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.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Mirabel brought up an excellent point about the Prime Minister's temperament and true plans. At the finance committee, the member for Mirabel led a change to this law and the GST credit to allow some flexibility for those who took the Prime Minister at his word when he made the announcement. That passed through the finance committee.

The Liberal government, led by the member for Winnipeg North, used procedural tricks to kill that amendment in the House. The finance committee worked to serve Canadians, while the Liberal government used procedural tricks in the House to kill the work that was brought forward by the member for Mirabel.

It is disgraceful. We had a chance to help Canadians. The government chose announcements and propaganda instead of actually serving Canadians.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Madam Speaker, right now we are at a point when we are spending more money in interest to repay our debt of over $50 billion a year than we are in health care transfers within our country. In my opinion, being the health critic, it is putting our health care system at risk.

I wonder what my colleague would have to say about that.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, that was a great question.

The public accounts, volume 1, show that the government has a mandated law to increase health care transfers. It was about 4.5%, while the increase in interest payments was 11%. That just shows how broken the government is, as it prioritizes payments to Bay Street corporations over payments to our provinces for health care needs.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin today by thanking my colleague from Edmonton West for splitting his time with me to share some words about Bill C-4.

The last question of my fellow Manitoban from Riding Mountain about the interest payments on our debt now being higher than health care transfers to provinces was an alarming note to leave it on. With a health care system that is in crisis across Canada, that is an absolutely disastrous record for the Liberals to be leaving this country with.

Six months ago, the Liberals stood in the House, and during the election campaign, and asked Canadians to trust them one more time. They promised lower spending. They said, spend less to invest more. They promised lower costs and a smaller, slimmer federal government. They said that they had heard Canadians loud and clear and that they understood the pain their policies had caused for nine and a half years in this country. They assured us all that things would be different, but every single one of those promises has turned into failure, and this bill is no different.

The House has now passed a budget with a record $78-billion deficit. That is more than twice the kind of deficit that was at one time considered excessive in this country. This is not a minor miscalculation; it is a massive burden added by the government to the future of this country.

According to the independent budget officer, the chance the deficit stays below that is less than 10%. That is no surprise given that it took the Liberals more than halfway into this fiscal year to come up with the amount of money they had already spent and what they planned to spend for the few remaining months left in this fiscal year, by the time they introduced their budget. Make no mistake: The words used to describe the government's spending, including “shocking”, “stupefying” and “unsustainable”, did not come from partisan critics. They came from the very independent fiscal office that the Liberals themselves put in place and staffed.

Meanwhile, the government is adding $80 billion in new spending, which works out to over $5,000 for every household in Canada that someday will have to get paid off. That is money being taken out of the pockets of families, seniors and workers through higher taxes, inflation and interest rates. Why does this matter for the people in southwestern Manitoba? It matters because many working families and individuals are already making due on modest incomes while the cost of living climbs.

Let us consider this. In Brandon, the average monthly cost of living for a single renter, including housing, food, transportation and basic necessities, is estimated to be approximately $1,800 a month. That is roughly $22,000 a year. Meanwhile, the typical household income in Brandon is lower than the national average. Local data suggests the average individual income does not match national paycheques in my region. For some residents, especially renters, younger workers or those early in their careers, that means a very tight budget from month to month. A small tax cut or a few dollars here and there will not move the needle for these households when rent, groceries, fuel and utilities continue to rise due to Liberal inflationary spending.

Looking at the structure of employment in Brandon and Westman more broadly, around 45% of jobs in Brandon are in health care and social services, retail trade or manufacturing sectors. These sectors often run on modest wages, where many workers feel the pinch of inflation and rising costs most severely. Manitobans are hard-working people. Families raising children, seniors on fixed incomes who worked hard all their lives and young adults trying to start their lives deserve more than vague promises and symbolic gestures.

While the Liberal government continues to rack up debt and deficits, cost of living pressures mount. There are higher taxes, higher inflation and a rising burden on ordinary Canadians. At the same time, we see record food bank growth, including in my constituency at the Samaritan House Ministries food bank in downtown Brandon. This is a rising burden on ordinary Canadians that is resulting in families skipping meals and seniors being forced to choose between heating their homes or putting fuel in their cars.

That is not governmental success; it is a systemic failure on a grand scale that is forcing more and more Canadians to be reliant on government handouts just to get by. The Liberal answer is more government programs, more spending and more planning, increasing the money supply, raising debt and calling it investment. This does not change the reality that every dollar collected from Canadians is being poured into interest payments and debt service rather than helping Canadian families make ends meet.

I find it ironic that after a decade of lecturing Canadians, the Liberals have finally admitted what Conservatives have said from the very beginning. The carbon tax was a costly, punishing failure, and the mental gymnastics that these Liberals now go through, after 10 years of flogging how the carbon tax was going to save the planet and then proudly putting forward a bill that cancelled it, are nothing short of hypocritical. For years they mocked and demonized anyone who questioned their tax-and-spend climate scheme, and they told families in southwestern Manitoba that paying more to heat their homes, drive their trucks and buy their groceries was somehow good for them in the long run. Now 10 years later, in the middle of an affordability crisis that they helped create, the Liberals are desperately trying to walk back the very policy that they flogged and pushed for countless years.

Canadians are supposed to applaud the Liberals for putting out the fire they started, but they would not find much of a warm reception for that in my constituency. Let us be clear: The Liberals did not scrap this tax because it was the right thing to do. They scrapped it because Conservatives made it impossible for them to keep defending the indefensible. For years, our party warned that the carbon tax would raise the cost of everything without reducing emissions, and for years, the Liberals insisted that they were right, we were wrong and everyone else was wrong as well. However, now they are plagiarizing Conservative common sense and pretending it was their idea all along. If they had listened a decade ago, families in communities like Verdin, Boissevain, Souris and Killarney would not be drowning in skyrocketing costs today.

Now we see the Liberals rolling out a temporary GST new-housing rebate for first-time homebuyers, a policy that Conservatives campaigned on in the spring election. It took pressure from our party to finally get the Liberals to act, and even now they are presenting it as if it was their own idea. The reality is that homes are being built incredibly slowly due to bureaucratic red tape and gong-show housing policy legislation on the Liberal side.

Home ownership, with or without this GST rebate, has never been further out of reach for Canadians. Young families and first-time buyers are struggling to enter the market, while construction stagnates, costs rise and regulatory red tape continues to slow the growth of new homes. Conservatives have long been fighting for real solutions, like lowering taxes, cutting red tape and supporting builders, so that Canadians can finally achieve the dream of owning and not just renting a home.

Conservatives support letting Canadians keep more of their own money, but when the government gives small tax cuts here, while taking away thousands on the other side, that is not relief; it is just a bait and switch. As such, while we are pleased that there are small tax cuts, this bill certainly does not go far enough. We would have liked to see in this bill a full carbon tax repeal on everything, to support affordability and increase Canadian competitiveness abroad; the GST removed from more homes as well as home construction; a bigger income tax cut that would actually help those in the working class; and responsible government savings by cutting wasteful bureaucracy, foreign aid and corporate handouts to protect the financial health of this country for future generations.

That is the government Canadians deserve. That is the legislation they deserve. That is why Conservatives are standing here. We will continue to stand up for that in this Parliament every day going forward until we deliver a Conservative government that will bring that home for Canadians.

I look forward to my colleagues' questions on this bill.

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

Madam Speaker, that member represents a rural riding in the prairie provinces, in Manitoba. It is remarkable to me to consistently see prairie MPs from the Conservative Party stand up and refuse to support biofuel policy that matters for canola producers at a moment when it is really important to help drive demand signals.

Maybe the member of Parliament can explain why he is against those types of policies, which are actually good for farmers in his own constituency. Even better, maybe he can explain to his own constituents why he ran on a platform in April that had absolutely nothing for farmers. In the Conservative Party platform, there was nothing there. I have had the opportunity to review it. Maybe that member can explain to his own constituents, his own farmers, why there was nothing. Is it because they take farmers for granted in this country?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is sadly very lost about the conversation going on today. At no point did I talk about fuel standards.

Here is something I would like to ask the member: When he travelled on the taxpayer dime to China, what exactly did he achieve in terms of results for ongoing Chinese tariffs on Canadian canola, which is grown and produced in my constituency?

We are calling on the government to get over itself and get a deal with China so our producers can continue to sell at prices at which they can make a profit. They know the Conservative Party continues to stand up for Canadian canola producers. Why will that member not do his job and get a deal for Canadian canola farmers?

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

Madam Speaker, the Liberals have gotten into the habit of using the words “tax cuts for the middle class” for things that are not tax cuts for the middle class.

In 2015, Justin Trudeau promised to lower the tax rate for the second income tax bracket. Those who benefited the most were the people earning more than $200,000 a year, because it is the wealthy taxpayers who go through all the tax brackets and hit the jackpot.

Of course, the bill we are debating today reduces the tax rate on the first bracket, which is more aimed at the middle class, but it targets very little. For example, there is nothing in it to help seniors receiving pension benefits, who are on fixed incomes and who are no longer able to work.

I want to know whether my colleague agrees with the member for Edmonton West, as he said earlier in his speech, and whether he thinks that the government could have helped the middle class by using other tax tools while ensuring that this tax cut does not necessarily go into the pockets of those who go through all the tax brackets and who already have quite a bit of money in their pockets.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do agree with the comments from the member for Edmonton West as well as the member for Mirabel. This bill does not strike at the heart of the people who most need tax relief in this country. It screams of Liberal elitism, giving big tax breaks to the corporate elite in this country, who are very good friends with most of the Liberal front bench. However, it does not help low-income seniors, certainly, or low-income workers. I think it results, for low-income seniors, to 13¢ a day or $4.16 a month, something like that. That is hardly a cup of coffee a month. It is not even that in some parts of the country.

This is nothing. There is no real relief here. There were better levers and better avenues and paths this could have been taken down if they wanted to provide real results for working-class Canadians and seniors on fixed incomes. We know we worked very well with our Bloc colleagues to try to bring that about. It is a shame the Liberals blocked all of those initiatives at committee.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Brandon—Souris talked of record food bank use in his region. We had the Feed Ontario hunger report out today, which made some of the same observations about record food bank use, including among seniors. It says senior food bank use has doubled over the last five years. The member had, I think, in his speech that it is $50 that a single senior is going to save from this tax cut, which is 13¢ a day, yet there was another report out that states the average family is facing an $800 increase this year in the cost of food.

Are Canadians continuing to pedal backwards under the Liberals?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the answer to the question is absolutely. Liberal math is that they are going to give people $50 back, but then charge them $800 more. Are they really better off? No, they are not.

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

Madam Speaker, while the member for Brandon—Souris is still in his seat, I have the opportunity to respond to his query back across the line. Our government is focused on recalibrating the relationship with the PRC and having that engagement. There had not been a leaders' meeting in eight years.

However, I do think the Conservative Party needs to pick a lane on the issue. I have Prairies colleagues wearing a blue jersey for the Conservative Party and saying that we ought to engage and ought to be doing more, but there are members such as the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North, the member for Simcoe North and other members from the Ontario area saying it is a bad idea for the government to be engaging. I do think the Conservatives are going to have to pick a lane about what they feel the government ought to be doing.

We feel as though we need to be having the engagement, because it matters for farmers across this country and for seafood harvesters. I am confident, because I am very close to it, that the work is going to continue and that we will see results. The opposition ought to pick a lane instead of speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this.

I would again highlight to the Conservative Party that there was absolutely nothing in the Conservative platform for farmers. That is remarkable in a bad way for farmers in this country. The Conservatives love to beat their chest about being there for Canadian agriculture, but there is nothing in their platform.

I hope the rural members who represent large agricultural constituencies are going to remind the leader of the official opposition, who now represents Battle River—Crowfoot, to actually do something to support Canadian farmers so we do not get into the same situation again, because it is not good policy for the Conservative Party to be taking farmers in this country for granted. It is a constituency I do not think the Conservatives are actually servicing very well.

Maybe we can have some more conversation on that at some point. I want to make sure we finish that.

I am rising today to speak to Bill C-4. I think it is interesting to talk about how there is absolutely nothing for our farmers in the Conservatives' platform. The Conservatives do not like talking about that, and I can see that some of the opposition members are getting a bit angry with me, but that is okay.

The reason why we are here today is to discuss and debate Bill C-4. The bill is relatively simple, but it is very important to address the issue of affordability and the cost of living in Canada. I would like to take the time today to talk about this bill, as well as about other government initiatives to help Canadians in general.

First, the bill seeks to lower taxes for 22 million Canadians across the country. I am talking about lowering the tax rate for Canadians in the first tax bracket from 15% to 14%. This measure will save families up to $840 a year and individuals up to $420 a year in taxes.

As the Conservative members mentioned, these savings will depend on a person's income because our tax system is progressive. Some people may benefit more than others, but this tax cut will affect 22 million Canadians, which is very important in these circumstances. This tax cut is directly related to the government's decision to do away with consumer carbon pricing.

I served as an MP in the previous Parliament. I represent a rural riding, and I have always spoken out very strongly about the need to change our national policies.

I am glad that the first act of this Prime Minister and this new government was to eliminate consumer carbon pricing. It was the Prime Minister's first decision on taking office, and I support that measure. I think it is the right approach. Furthermore, the tax cut for Canadians complements this measure because, in a way, it is equivalent to the carbon pricing cheques and rebates that were in place during the previous Parliament.

I am a relatively young member of Parliament. Right now, young people are having a tough time finding housing. That is exactly why our government put forward various initiatives to build more homes. We also want to target young Canadians by making easier for them to own their own home. That is why our government introduced a measure to remove the GST for first-time new homebuyers. This is an important measure. My riding is home to a lot of young people my age with families. This measure is extremely important to families in Kings—Hants considering that the average home costs $1 million. This is going to make a big difference in my riding.

Beyond this bill, I believe it is equally important to have a conversation about other affordability-related initiatives in Canada. Something occurred to me while I was listening to the speeches by my Conservative Party colleagues. I am not sure how to say it in French.

One would think that the Conservatives think that Canada is within a snow globe, that Canada is isolated, and that in terms of all the decisions that happen in Canada, there is no global influence on price impact or what we are feeling as Canadians, essentially, that the global economy does not exist and that we are in a snow globe. I think it is an unfortunate approach.

I understand that 10 years in opposition is frustrating. The Conservatives are going to raise things, they are going to push and they want the government to do better. That is fine. That is opposition, but most Canadians understand, for example, that we do not produce coffee in the country, so when we get a coffee, it comes from other countries. Therefore when the price point goes up, maybe that has to do with where the coffee beans originate. I have heard Conservative members list items we do not produce in this country and then suggest that it is the Prime Minister's fault or the government's fault.

Yes, scrutiny of a government is exactly what we do as parliamentarians, but it is a bit of a fallacy, is it not, when the Conservatives suggest it is government policy that is leading to higher costs. I do think we need to be thoughtful around that.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, there are certainly some policies, as I hear the members opposite saying. We can talk about those, but they go outside the range of what is reasonable on an everyday basis.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to my colleagues' being able to answer.

There is no real rationality. Some members are better than others, but there is no recognition that maybe a war in eastern Europe, a war in the Middle East and some global conflicts can have an impact on supply chains.

There is no recognition that actually there are U.S. tariffs being imposed by the President, not in terms of section 232 tariffs on Canadian industry that the government is working to engage and remove, but in terms of how tariffs on products that actually transit through the United States on their way to Canada may be higher as a result of U.S. tariffs that have been put in place on products that are inbound to the United States.

We never hear that level of nuance from the opposition benches.

There are the impacts of climate change, forest fires and disruption. There are a number of reasons for price increases and challenges. The government is focused on what we can control, in order to be able to support Canadians. The Prime Minister has been very clear on that. I do think, in that context, that it is important to talk about other affordability measures the government has introduced.

Automatic tax filing is one measure that has not received sufficient attention in the House. It is something the government introduced in the budget as part of the budget implementation act. The measure would allow 5.5 million Canadians to benefit from automatic tax filing that would make them eligible for the programs the government either previously introduced or is moving forward in introducing, of which they would be benefactors. That is important.

The member for Edmonton West, who stood up a few speakers ago, never really mentioned that. He talked about equity around programs and taxes. The automatic tax filing program is a prime example of where the government is being very targeted in trying to support the most vulnerable people in our country, and it is a good public policy measure that I think all members of the House should want to support. It would ensure that Canadians make sure they are being compliant with CRA, that they are getting benefits and that we are able to track that accordingly.

I do want to talk about Canada summer jobs. The government is also introducing 30,000 additional Canada summer jobs per year; that means there will be up to 100,000 jobs across the country. In Kings—Hants, this is a big deal for small organizations, not-for-profit organizations and small businesses that benefit from the Canada summer jobs program, and as a source for getting young people into opportunities that could be their first job. It could be building a job that allows them to be able to move on to what might come next in their career.

These are important measures we are introducing for youth, and they are on top of the youth employment strategy, the YESS program, which is focused on creating internships and opportunities for youth in strategic sectors across this country. Our government is focused on being able to move those forward.

They are also on top of the continuation of affordability programs that have been put in place. One of the legacies of the last prime minister's tenure, when we look back in 30 or 40 years, will be the introduction of social programs the Liberal government has committed to protecting that directly benefit Canadians while at the same time recalibrate federal spending to ensure that we can be sustainable over time.

With respect to the Canada child benefit, because the member for Edmonton West talked about targeted programs, under the Harper government, millionaires were getting child benefit cheques of the same amount as was a single mother in my riding with next to no means to her name. That is the legacy of the last Conservative government in this country.

The Liberal government revolutionized the Canada child benefit to make sure it is now targeted to the people who need it the most. In Kings—Hants, it represents almost $16 million of direct support for families. I have talked to single mothers who said they would not be able to put their young children in sports, for example, or be able to participate in the community or buy groceries without the Canada child benefit program. It is an important measure.

The Conservatives voted against it consistently throughout the last number of Parliaments. They do not admit that, even under the Harper government, it was a response to a program that created no nuance in terms of supporting the people who most needed help.

The national school food program is such an important program. I want to take a moment to talk about what it can mean for Canadian agriculture in this country. We are making permanent the national school food program, a program that is about making sure young kids can have a great start and no kid will have to go to school hungry. The Conservatives voted against it.

I was deeply disappointed that the member for Central Newfoundland called the program to feed hundreds of thousands of children through the national school food program, in connection and in co-operation with provinces and territories in this country, “garbage”. He has yet to apologize. It is a program that is benefiting children in his riding, but he chose to call it garbage. He has not explained why, and the Conservative Party has not even suggested why it supports the member's saying it. It is terrible.

The program is a policy, and members can disagree about the government's track broadly, but to call “garbage” a program that should be universally supported among all members of Parliament, of the House, is disappointing.

I want to make the point that we have to use the program as a way to support local farmers. I think about my own riding of Kings—Hants, and there are kind of two tiers. There are operators of larger farms in my own riding in Nova Scotia who are able to sell into a federal food system, so to speak, whether that is Sobeys, Real Canadian Superstore or larger industrial markets. Maybe some of the farmers are exporting around the world.

Then there are small farmers trying to get into the industry, who might not come from a farm family but are interested in contributing to our food systems, and they do not have the economies of scale to be able to sell into a federal system. By letting each province control how it procures good healthy food to go into the bellies of our children in this country, we can use the national school food program as a tool to support more farmers in this country, to build up small and medium-sized farmers to make sure they have a future.

It is important because we are going to need more farmers. The RBC report by John Stackhouse mentioned we need about 10,000 farmers over the next decade. I think, undoubtedly, there is going to be some consolidation in the sector, but that is a program that allows a scalability for farmers across this country. There are some federal parameters around that. I think we can do more on the affordability side. Feeding kids is health care. It is affordability. It is a good educational program and it can be a rural development tool.

Speaking of rural development, I have to highlight this again. At a time when our farmers could use support from the Conservatives, particularly in western Canada, around canola, they continue to not want to support any policy that actually demonstrably reduces emissions in this country and supports rural communities. I would challenge the Conservatives to point to a single measure they have in their tool kit that they are willing to come out and support that actually reduces emissions and also supports rural communities.

The biofuel policy is the best example of that. It actually invests in Canadian farmers primarily in western Canada and the Conservatives choose not to support it. There is very little policy about what they would actually do. In fact, in April, the Conservatives' platform called for spending more taxpayers' dollars to reduce emissions. Is that not remarkable? Instead of using the small-c ingenuity of the private sector, the Conservatives would like to spend more taxpayers' dollars to accomplish less and turn their backs on the policies that actually support farmers in their own backyard. It is madness. We need to be talking about this a bit more.

I do want to talk about child care as an affordability measure. We have reduced child care fees in this country. We have been talking, as a country and as a civil society, for almost 50 years about the importance of national child care. The Liberal government introduced child care. I had the Secretary of State for children and youth in my riding. We were on the ground this weekend talking about what that means through the lens of the communities in West Hants in my riding. We have talked to proponents who have seen the expansion, the build-out of that program and what it means for families. We never hear that from the opposition benches. Those are policies that the Conservative Party is either very silent on or is outright against.

I do want to take time to talk about debt. We hear about it from the Conservatives and they would suggest that the financial track of the country is not sustainable. I would point out that as much as they like to quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer's comments from two months ago before the budget was released, they never quote the Parliamentary Budget Officer's most recent comments when he said the financial track of this country is “sustainable”. Maybe one of the hon. members on the other side will at least start quoting that metric.

Of course, this government is looking at recalibrating spending. The government has a plan to reduce the size of the Government of Canada over the next number of years. We have a plan to balance the operating budget within three years, while also making room for larger capital spends. This includes for the Canadian Armed Forces by making the investment in the equipment and the infrastructure that it needs. I think about my good friends at 14 Wing Greenwood and the work that its members do. It is in Acadie—Annapolis, but it supports many jobs and livelihoods in Kings—Hants.

We need to go back to basics. We have to compare apples to apples. In 1990, the Conservatives of the day were spending 35¢ for every single dollar of the federal budget on servicing debt in this country. Right now, we are below 10¢ of every dollar being spent. This government is working to be able to reduce that, but we need to put that into context.

The Conservatives stand up and suggest it is going to be the next generation who pays this debt. If that were the case, I would not be standing here because under them, it was 35¢ for every dollar. That is the metric we should be using. We should recognize that this government is taking measures to reduce it from just under 10¢ and bring it down lower, but the Conservatives are ludicrous to stand in this House and suggest that we are on a financial cliff anywhere near where we were when they were in government in 1990.

I wish I had more time. When I was a new MP, 20 minutes was a long time. It is not anymore. Maybe we can start doing 30-minute sessions sometime. I do have 10 minutes in questions, so keep them short and we will go through a bunch of them.