Bill C-4

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to reduce the marginal personal income tax rate on the lowest tax bracket to 14.5% for the 2025 taxation year and to 14% for the 2026 and subsequent taxation years.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act and other related Regulations to implement a temporary GST new housing rebate for first-time home buyers.
Part 3 repeals Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations .
Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to make changes to the requirements relating to political parties’ policies for the protection of personal information.

Sitting Resumed

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked in her speech about how a family could save up to $840 with the Liberals' tax break, but at the end of the day, a couple with children making about $75,000 a year would realize only about $20 in savings with this tax cut. In fact, a single parent making $50,000 would realize only about $140 or $150 in savings with this tax cut.

I am wondering how the Liberals can square this. They are trying to sell the bill as having big, grand savings for people, but the reality is that the people who need it the most would be receiving the least amount of benefit. How can the member sell this to her constituents?

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not just that we are providing this tax cut, which I believe will put more immediate funds into the pockets of 22 million Canadians; over the last 10 years, we have introduced the Canada child benefit, national child care and the dental care plan. We have introduced a whole series of measures that are supporting our families and helping them live affordable lives and—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will now move on to Statements by Members.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be read the third time and passed.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C‑4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act.

I am pleased to rise today to proudly represent the people of Beauport—Limoilou. It is the proudest and most beautiful riding in Canada. Representing it is the greatest honour I have ever been given. Beauport—Limoilou is made up of young families, workers and seniors who believe that we need strong leadership to build, protect and empower our country.

What we are doing here is not theoretical. It is not a discussion among financial experts. This bill directly affects what goes in the fridges and gas tanks of families in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, as well as the rents and mortgages they pay. I want to be clear from the outset: This bill is good for us. It is good for families, workers, students and seniors. It is good for all Canadians.

First, there is the middle class tax cut. Bill C-4 will reduce the tax rate for the first income bracket from 15% to 14%. That means nearly 22 million Canadians will end up with more money in their pockets. That represents more than 50,000 people in Beauport—Limoilou with more money in their pockets. In Beauport—Limoilou, people in the 25- to 64-year age group make up 58% of the population. The measures we are talking about today affect them directly.

The average and moderate incomes in a riding like mine, Beauport—Limoilou, remind us of the importance of social support and affordability measures, whether in terms of housing, transportation or services.

This tax cut has been in effect since July 1, 2025. Across Canada, it will put more than $27 billion over five years back into the pockets of Canadians. Middle-class taxpayers will benefit the most. About 85% of these amounts will go to taxpayers in the two lowest tax brackets. Almost half will go to those in the lowest tax bracket, made up of people with a taxable income of $57,375 or less in 2025. After just five months, people are already seeing the difference directly on their paycheques.

Of course, no one has called me to complain. Instead, people are calling to thank us for that decision. For many people in Beauport—Limoilou, that means up to $420 a year, and $840 for a two-income household. That $420 can pay for groceries for a week or for part of the rent. It means a parent can enrol a child in a sporting activity. Above all, it is a clear choice to reduce the tax burden on the middle class. This is not symbolic. It is concrete and immediate.

Second, we are eliminating the GST on the purchase of a first home. In my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, I have met many young people who are working hard and saving money, but their dream of home ownership was slipping away because costs are too high. Bill C-4 completely eliminates the GST on the purchase of a first new home worth up to $1 million. This could mean as much as $50,000 in savings. The average house price in Beauport—Limoilou is about $450,000, so this will mean $22,500 in savings. That is huge. Everyone knows that that is huge for a young couple.

This measure applies to houses, condos, duplexes, mobile homes and co-op housing. It will encourage the construction of new housing. It will increase supply, including in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. This measure acts on both sides of the problem, meaning both supply and demand. It is smart public policy.

All of this is combined with the acceleration of housing construction in Canada. Our government knows that we need to build more housing more quickly in this country.

Third, the bill permanently repeals the consumer carbon pricing law, which, I would remind members, was already repealed last April. As many will recall, the government ended the federal fuel charge through regulatory action. Some may wonder why a bill is being introduced now if the levy is no longer in effect. The answer is simple. We must finish the job. By repealing the legislative provision, we are sending a clear and unambiguous message to consumers and businesses: Carbon pricing for consumers will not return. This provides stability, predictability and certainty. What is more, the government has also removed the requirement for provinces and territories to impose a carbon tax on consumers. Here again, we are doing what we said we would do. We are walking the talk, as they say.

However, let me be very clear. Pollution pricing for large emitters remains in place, and that is key. It is one of the pillars in our plan to build a strong, modern and sustainable economy. These industrial pricing systems are designed to minimize costs, protect the competitiveness of our industries and encourage investment in clean technologies. These investments will reduce emissions and create the green jobs of tomorrow. Our government has been clear, and I want to reiterate that today. Large emitters must continue to pay their fair share. Industrial pricing will remain a central element of our economic and environmental plan.

I want to be clear. The tangible impact that Bill C‑4 will have on Beauport—Limoilou includes things like more money in workers' pockets, more workers who can become homeowners, lower energy bills, better protection of personal information and more financial stability for families. This is a bill that affects everyday life—not in 10 years, not as a promise, but now. It is a bill that has been studied, analyzed and debated. It is a well-thought-out bill. It is proof of the serious work that has been done. It is proof that this bill is sound. It is proof that it deserves the support of all MPs who represent communities like mine. It is a vision for the future.

Creating affordability is not just about solving a present-day problem. It is about allowing families to look to the future, to make plans and to invest in their children, their neighbourhood and their community. Bill C-4 gives them the space they need to breathe, dream and build. That is exactly what my constituents need. I want to send my constituents in Beauport—Limoilou a direct message, and it is simply this: This bill is good for us. It was designed for our reality, for our budget and for our future. Sending me to Ottawa was not just a symbolic gesture. It was a mandate for action. Today, with Bill C-4, this mandate has become concrete action.

In closing, I am proud to repeat that this bill is good for Canada. It gives renewed hope to the middle class, opens a door to home ownership, makes life more affordable and energizes our families. For these reasons, I firmly support Bill C-4 on behalf of all the people I am honoured to represent in the riding of Beauport—Limoilou.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, at the very end, my colleague talked about how Bill C-4 would give new hope to the middle class and how they are going to be able to afford things. The Parliamentary Budget Officer says this Liberal tax cut, which is going to give so much new hope, for a single senior living by themselves, would be 13¢ a day in a tax reduction. A single parent would get 38¢ a day under this new tax regime.

How much hope is the government going to give to someone for 38¢ a day? How much hope does 13¢ a day purchase?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4 is good for the middle class. We are lowering the tax rate for the first income bracket from 15% to 14%. This will save each family up to $840. This practical measure has been in place since July 1, with the money going straight into people's pockets. It affects them directly. It is combined with all the other measures in the budget.

The entire population is therefore affected by the budget and by Bill C-4, which take direct action. What is interesting is that these are not promises and they are not things that are going to happen a year from now. People have been benefiting from these measures since July 1. The same applies to the purchase of first homes.

In my riding, this will help more than 50,000 people. That is huge. People tell me when I see them. They thank me for doing this, because they have the money in their pockets right away.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are some good things in Bill C-4, but basically it is a collection of election promises, including the tax cut. My colleague must know that the amounts of many of the tax credits received by the most vulnerable members of our society, including the disability tax credit, are calculated based on the tax rate for the lowest tax bracket. That means that, under Bill C-4, people who are getting the disability tax credit, among others, will actually lose income. They will lose more in the value of their tax credit than they will save from the tax cut.

Is this not a sign that the government designed this measure in a hurry, that it pulled this together at the last minute? Why did the government forget about these people? Why did the government need the opposition to remind it in committee that people with disabilities will be paying rather than getting a tax cut? When these people tried to contact the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, why did no one respond to their emails and phone calls? The Bloc Québécois finance critic had to personally put them in touch with the minister.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague say that there are good measures in Bill C-4. I am pleased to hear him say that there is a collection of good measures. That makes me really happy.

I have had the opportunity to work with my colleague on several committees. What is important here are the people who are affected. In my riding, more than 50,000 people are directly affected. In the 18-to-64 age group, more than 58% of people are affected by Bill C-4. It affects them directly. Think of first-time homebuyers. My 30-year-old son bought his house four years ago. He would have loved to get a GST rebate of more than $22,500. We are thinking of people. We are thinking of young people. We are thinking of seniors.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, regarding Bill C-4, how can Bloc Québécois and Conservative members expect to be taken seriously when they say one thing in the House and do another when it comes time to assume their responsibilities?

Do Quebeckers not deserve to finally find out whether these parties are choosing to stand on principle or whether they are choosing to score easy political points?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passion. What is important here is to highlight all the measures that are helping many segments of our society. In Beauport—Limoilou, the benefits are direct, quick and immediate. As soon as we took office, we implemented measures right away. As of July 1, people saw the rebate on their paycheques. That is concrete action.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. Before I start, I will mention that I will be sharing my very valued time with my colleague from Brandon—Souris.

I am rising today to talk about Bill C-4 and its various issues. I will start with the tax cut first. I am a big fan of Milton Friedman, who is famous for the line, “I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances...for any reason, whenever it's possible.” I actually had a watch done up on with that slogan and a picture of Milton. I agree with that very much, but when Milt Friedman mentioned this, he had the assumption that the tax cut would come with an accompanying cut in spending, or a reduction in spending somewhere.

Unfortunately, with the government, we have a minor tax cut, which is going to cost the Treasury billions, and it is all borrowed money. The Liberals seem to have a reverse Milt Friedman attitude. It is to spend more, but instead of finding a balance, borrow more. Eventually, every penny of this tax cut, minor as it is, is going to be paid for by the next generation, the generation after that, the generation after that, and on and on.

Now, when listening to the government, including those in the House today, one would think this tax cut was some monumental life-changing amount that would make their lives so much better. We just heard how it is going to give hope to the middle class, yes, hope for the middle class. Two million people are going to a food bank in Canada every month. When questioned, the government says “the middle class tax cut”, as if this tax cut is going to allow these two million Canadians to leave the lineup at the food bank and be able to afford groceries at home.

When we question the government, we end up hearing about this tax cut, despite youth unemployment, record deficits and record lineups at the food bank. What do Canadians actually get from this tax cut, apart from a future bill down the road?

I am going to read right from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which says, “The average savings range from $50 for a low-income single senior, to $750 for high-income couples with children.” Now, we have to wonder what it is with this government that it would bring in such a tax cut that would benefit the well off. We have a progressive tax system, but it is like my colleague from Mirabel says, it looks like they rolled it out without any thought of what was going to happen. A low-income single senior is going to get $50. A wealthy person, like those in the House, are going to save more, up to $750.

Continuing on with the report, a single senior in the lowest income bracket will save 13¢ a day under this Liberal tax cut. Again, any tax cut is better than a tax increase, but my point is, repeatedly, when we stand in the House to talk about the problems that we are facing in Canada right now, such as food inflation, etc., the Liberals push this out as the saving grace. They say that everything will be okay because we have a tax cut of 13¢ a day. It is about $50 a year in savings. Food inflation, based on 3.5% for last year, cost the average person $150.

This vaunted tax cut does not even cover 50% of the cost just for food inflation. However, somehow, when we bring up two million people at food banks, the government says, “Oh, don't worry, we have the middle class tax cut.” They want people to do something with that 13¢. For a couple with a child in the first income bracket, 68¢ a day is what they will save with this tax cut, or $250 a year on average, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. For a family of three, food inflation cost them an extra $420 last year, but they are going to get $250.

Now again, I will state, like Milt Friedman, I am for tax cuts, but this cannot be the be all and end all of addressing the issues we are having in Canada right now. Canadians want a better answer for the 2 million people lining up at foods bank than to hear that Conservatives voted against a tax cut. Canadians deserve better.

I will note that, if someone is single with no child in the upper tax bracket, they would be saving 50% more than those in a lower-income couple who are both working and have a child. A couple with no children, and both are in the second income tax bracket, will get $710. A couple in the top tax bracket will get back $750.

I know we have a progressive tax system, and therefore, if someone is earning more, they are going to save a bit more, but I would argue that, instead of this poorly thought out election pledge, or propaganda pledge, if we are listening to the Liberals in the House, the Liberals could have used the money to increase the Canada workers benefit, which would help out very low-income workers, and perhaps top up the GIS. Yes, people are not paying taxes if they are on GIS, but it would certainly help out a lot more than paying wealthy Canadians an extra $750.

Taxes across the board are too high in this country, but if the Liberals are going to do a little boutique cut like this, they should maybe focus on those who are a lot more in need than those earning the top incomes.

Now, I will move on to the GST rebate. Again, it is a tax, so I am very happy to see the tax being reduced. Any tax cut is better than no tax cut, but I think the one that the Conservatives proposed in the last election was far superior. It allowed up to $1.3 million, but also allowed it for people who would be buying their second home. It did not restrict it to only first-time homebuyers.

The member across the way talked about his son buying a house four years ago. It would have been nice if he could have taken advantage of it. I do not see why we discriminate against someone who has owned a house before. Someone selling their house to buy a newbuild house opens up inventory of the previous house. It is silly that we put these rules forward.

One of the issues I do have with the program the Liberals introduced is that they announced it on March 20, and we have heard that there were people running out and buying a house immediately. It came into effect on March 27 with the ways and means motion, but it meant that the second it was dropped in the House as a ways and means motion, if someone had signed to buy a house the day before, even if it was going to be built for six months or a year, they were cut out of the system.

We brought this up in the House, and I mentioned we had worked with the government in a non-partisan fashion to get this done. The member for Mirabel brought through some changes in finance committee to address this for those who had purchased when the announcement was made, and the Liberals in the House stood to fight against that. Canadians, through no fault of their own, took it on good will that the government was bringing this in.

It is silly. I realize we have to cut off with the ways and means motions to stop people from gaming the system, but if someone had bought a house and signed the documents, but the house was not going to be built until a year from then, and that is when the GST would be paid, it would make sense that they would not have to pay the GST immediately because of the cut-off date.

Conservatives reached out to the government to see if it would find some way to address that. Many people in Edmonton West were blessed that we built a lot of new homes. In Edgemont, in the southwest part, new homes are going up like gangbusters. The government should address this, but it chose not to.

The last issue is the carbon tax. Do members remember all the Liberals standing in this place saying that the world would burn if we did not have a carbon tax, and that we are basically Satan if we disagreed with their carbon tax dogma? The member for Winnipeg South, who was here earlier, said that carbon pricing does not contribute to inflation. The Liberals stood and repeatedly said that the carbon tax does not lead to inflation, but now they pretend that they are the heroes for killing the carbon tax.

Stats Canada, by the way, states that the carbon tax did cause inflation. The Liberals' own budget 2025 stated five times that the carbon tax caused inflation. Public Accounts notes it, and even the Bank of Canada notes it. I am glad it is gone. I just wish the Liberals had not pushed this hypocrisy saying that the carbon tax did not cause inflation.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague's speech today was a bit meandering at times. I heard him talk about the fact that, in one breath, there are too few measures, quoting 38¢, while in the next piece he talked about the fact that there are hundreds of dollars of savings that would go to either individual Canadians or families. I think he needs to pick a lane on whether he supports these types of measures or whether it is too little.

However, I want to get to the point that he made about this idea that future generations would be paying for this. I was born in 1991. There was a Conservative government at that time in this place. The Conservative Party was actually spending 35¢ of every dollar that was federally invested on debt. Right now, that is below 10¢.

Will this member recognize, notwithstanding he might like to see more calibrated spending and less federal spending, that we are nowhere near where the Conservative Party had our finances back in 1990?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the incorrect history lesson he provided. Everyone knows that the debt inherited by the Mulroney government was left by a Trudeau. Where have we heard that before? Oh, we have heard it here, repeatedly. The PC party actually ran an operational surplus, but they were are saddled with massive debt from the previous government.

Getting back to his comment about picking a lane, I very specifically stated that this program of Liberal tax cuts benefits those who need it least, not the most. It focuses giving more to the wealthiest and gives very little to those who are mostly in need. The government had a chance to change that. It chose propaganda instead of actual results for Canadians.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton West for his speech. I very much enjoy working with him.

Bill C-4 demonstrates the fact that the Prime Minister was willing to promise anything during the election campaign, without having done the math, without knowing how to go about it. This bill was introduced without any attention to detail. My colleague gave a very good example of that.

In March, the newly appointed Prime Minister promised a GST rebate for first-time buyers purchasing a new home. However, after the election campaign, he introduced the notice of ways and means as well as the bill, and we realized that all those who had believed the Prime Minister in March and decided to buy a new home would not get the GST rebate. Once elected, the Prime Minister decided to abandon those people and refund the GST only for homes purchased in May or later.

The Prime Minister made a promise in March. He was elected, and in May he announced that he was abandoning these people. Beyond the content of the bill, I would like to know what this type of behaviour tells us about the Prime Minister's character, but above all what it tells us about the value of his word.