinct society, a nation. The co-operative system is rather unique in Quebec, at least in terms of the number of co-operatives that exist in Quebec.
Housing falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec. Social and affordable housing requires funding. As usual, Ottawa knows best and it is interfering in a jurisdiction that is not its responsibility. The federal government does not have the expertise, but it has the money because of the fiscal imbalance and because all of the revenues are in Ottawa and all the expenses are in Quebec and the provinces.
We are asking Ottawa to send money to Quebec, the provinces and the territories who have the expertise in affordable and social housing. Then things will go much smoother. That being said, there is an even more radical solution that would be even better and would practically solve everything: if the federal government stayed out of Quebec and we had all the power over such matters. If we were a country, the housing situation would be lot better.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 2:38:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, sometimes in politics there are simple files, so my question will be rather simple.
The federal government owes $460 million to Quebec for taking in asylum seekers, something that falls strictly under federal jurisdiction. Last Friday, the Minister of Immigration met with his counterpart from Quebec.
My question is simple: Did he reimburse Quebec?
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 2:39:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no need for three-month round tables; a 30-second conversation should be plenty. The minister has three things to say. The first is thank you. The second is, to whom should I make out the cheque? And the third is, where do I deposit the money?
When will he reimburse Quebec?
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:14:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I took the time to find the motion that we are debating today, because the Conservative Party seems to be a bit confused. The motion reads as follows:
In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination, systemic violence targeting minority communities...and other violations of fundamental human rights.
This motion clearly refers to human rights. However, last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the Conservative member for Peace River—Westlock made a video on Facebook Live in which he enthusiastically applauded and said that access to abortion in Canada was the greatest human rights tragedy of our time.
Despite all that, the first thing that the newly elected Leader of the Opposition did after his party's leadership race was to appoint the member for Peace River—Westlock as human rights critic. He also made that member the vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development.
How out of touch with Quebeckers and Canadians does the Leader of the Opposition have to be to appoint someone who applauds when access to abortion is reduced in another country?
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:18:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, they are saying that what I said is false. The member I mentioned, the member for Peace River—Westlock, did a Facebook Live video when the Roe v. Wade decision was overturned. He said that it was excellent news, that this was his mission in politics and that this kind of decision should be made in Canada. If members are saying that it is not true, they should go watch the video. It is still online.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:23:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thought this moment would never come. It may come up from time to time.
I was not expecting to give a 20-minute speech about this. I had prepared a speech on another committee report, but in the end, things changed.
In my opinion, the Conservatives may have slept too much. Looking back on the votes that were held during the 30-hour voting marathon, the members who voted the least were certainly not members of the other parties. I do not know what they were thinking. They sort of remind me of Icarus. Do my colleagues know the story of Icarus, the man who wanted to fly the fastest and highest? Before long, he burned his wings. When he got close to the sun, all of a sudden his wings caught fire and he quickly fell back to Earth. I get the impression that is what happened here.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, maybe I got it wrong after all. Perhaps they did not get enough sleep, if they are raising points of order like that.
As I was saying, the story of Icarus is very interesting. He was so sure of himself that he thought he had come up with an excellent solution, but in the end, he found himself in trouble and landed on his head very quickly.
We saw this again in the 30-odd hours we spent voting. All I saw was a Liberal caucus that had not been united at all since the fall suddenly come together. I saw the ammunition given to the other parties in the House when I looked at exactly who was going to vote on which economic measures. It really reminds me of Icarus.
This brings me to the motion before us today, which also reminds me a little of Icarus. This motion gives me a chance to talk about human rights and what has been discussed in various committees, not only the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, but also the committee that deals with international human rights, specifically, the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Special Committee on Afghanistan. Human rights have been discussed extensively. That topic was the foundation of all the conversations we had in those committees.
I want to come back once again to one of the first decisions the Leader of the Opposition made when he was elected leader of the Conservative Party. The decision had to do with human rights. How did I come to that conclusion? It was easy. As vice-chair of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, I saw the change in the Conservative membership of that committee following the election of the Conservative leader, the member for Carleton. Suddenly, I saw the member for Peace River—Westlock become vice-chair of the subcommittee. I looked into him because I like to be thorough in my work. I want to know my new committee colleagues. I did my research and I realized to my astonishment and disappointment, but mostly astonishment, that the member had made a live video just after getting off a plane, when he found out that the U.S. Supreme Court had overturned Roe v. Wade, making access to abortion in the United States more difficult and, in some cases, a criminal offence. This is what I was asking my Liberal colleague about just now. The Conservative member applauded that ruling and said, in that same video, that access to abortion was the worst human rights tragedy in Canada.
Here I am, faced with a person who is entitled to his opinions, but I know full well that they are light years away from Quebec's values in terms of abortion access and rights. This member was appointed by the leader of the official opposition to sit on this committee. What is more, the leader made him what he calls his shadow minister, meaning the opposition's critic on the matter. That means that if the Conservative Party had come to power, this guy could probably and possibly have ended up either as minister for international aid and development or as parliamentary secretary. This is a guy who says that access to abortion is the worst human rights tragedy in Canada. That is important.
I want to come back to this motion telling us that we need to talk about human rights. Of course everyone agrees with that. I will read it:
That the committee report to the House that it firmly denounces the Taliban and rejects any recognition or legitimization of their control over Afghan territory.
No one is raising their hand to say they disagree. I will continue:
In particular, the committee denounces the Taliban system of gender discrimination...
Now maybe a Conservative MP will stand up and oppose the motion.
No? Good. I will continue:
...systemic violence targeting minority communities...
No one has anything to say about that either? All right then.
...reprisals against former members of the Afghan National Security and Defence Forces, Forces, attacks on freedom of the press, and other violations of fundamental human rights. The committee believes that the Taliban must remain a listed terrorist organization.
We are going to spend three hours debating this response and the tabling of the report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, even though everyone is in agreement.
I mentioned Icarus. Unfortunately, they are bringing about their own downfall. I have to talk about human rights in connection with a motion that everyone agrees on. I have no choice but to continue. This will take however long it takes, because that is how they want it. It was quite a job just to find out which committee report we were going to talk about today. As I said, there may be a minor breakdown in professionalism. That is so unlike them. I am not sure what is going on. Maybe they feel like they made a big mistake last week and that they keep making more. That is overconfidence. Overconfidence is always dangerous in life, whether at work or in sport. I have played team sports, and I can vouch for the fact that overconfidence is very dangerous. In the end, it can cost the team the game. However, I do not want to go overboard in giving advice. I will leave them to reflect on their own behaviour.
This report from the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights does contain something worthwhile. It is important to note that this is a result of what happened on the Special Committee on Afghanistan. When the committee began its work, we quickly realized that Canadian humanitarian organizations were unable to do their work because they were violating Canada's Criminal Code. I asked a non-governmental organization, or NGO, about that for the first time on February 7, 2022. I was told that, because the Criminal Code prohibits the funding of terrorism, which is a good thing, Canadian NGOs were unable to send humanitarian aid, such as medication and food, to vulnerable populations. The Criminal Code made it difficult to send such aid.
We set about putting pressure on the Liberal government. On that point, I should mention that I had a lot of help from the opposition parties, the NDP and the Conservative Party, to put pressure on the government, which was far too slow to act. It eventually introduced Bill C-41, which we passed. This legislation is not perfect; in fact, it is quite imperfect. I found this out last week during a committee meeting, when I asked NGO representatives about it. They told us that it had improved things a little, but that it was far from perfect and that certain aspects of the bill still prevent them from being able to do their work normally.
We talked about this in early February 2022, and the government introduced the bill a year later, in the winter of 2023. It was still at committee in the spring. All that happened more than 18 months after the UN had taken action with resolution 2615, which called for countries to amend their criminal codes so they could send humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, and to adapt their laws accordingly. That UN motion, as well as the motions we moved in the various committees regarding humanitarian aid and the fundamental rights of vulnerable populations, were effective.
As usual, the Liberal government is very slow to act and sometimes spends too long studying issues. Unfortunately, this is having a real impact on the ground. Some people suffered because Bill C‑41 was not in force. Children died of starvation because humanitarian aid could not be delivered. This was documented in articles in reputable newspapers all over the world. Some families had to sell some of their children because they could not afford to feed them all. They had to sell some of their children, even though Canada had a moral obligation towards these people because it participated in operations in Afghanistan and had direct ties with Afghan interpreters, members of the Afghan security forces, and politicians in Afghanistan, especially women politicians. Canada had created programs to help women successfully participate in politics in Afghanistan.
Canada ensured that women can get involved in democratic public discourse in Afghanistan. When Canada left, it left these women to fend for themselves. They had to face the Taliban. If there is one thing that upsets the Taliban, it is a woman who stands up and takes part in democratic debate in her own country.
I think the Taliban's biggest fear is to see a woman become empowered and participate in democratic debate in Afghanistan. To the Taliban, that is the devil incarnate.
Canada had a moral duty to these people and it did not live up to that duty. It arrived a year too late with an imperfect bill, which we supported because we believe that a step forward is always good for the people that will benefit. However, this is not right. Canada is neither an economic nor military power. Canada has a history of leadership in international human rights. That is coming from a Quebec sovereignist. I am thinking of Lester B. Pearson's peacekeepers. To be fair to my Conservative friends, I will also mention Brian Mulroney, who contributed to the fall of the apartheid regime.
These things happened. Let us also consider Jean Chrétien, who had a major impact on friendly countries in Africa. That is part of Canada's history. I imagine that these actions were largely driven by the values of Quebeckers, or I hope so. We have always been there. Humanitarianism started in Quebec, and Canada followed suit. So much the better if we can lead our Canadian friends in the right direction. We do it often. The child care system is just one example. I am not saying that Quebeckers are better than Canadians. No one is better or worse; we are simply different. That seems the best way to put it.
The only thing I held against my friend Jean Chrétien was the fact that he would say that Canada was “the bestest country in the world”. What country is second best, sixth best or eighth best? I do not know. I think there is no such thing as a best or worst people, a best or worst country. There are only different countries. Quebec is one of them and, one day, it will have everything it needs to become an independent nation. Perhaps I am getting off topic. Maybe it is because my Conservative friends added to the confusion today about the various motions we had to debate. I think it has affected me. I have to speak about a motion for 20 minutes when I only learned I had to talk about the motion two minutes before I took the floor.
Everyone agrees that we cannot let the Taliban continue to ensure that human rights are not upheld in Afghanistan. We cannot allow our humanitarian organizations, our NGOs, not to help them. That sums up what was said in the various committees, including the justice committee. Yes, we must keep the Taliban on the list of terrorist entities, and we must also allow our NGOs to deliver humanitarian aid on the ground there, because they know the ground, they have contacts and, above all, they have a big heart and want to help people. We can only applaud them for that. They need more support, and Canada should give them more. The government should give them more. They should not be overjoyed when access to abortion is restricted.
I will now be pleased to answer my colleagues' questions.
1996 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:39:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do find that disappointing, because I have a lot of friends in the Conservative Party. They know me. I am someone who likes to work with others. I have friends in every party. I am in politics to advance issues. I think that is easier when we work together and set partisanship aside.
However, there are fundamental values that push us to represent the people in our ridings, values that we cannot set aside. Those values are what motivate us to get up every morning to go to work for our constituents, our families and our children. When I hear that some members of the House are celebrating the fact that women's freedom to choose is being undermined, I cannot help but go to bed disappointed when thinking about all that.
I know that I, personally, will not be able to change those colleagues' minds, but I think that the friends that I have in the Conservative Party, those with whom I get along well, could have a little talk with their friends to ask them to think for a moment before they undermine women's right to choose.
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:42:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I always enjoy working with my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.
I think a lot more needs to be done. One of the things we could do, and this has already been proposed at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which I am a part of, is not put a cap on the number of Afghan immigrants we welcome. The special measures program for Afghan refugees currently plans to welcome 40,000 Afghans.
Everyone agreed in committee. At least, the opposition parties did. The motion was moved by the NDP, and the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois supported it. The Liberals were somewhat receptive.
Earlier, my colleague talked about female members of Afghanistan's parliament whom we have been trying to evacuate from that country for a year. We have worked very hard together on that file, but it is still not resolved. We think that the government is too slow to bring these people to safety on Canadian or Quebec soil.
Once they are here, these people could use their voice because they are the best people to restore democracy in Afghanistan. We must help them come here so that they can be safe and deliver their speeches and be heard internationally. That is how they could help their country.
That is one way to help rebuild democracy in Afghanistan and ensure that the Taliban leaves the region for once and for all. I think that is one possible solution.
251 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is not easy because, on the one hand, the Liberals are not helping us with Bill C‑41, and on the other hand, we have people who want to cut back on international aid.
Canada currently spends 0.3% of its GDP on international aid. The UN is asking for 0.7% from countries like Canada. The average for OECD countries is around 0.42% or 0.43%.
Right now, under this government, our spending is lower than it was under the Harper government. Back then, it was at 0.32%. The current government is the one that has been the stingiest when it comes to devoting a percentage of its GDP to promoting international human rights.
When my colleague tells me that the Conservatives are not consistent and that they are not credible when they talk about international aid, we need only look at the votes held during those 30 hours. When I talked about Icarus at the beginning of my speech, this is the proof. I now have ammunition. The next time they talk about international aid, I can name all the members who voted against it. They really have no credibility.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/11/23 4:47:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there has of course been a crystal clear consensus since the Chantal Daigle case, and I think that a woman's right to make decisions about her body is as fundamental to me as Quebec becoming a country. These are values that go together.
When I look at the other side, I see people who say they are pro-choice, yet they sit with people who are pro-life. In the Bloc Québécois caucus, that would simply be unthinkable.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
