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

[Chak Au, Conservative, Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC]

Madam Speaker, Canadians do not need handouts. They need a government that is competent and that will help us make the economy better and stronger, so that everybody can be self-reliant and independent and feed their families with the incomes they receive.

Canadians need more help, not in terms of handouts but in a government that is competent enough to help the country and the economy move forward.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the third part of Bill C-4 reflects what could be called the Prime Minister's environmental fiasco. Actually, what we are witnessing with the abandonment of consumer carbon pricing is the beginning of the official end of the fight against climate change. This step back was taken on April 1, before the people had even given him an electoral mandate.

Instead of countering the Conservatives' carbon pricing disinformation, the Prime Minister simply starting chanting from their slogan sheet by eliminating one of the flagship measures for achieving the country's greenhouse gas reduction target. Since then, it has been one step back after another, back to the Stone Age, which happens to be exactly what the Leader of the Opposition wanted. That is what we are seeing. In the end, the oil companies will have gotten everything on their wish list, courtesy of the government.

Added to this, more recently, is the climate capitulation budget. The icing on the cake is a new oil sands pipeline. Getting back to Bill C-4, it is the elimination of the carbon pricing rebate. Let us be clear. This spells the end of any possibility of meeting Canada's greenhouse gas reduction targets. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois strongly opposes this environmentally irresponsible behaviour. This shows that the government has no intention of fighting climate change. It also highlights a major injustice for Quebeckers. I am talking about the elimination of the carbon rebate that came with a cheque for Canadians outside Quebec, but was paid for with Quebeckers' money. They were not entitled to a cheque. That means that money from Quebec was taken out of Quebeckers' pockets and sent as election goodies in the form of cheques worth $814 million in the middle of an election campaign. Once again, that money came out of Quebeckers' pockets.

The government told us that it was going to increase industrial carbon pricing, but this bill does not mention that at all. If we look at what is happening abroad, in the rest of the world, on January 1, the European Union will be imposing a tariff on the import of products and goods from other countries. If there is no price on pollution in those other countries, Europe will put a price on carbon at the border. Right now, given the uncertainty in the United States under Mr. Trump and given that access to the U.S. market is becoming more difficult, it is clear that this would be the worst time to close our doors to the European market. This is especially true given that the consumer carbon price is being removed in Canada and we do not yet know what will happen to industrial carbon pricing.

I want to remind the House that the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development believes that carbon pricing is one of the few effective aspects of the federal greenhouse gas reduction plan. By ending carbon pricing, however, the government is not only giving up the fight against climate change, it is also leaving Quebec in the lurch after it has once again been cheated, literally robbed. The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly demanded that the government acknowledge this situation in its budget and return the $814 million in question to Quebeckers. We are not alone in calling for this; the Quebec National Assembly is calling for it too. Every one of the parties in Quebec City is unanimously calling for the federal government to return that money to us. What has the government and its 44 Liberal members from Quebec done? They have shown us that they are utterly incapable of supporting the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous demand. They are ignoring Quebeckers and condoning the fact that Quebeckers were just robbed of $814 million to send out vote-buying cheques.

When we talk about carbon pricing, it is worth remembering that Quebec has a price on carbon. Quebec established a carbon market; it has taken action. However, by removing carbon pricing in the rest of Canada, the government is obviously putting Quebec at a disadvantage. It is important to remember that nearly 90% of the money collected by the government was returned to citizens outside Quebec. This rebate allowed 80% of the population, or the majority of households, to receive more money than they paid in carbon pricing.

The former environment minister said very clearly that this was a very good measure to combat climate change. However, what was the first thing we saw the new Prime Minister do? He took a big pen and, like Donald Trump, signed an executive order to proudly abolish carbon pricing, which the previous government and the previous environment minister considered to be a good environmental measure. The Liberals even dared to abolish this measure on April 1. What did they do on April 22, which is Earth Day? On Earth Day, they decided to send Canadians cheques totalling $3.7 billion. That was $3.7 billion to buy votes in an election campaign.

Obviously, it is important to remember how carbon pricing works. It is a rebate that has always been paid in advance. It was therefore an advance payment to households. This money was not being reimbursed. In other words, Canadians received a cheque for money they had never actually paid. I repeat that Quebeckers did not receive any, but they did pay for it. We believe that this amounts to funding the environmentally irresponsible behaviour of the Canadian provinces at the expense of Quebeckers. Quebec is being penalized because it has made efforts to fight climate change. The government stole money from the pockets of Quebeckers to reward Canada for not making an effort. That is why the Bloc Québécois is calling on Ottawa to unconditionally transfer the $814 million that was paid by Quebec, because those cheques were written for a carbon pricing system that no longer even existed. They were sent on Earth Day, which is truly a dark day and marked the beginning of the end of the government's fight against climate change.

The Prime Minister justifies his lax approach to combatting climate change—or rather his abandonment of the fight against climate change—by invoking Canada's need for economic development. What is the logic behind saying that we are going to develop the Canadian economy when we need to develop international trade partnerships with other countries, yet EU countries and other countries are going to impose carbon pricing at the border for non-compliant countries that do not put a price, or a high enough price, on carbon? What will the Prime Minister say to these trading partners when he himself abandons important measures? There is uncertainty in the United States, we agree, but we know that we need to strengthen trade ties outside the North American bubble.

I would like to point out that Quebec accounts for one-third of trade between Canada and Europe. We receive nearly 40% of European investment in Canada. We have an advantage and we are the gateway to Europe. Quebec is, in a way, the bridge between America and Europe. Obviously, we hope that Quebec will be able to double its trade with Europe, including, of course, the United Kingdom. Ideally, we would increase it from $42 billion to $84 billion within five years.

However, Europe currently has the carbon border adjustment mechanism. In 2023, the European Union adopted legislation creating this carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is set to come into force on January 1, 2026. What Europe wants to do is prevent carbon leakage and avoid unfair competition from competitors located in places where it is free to pollute. Europe will therefore impose a tax adjustment. Again, Europe will impose a tax adjustment on imports of certain products from countries where carbon pricing is too low or non-existent. This is now the case in Canada. In 2024, the United Kingdom also adopted legislation similar to the European law. The U.K. law will come into effect on January 1, 2027.

This is the direction the world is heading in. We need to keep that in mind when we talk about carbon pricing. Pollution comes at a cost, and a price has to be put on that cost. Other countries are preparing to do so, and Canada will pay a very high price if it ignores the cost of pollution. Canada intends to pass the cost on to taxpayers as a whole, forcing them to pay the cost if the companies that pollute do not.

Essentially, when a product enters Europe, a levy will be charged that is equal to what the carbon price would have been in Europe. In the beginning, this levy will apply to select products, such as aluminum, iron, steel, cement, fertilizer, hydrogen and electricity. Gradually, it will be extended to include all goods. While border carbon adjustments may be a new mechanism, similar mechanisms already exist. They are completely legal and trade-rule compliant. Examples of equivalent measures include the excise tax on tobacco or alcohol, which is charged when these products leave the factory where they are made, or at the border for imported goods. This is a global trend that Canada is bucking.

The World Bank compiles a list of carbon pricing mechanisms around the world. In 2023, it counted 53 countries with carbon pricing. That is five more than in 2022, 12 more than in 2021, and 69 more than 20 years ago. The trajectory is very clear. The world is waking up to the reality of climate change and is putting a price on pollution by choosing carbon pricing. No country in the world has abolished its carbon pricing. Canada would be the first to choose this path. Clearly, it is sinking deeper into climate irresponsibility, primarily to satisfy oil and gas companies.

It should be noted that carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system for emissions. It is not the only one to have implemented such a system. It works with the Western Climate Initiative, among others, with California. There are exchanges between companies, including between Quebec and California. Together, they have a combined GDP of $4.8 trillion. That is enormous. It is a major market. There has never been carbon pricing at the federal level in the United States. The states are taking action. Washington is also taking action in this regard. Having Mr. Trump as President does not change the situation.

Nothing has changed, since individual states are continuing to move forward. California has even strengthened its market under the cap-and-trade system and committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions even further. This means that the fight against climate change is accelerating in certain countries, whether in the state of California or in the European Union, which, although imperfect, is continuing the fight against climate change. That is the opposite of Canada, which is bucking the global trend. Quebec could once again suffer because Canada has taken on certain responsibilities while Quebec is going to play by a different set of rules. In Quebec, we decided to put a price on pollution because, otherwise, it is passed on to society as a whole. We need to have carbon pricing, just as we have other types of pricing. There is a price for electricity and a price for water consumption. There must be a price for pollution, because it is not free.

The Conservative Party wants to abolish industrial carbon pricing. According to the Conservatives, any pricing would be bad. They never explain how we are going to combat climate change if we abolish the basic principles recognized by some of the world's most renowned economists. There is a consensus that putting a price on carbon is an effective measure, and it is a measure that the world is moving towards.

For its part, Canada has chosen to return to the 20th century. It wants to abolish and reduce carbon pricing. Once again, this will undermine the efforts of Quebeckers, who believe it is important to diversify exports and export destinations and to ramp up trade with Europe. Obviously, Quebec's businesses, our SMEs, will find themselves at a disadvantage if the rest of Canada does not feel the same way.

I would like to remind members that both the European Union and the United Kingdom have implemented exemption schemes and carbon pricing at the border. The Bloc Québécois will oppose this bill to ensure that Canada stops thwarting Quebec's efforts to diversify its markets and combat climate change. We will not allow ourselves to be distracted by the Trump effect. There is a global reality on which countries are taking action, and I mentioned several examples, but unfortunately, it is not a reality that Canada has embraced so far.

It is not just one measure. If there were something to replace that and if it could be shown that there was a willingness to meet the country's greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, comply with the Paris Agreement and reduce pollution, we would believe it. Unfortunately, the very first thing that the new Prime Minister did, through an order in council, was followed by several other steps backward. That is concerning from the standpoint of the fight against climate change. This is not just one major step backward. We were expecting the government to show us a climate competitiveness strategy that would highlight the government's commitment but, in reality, there is no new money to fight climate change. There is no clarity on industrial carbon pricing. How much will it cost? To what extent will it be increased? What kind of additional greenhouse gas emission reductions will it bring? In fact, we see a desire to come to an agreement with Alberta, which is currently refusing to harmonize its industrial pricing system with the Canadian system. Once again, this will likely lead to a decrease in Alberta's commitments.

We cannot give a blank cheque to a government that is eliminating important measures, such as consumer carbon pricing, while giving billions of dollars more in its latest budget to increase or extend funding and subsidies to oil and gas companies, removing the cap on greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector, and striking a deal with Alberta that makes it very clear that they plan to harmonize their standards. Harmonizing with Alberta means lowering the standards. Just look at the carve-out for Alberta on the clean electricity regulations.

For us, abolishing industrial carbon pricing means abandoning the fight against climate change, and that is completely irresponsible—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the legislation provides tax relief for all Canadians, including those in the province of Quebec. There are significant tax savings for over 22 million people in total. It also provides the opportunity for first-time homebuyers to benefit by being exempt from the GST. Both of those programs benefit the people of Quebec.

How have the Bloc members made the determination to say no to those particular benefits?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has been very clear. We had six non-negotiable demands for the government and it turned them all down. It refused to pay back the $814 million that was stolen from Quebeckers. It refused to increase health transfers. It refused to help young people access home ownership, as we proposed. It turned down a wide range of requests that garnered consensus in Quebec and that cost very little. It also refused to provide assistance to seniors aged 65 to 74. That is like putting arsenic in a cake, and that is not good for Quebec. It is not something we will accept.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech. While he is new here, his ideas are quite outdated as Canadians fully rejected a carbon tax in the last election. Even people like Bill Gates are saying that we have to focus on things like eliminating hunger and poverty, which are on the rise right here in Canada. This bill purports to do some of those things.

Why is the member bringing these outdated ideas back to this place and not focusing on reducing hunger and poverty in this country?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative colleagues say nothing about the roughly $10 billion in subsidies that the Canadian government gives oil and gas companies every year. They say nothing about the $10 billion it costs Quebec to purchase hydrocarbons, oil and gas each year. That is money that leaves Quebec and goes to Alberta, among other places. That represents a cost.

They say nothing about the cost of insurance, which is rising because of climate change. They say nothing about how droughts, floods and the problems facing farmers are driving up the cost of groceries and food. I would like them to talk about the real issues. I would like them to tell us who will pay if we do not put a price on pollution. Everyone is paying now, and we can see that in climate change and the devastating consequences we are experiencing today, such as the forest fires that have occurred again this year.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is always interesting to hear him speak, particularly when he talks about the environment. However, I do not think that these subjects are mutually exclusive. Our Conservative colleague just told us that his constituents want us to get rid of the carbon tax and to instead focus our efforts on economic measures so that people can buy homes and so on.

There is something that I am wondering about. We often hear this kind of rhetoric. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that. Is taking care of the environment and leaving a healthy, viable planet for our children really at odds with investing today to enable families to put food on the table and a roof over their heads? Are these two challenges mutually exclusive or not?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we believe that it is actually possible to grow the economy, help people cope with the rising cost of living, including insurance premiums and groceries, while also fighting climate change and developing the jobs of the future. Yes, we are concerned about the cost of living and access to home ownership. That is one of the reasons why we proposed two key measures that we wanted to see in this budget, but the government did not include them.

For example, we proposed a measure for a down payment for first-time home buyers. We proposed that parents be able to use their RRSPs to help their children access the home buyers' plan. It is hard to get the money needed for a down payment.

We also suggested offering interest-free loans, which would cost the government next to nothing, but would allow these new families, these young people, to make the necessary down payment to buy a home. This measure would have complemented what the government has proposed. Access to home ownership is important to us. We think it is important for everyone to have access to it, not just those who can afford a down payment, which is becoming increasingly expensive.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the boldness of the answer I was provided. It is somewhat disappointing that the members of the Bloc believe that the people of Quebec, through their eyes, should be denied a tax break on their income tax and, further to that, that first-time homebuyers should not be provided the opportunity to get an exemption from the GST.

Does the member believe he is consistent with what his constituents would want to see happen with respect to those two measures?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are simply asking the question. If the government really intended to move forward with the decent measures in its budget, why is it presenting everything as a take-it-or-leave-it package? Why did it not split it up so that we could support the decent initiatives?

What we are being asked to do is swallow a bitter pill in exchange for a few small, interesting measures. Looking at the budget, we are stuck with it as a whole. We had six specific demands for Quebec. The government deliberately chose to ignore them and did not want to work with the other opposition parties. As a result, we cannot support it, unfortunately.

It is undemocratic to say that we must take it or leave it. We are telling the government to work constructively with the opposition and make amendments, for one. Then, perhaps we could accept it, but at this point, the package deal is unacceptable to Quebec.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals, throughout this debate, have spoken a lot about the GST relief for first-time homebuyers, leaving out the fact that relief is available particularly when it comes to first-time homebuyers buying new homes. I know in northwestern Ontario, this is something that almost never happens, in part because there are not many new homes being built but also because what young first-time homebuyers can afford are often homes that are 20 or 30 years old. I wonder if the member shares my assessment of things in his own riding as to how this program or this proposal being brought forward by the Liberal government is not going to be as effective as it would have us believe.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely share my colleague's concerns about how difficult it is for young families, among others, to buy a home and to save up enough money for a down payment. Obviously, we support the GST measure, but we think it needs to be complemented by other measures. The biggest obstacle to home ownership is how hard it is to save up a down payment. With house prices continuing to rise, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to save and to buy their first home, partly because of the cost of living.

I hope my colleague will say that he supports the idea that parents should be able to use their RRSPs to help young people get into the housing market, that the government should introduce low-interest or even interest-free loans to help young people get that down payment so they can buy a home, because there is a fundamental problem with access. Eliminating the GST is not enough. The problem of saving for a down payment also needs to be addressed.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives rise to say that all Canadians voted in the last election to get rid of the carbon tax. However, the political reality is that people voted for the current Prime Minister because they were afraid of the Leader of the Opposition. They believed that getting rid of the carbon tax was a temporary compromise, even though they still supported the fight against climate change, but thought that things would be worse under the Conservatives. In voting for the Liberals, they were choosing between the lesser of two evils.

Today, however, we have a Liberal Prime Minister who is even worse than the Conservatives. He going farther than people dreamed the Conservatives would go. That is exactly what we got with the infamous pipeline agreement. The Prime Minister is also discarding other carbon tax policies, including in Alberta. It is the end of the fight against climate.

I would like my colleague to tell me whether he believes that this is truly what people voted for.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, people never even saw the current government's real oil and gas agenda. During the election campaign, the Liberals did not say a word about the fact that they were even more in favour of oil and gas than the Conservatives, who never approved a pipeline project under Stephen Harper.

Yes, people were tricked.