44th Parl. 1st Sess.
November 07, 2023
- This bill proposes to amend the Competition Act by repealing the "efficiencies defence" it currently contains. This defence prevents the Competition Tribunal from making an order against a party involved in a merger if the Tribunal determines that the merger will result in greater gains in efficiency than any lessening of competition that may occur as a result. By repealing this defence, the Competition Tribunal will be able to make orders against parties to a merger without being limited by the efficiencies defence.
- Yea
- Nay
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in this place to join the debate. I will be sharing my time with the excellent member of Parliament for Prince Albert.
Bill C-56 is an interesting bill, and I must give the Liberal government some credit for taking a page directly from the leader of the official opposition's affordability plan and proposing to remove the GST from purpose-built rental housing. This is something that Conservatives support.
I must admit that I was a bit surprised to see the Liberal government admit that removing a tax, in this case, the GST, is a good way to increase affordability, much as I was shocked to see the Liberal government admit that removing its carbon tax on home heating oil is also a good way to increase affordability. If only it would remove its carbon tax on propane and natural gas to increase affordability for all Canadians and not just those in certain regions of the country.
Back to the bill, I also support the proposed amendments to the Competition Act, just as I supported my colleague from Bay of Quinte when he introduced his Bill C‑339.
It is refreshing to see a Liberal government adopt Conservative solutions. I even have to give the Prime Minister a little credit. Removing the tax on goods and services relating to the construction of rental housing means that builders and developers will save money. It means that less money will end up here in Ottawa. We all know how much this Prime Minister likes spending other people's money. Despite reduced revenue, our perennially spendy Prime Minister did not label this an austerity bill—not yet, anyway. Maybe he will change his mind when he reads the bill and realizes he is endorsing Conservative ideas.
Regardless, the Prime Minister has demonstrated remarkable restraint by introducing a bill that will reduce Ottawa's revenue and not calling it an austerity measure.
I pause for a moment, though, to ask this place a question. If the Liberal government is capable of understanding that removing the GST from rental housing increases affordability and that removing the carbon tax from home heating oil also increases affordability, why does it still refuse to remove the carbon tax from natural gas and propane to increase affordability? Do Canadian families who heat their homes with natural gas and propane and who cannot pay their bills not matter?
I have heard the Liberal excuses around this. Home heating oil is expensive and the carbon tax makes it more expensive, so that is why they are giving them a carbon tax break, but the same is also true for those who heat with natural gas and propane. Basically, this government is telling them that they do not matter. This is a Prime Minister who once said, “a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, but that is no longer true if one heats one's home with natural gas or propane. Sure, one might be on the verge of bankruptcy or hitting the food bank every day, but this Liberal government just does not care.
I know some members would say that I am getting a bit off track, that we should be debating what is in this bill. That is my point. The things in this bill would help, but the things we could do to most help Canadians right now, such as removing the carbon tax from all home heating fuels, we are not doing solely because the government is punitive.
This morning, we read about the Liberals' so-called affordability retreat, where taxpayers got stuck with a bill for $160,000, including rooms that cost anywhere from $1,200 to $3,200 apiece. The very Liberals who stayed in those rooms have the audacity to tell those who can no longer afford to heat their home at the end of the month that they will get no help. Worse, their carbon tax bill will actually be quadrupled. I would simply ask the obvious: Why not do more?
Why not offer Canadians who heat their homes with natural gas and propane the same carbon tax relief as those who heat their homes with home heating oil? Why does this Prime Minister always have to divide Canadians? This time, he is dividing them based on their heating fuel. Canadians have had enough of this.
Every poll sends the message loud and clear about where the Liberals stand, yet the Liberal government ignores that message. To what end? I know there are good people on the government side, but the arrogance of the Prime Minister and his powerful group of unelected insiders is hurting many Canadians.
Yes, the proposals in this bill will help. It is a start, but we seriously need to do more. That is why I talked about doing more. That is why the leader of the official opposition listens to Canadians every day. They are asking us to do more. Polls show they want relief from the carbon tax on their home heating bills.
Farmers want and need a break as well. Here in Canada, we introduced something called “marked gas”. The idea was that farmers could buy gasoline and diesel at lower costs, without additional taxes, because all of our predecessors from all political parties recognized that keeping farmers' costs low was in the public interest. Now the Liberal government is literally driving up the costs for farmers for ideological reasons.
I will share a story of a local small business owner. This small business owner is a value-added food processor. It is very important to this small business owner that, when his goods arrive at local grocery stores, they proudly say that they are 100% Canadian. Here is the thing: When he gets his raw goods, they come from Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and when he has them shipped out via transport truck, he now pays a carbon tax surcharge on the bill.
He must raise his prices to offset the extra carbon tax that he pays. If he were to get the same raw goods out of the United States or overseas, he would not have that same large carbon tax surcharge from goods being shipped across Canada. He might be at that point where the only way he can lower his prices and remain competitive would be to switch because many of his competitors in the same grocery stores cannot say that they are also made in Canada. They are made in other jurisdictions where there is no carbon tax. When times are tough, as they are right now, fewer people can afford to pay extra for goods solely because they are made here in Canada.
I hope the government realizes the long-term structural damage its carbon tax is creating. It would be a different story if our largest trading partners had the same carbon tax and it was a level playing field. The Liberals like to say that they are taking a leadership role with the carbon tax. However, when no one else is following, they are not leading the way.
Some may think that I was not objective in this debate, but when I go home and my constituents ask me what we are doing in Ottawa to make life more affordable for them, I would like to have more to offer than simply saying that I supported this bill. At least I can tell that small business owner and others like him that I shared their stories.
Unfortunately, however, we have a Prime Minister and a Prime Minister's Office who do not care about any of them, unless they use home heating oil, of course.
That said, yes, I will support this bill and I will continue to ask this Liberal government to adopt and better support our Conservative ideas. Let us put all home heating fuels on a level playing field and suspend the carbon tax.
Let us ensure that the carbon tax on farming is gone. Let us all read the Scotiabank report that tells of how government spending at all levels has created over 40% of the rise in basis points from the Bank of Canada. It is not austerity to think like a taxpayer and deliver value for money. What a concept. It is not an app that costs over $54 million or funding the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. How about the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which does not deliver any infrastructure?
Literally every day, we read about a new spending scandal from the Liberal government and appointed insiders funnelling money to their own companies. How could someone not know that was wrong and unacceptable? How are people such as Laith Marouf on the government contract list? Why is there never any ministerial accountability?
Instead of fiscal waste, we should be doing more with what is here. I urge all members of the House of Commons to consider doing more and adopting our Conservative ideas to provide Canadians a carbon tax break on home heating, and let us have a carbon tax carve-out for our farmers.
1530 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to speak to Bill C-34, otherwise known as the national security review of investments modernization act.
With it being so close to Remembrance Day, I too would like to offer my appreciation for all those who have served and continue to serve, and all the families that support them. I would encourage everybody to make sure they attend a ceremony this Saturday to honour and respect veterans for all of the work they have done.
Speaking of our security, the NDP-Liberal coalition has, for far too long, not taken our national security seriously, so it is good to see some efforts being made through the legislation before us. Unfortunately, our reputation on the world stage has taken a beating over the past eight years. We have seen numerous diplomatic debacles over those years, and a Prime Minister who regularly embarrasses Canada on the world stage. It seems that every time I go on social media, another country's news broadcast is mocking the Prime Minister. It is one thing to embarrass oneself with a tickle trunk of outfits to wear to another country or by wearing blackface more times than one can remember, but the Prime Minister has forced our allied nations to lose confidence in us as a partner.
Just this past July, Dan Sullivan, a United States senator from Alaska, called out the Liberal government for consistently failing to meet NATO’s 2% GDP target for defence spending. What is worse is that the Liberals are cutting $1 billion from our defence budget this year. While the American ambassador played it nice a few weeks ago and said he is not yet worried about our failure to meet our NATO targets, we all know and can recognize how our allies feel about Canada these days. If we had been taking our national security seriously, perhaps Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States would not have separated off from the Five Eyes alliance and created their own strategic defence partnership without Canada.
With regular disruptions to our ports and railways, we are losing the perception of us as a reliable trading partner that can deliver the goods we produce here in Canada to market. With a changing climate, our adversaries see the north as an opportunity. They see a wealth of resources and future transportation routes, and we are increasingly unable to protect our own sovereignty in the north. The sad reality is that under the Liberal government, we have become a bit of a laughingstock on the world stage, and it is disappointing to admit that. However, I cannot think of a single nation around the world with which our relationship has improved over the past eight years.
Given all of the failures internationally, one would assume that perhaps we would want to take care of our domestic economic needs here at home, but we have not done that. Although we are taking a good step with this legislation, after eight years, foreign state-owned enterprises, particularly those connected with the Communist regime in China, have heightened their influence in Canada. I will provide a few examples. In 2017, the government allowed Hytera Communications, a firm with ties to China, to acquire B.C.-based satellite communications company Norsat International. In 2020, Nuctech, a company owned by the Chinese government and founded by the son of a former Chinese Communist Party secretary general, won a bid to, get this, provide security equipment to over 170 Canadian embassies around the world. Imagine that. The government was going to entrust the security of Canadians stationed abroad to technologies linked to the Chinese Communist Party.
I know there are a lot of examples like this, but I will end with one more. Just last year, the CBC revealed that in 2017, the CBSA began using radio equipment and technology from Hytera, the company I just referenced. It was quite literally using the technology at our borders while our main ally, the United States, was indicting the company for 21 espionage charges. It banned the company from operating and doing business because it posed an unnecessary risk to national security. At the same time as our border guards were using the equipment, our American counterparts and friends were kicking the company out of their country.
It seems as though often the current government is focused on political interests and not our national interests. We should not be surprised. We all remember when the Prime Minister alluded to his level of admiration for China's basic dictatorship. It is perhaps why the Liberals have given China so many passes and why they have allowed Chinese-linked companies and agencies to infiltrate our university campuses, co-opt our research and take our technologies that innovative Canadians, innovative students and innovative companies in Canada have been spearheading.
We could talk about all these failures all day, but I want to address specifically some pieces of Bill C-34. I was pleasantly surprised that the Liberals brought the legislation forward, because it is an important idea to try to always enhance our national security, particularly as things evolve and our competitors become our allies and our allies become our enemies in the global world.
The goal in the legislation of amending the Investment Canada Act to protect our national security is not a bad one at all, but I really thought that for once, the Liberals had come up with their own idea. However, looking back to our 2021 platform, I noticed we had pledged to do the same thing: “Canada's Conservatives will: Protect Canadian intellectual property with a strengthened Investment Canada Act”. As the old proverb goes, imitation is the highest form of flattery, and there has been a lot of mimicking going on lately. My first speech in the House was just last month, about the affordable housing and groceries act, which was plagiarism, effectively, of two Conservative bills, Bill C-356 and Bill C-339. Of course we also saw, just last week, a climb-down on the carbon tax for home heating for some Canadians in some parts of the country.
Not all mimicking is bad, but at the end of the day, as my fellow Manitoban colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman said, “The Liberals are tired, they are weary and they do not have anything else to bring forward”. This seems to be the case. While I would prefer an election so we can put forward a strong platform that will include enhancements to the Investment Canada Act, among many other things, I do hope the current Liberal-NDP coalition keeps copying a few of our ideas. It can start with axing the carbon tax in its entirety, but I am not going to hold out a lot of hope.
Overall, Bill C-34 needs to go further. It does not go far enough to address the risks faced by Canadians. By and large, the largest threat we have to investments here in critical services is by state-owned or state-connected enterprises from authoritarian regimes like China and Russia. Canadians are rightly concerned about this problem. Foreign direct investment is a good thing. We should want to draw investment dollars into our communities. However, we should also want to maintain our sovereignty and our national interests. The reality is that we have become a place where people do not want to do business. Investments in our natural resource sectors, among many others, are flooding out. Our counterpart, the United States, which does not have a carbon tax, is more appealing to do business with. Companies would rather go just south of the border, south of my riding, and set up business there.
The bill does not include the ability for the government to create a list of authoritarian countries that are prohibited from owning Canadian companies or assets, which I think it should do. The Conservative team, at the committee stage, did a great job of bringing forward common-sense recommendations for changes to the legislation. Not as many were adopted as should have been, but Conservatives did work hard to fix some of the flaws.
One last issue that is becoming increasingly important and visible, particularly in my area in the Prairies, is the increased buying of farmland by Chinese-linked companies and organizations. Not only does this threaten our long-term food security but it also significantly increases prices for young farmers who are trying to enter an already very difficult industry to get into. It is important that we enable the Investment Canada Act to be broad enough and flexible enough to have cabinet be able to make important decisions on whether a takeover or change in ownership is in the best interest of Canadians. This seems like common sense to me. We know it is something only Conservatives can provide.
1494 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Pursuant to Standing Order 92(3)(a), the committee reports that it has concurred in the first report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business advising that Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence), should be designated non-votable.
69 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on Thursday, September 21, by the member for Bay of Quinte concerning Bill C-339 and Bill C-56.
Bill C-339, an act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence), standing in the name of the member for Bay of Quinte, received first reading on June 8 and was added to the order of precedence on September 20. Bill C-56, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Competition Act, received first reading on Thursday, September 21, and is currently being debated in the House at second reading.
In his intervention, the member for Bay of Quinte noted that the government had presented a bill which contains the same provisions as his private member's bill. The member sought assurance from the Chair that, if required, he would have recourse to replace his bill with another item according to the provisions of the Standing Orders.
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that it would be premature to consider the matter until the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had completed their work pursuant to Standing Order 91.1 and presented a report to the House.
Bill C‑339 contains only two clauses, which are identical to clauses 9 and 10 of Bill C‑56. Bill C-339 seeks to repeal the provision of the Competition Act setting out the “efficiencies defence”, which prevents the Competition Tribunal from making an order if it finds that the likely gains in efficiency will be greater than the effects of any lessening of competition resulting from a merger.
Bill C-56 aims to repeal the exception brought about by mergers involving efficiency gains, while also establishing a framework to conduct an inquiry, permitting the Competition Tribunal to make certain orders, as well as amending the Excise Tax Act.
It is my understanding that the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business held a meeting on Thursday, October 5, to determine whether the bills added to the order of precedence on September 20 should remain votable or not. While the subcommittee and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have not yet made a final recommendation to the House concerning Bill C-339, the official process has not yet run its course. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make any determination on this matter at this time.
There is an opportunity to resolve the concern raised through the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business and the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which are the designated bodies for considering items added to the order of precedence. I trust that the usual process will be followed in accordance with the rules and practices of the House. If a procedural issue remains after that process is complete, the Chair is open to considering the matter.
I thank all members for their patience and attention.
503 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I want to thank the hon. member for Bay of Quinte, as well as the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for the advice. That was very good of him.
We will take that into consideration and come back to the House with something concrete.
46 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we certainly were not aware of this concern. If you would afford us the opportunity to come back to you before a ruling on this to provide some comments, we would greatly appreciate it.
36 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it has to do with the management of Private Members' Business. My private member's bill finished first reading on June 8. It is scheduled to have its first hour at second reading on November 21.
When the government presents, as its own, legislation that was in front of the House as a private member's bill, it takes away from parliamentarians who have, oftentimes for the first time in their career, worked hard to bring a private member's bill before this House. It is bad precedent when a member who has already introduced a bill to the House has it taken by the government, as the member loses their spot in the queue to present private members' business.
For future parliamentarians and for this instance, the same-question rule or the rule of anticipation will come into effect should the Liberal government bill make quicker progress, which, given that most House debate time is controlled by the government, is likely to occur. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking you for your assurance that I and future parliamentarians have recourse to the provisions of Standing Order 92.1(2), or, if necessary, that you will invoke your authority under Standing Order 94(1)(a) to “make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business” in the event that my bill enters replenishment yet winds up in one of those legislative dead ends if the government bill vaults ahead of mine.
To this end, I would refer you to the ruling of your predecessor on November 4, 2011, at page 2984 of the Debates, concerning the procedure of an irregular private member's bill. It states:
...I am reluctant to deny the member what is likely his only opportunity in this Parliament to have an item on the order of precedence....
In light of the unique nature of this particular situation, the member...will be permitted to substitute another item onto the order of precedence. The substitution shall be done pursuant to the spirit of Standing Order 92.1....
The procedure and House affairs committee subsequently recommended an amendment to Standing Order 92.1, which the House adopted in 2015 as Standing Order 92.1(2), facilitating the replacement of items in situations where a private member's bill is dropped “for having been ruled out of order by the Speaker”.
In the interests of fairness, to ensure that precedence is looked at to the fullest extent possible and for future parliamentarians, I would ask for the Chair's assurance that, if the progress of my bill, Bill C-339, becomes doomed because it was big-footed by the Liberals' sudden and new-found concern with attacking the skyrocketing cost of living and competition law, I have recourse to replace my bill with another item on the provisions of either of these Standing Orders.
485 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
While crime in Canada is up 40%, I would like to report a theft in the House of Commons. My private member's bill, Bill C-339, to eliminate the efficiencies defence in the Competition Act, has been stolen by the Liberal government and presented as its own piece of legislation. The entire bill—
64 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-339, An Act to amend the Competition Act (efficiencies defence).
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to present my first private member's bill.
Competition is a myth in Canada. Canadians pay some of the highest prices in the world for a lot of different monopolies that dominate Canadian marketplaces: cellphones and Internet, banking, airlines and even beer. What a travesty that is. Why? The culprits are many, but a lacklustre and surprisingly pro-monopolistic Competition Act is among the biggest reasons.
My private member's bill would eliminate the most glaring anti-competition section of the act, section 96, the efficiencies defence. Canada is the only G7 nation to include the efficiencies defence in its competition laws, and it currently allows an outdated Competition Act to fulfill its most glaring anti-competitive mandate to allow companies to merge, no matter how bad the merger may be for competition, if they can find efficiencies. Most of the time, those efficiencies are as simple as job losses.
This was created at a time when Canada embraced an industrial policy in the 1960s. It was not at a time with free trade but when we wanted companies to get as big as possible to compete internationally. It is a relic of the old. This deletion will not alone fix competition, but it will go a long way to start.
I am happy to bring this bill and the debate on competition to the floor of the House of Commons, and I want to thank the member for Abbotsford for seconding it.
270 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
