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

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, I do not think it is possible that these costs are not going to be passed down to all Canadians. The only ones that are not going to be seen are with foreign companies, and we are not going to get the benefits in our industries here in Canada.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4 is being presented to Canadians as a solution, a path toward affordability and relief in a time of real struggle, but when we peel back the layers, it becomes painfully clear that this bill is not a bold plan but a political strategy. It is a collection of half measures cobbled together from Conservative ideas, watered down and repackaged by a government that has spent the last 10 years creating the very problems it is now trying to solve.

Canadians are smart. They know when they are being sold a talking point instead of a real fix, and they know that these issues, the cost of living, the housing crisis, the damage done by the carbon tax, did not come out of nowhere. They were caused by the very people now claiming to fix them.

Let us look at what is really in Bill C-4. Let us talk about the removal of the consumer carbon tax. The bill proves what Conservatives have been saying all along: The carbon tax is driving up the cost of living. The Liberals basically copied it straight out of the Conservative election platform, finally admitting what they spent years denying, that the carbon tax is hurting Canadians. It is making life more expensive, especially for the people who can least afford it.

They did not suddenly have a change of heart; they had a change in polling. Canadians were fed up, and in all honesty, it is Pierre Poilievre who made this a national fight. It was that pressure that forced the Liberals to act, not principle. Here is the problem, though. They did not scrap the tax; they just made the visible part disappear. That is it. They are removing the part that shows up on the receipt, hoping that if people cannot see it, they will not notice that it is still buried in the price of everything else. The reality is that the tax is still here. From the farmer growing the food to the truck delivering it and the shelf at the grocery store, every single step still gets hit, and Canadians still pay.

This is not relief; it is optics. It was an election year, and it is a gimmick dressed up as a policy. After years of punishing working Canadians, the Liberals now want credit for copying our plan while leaving the pain in place. How is that anything but a slap in the face?

There is a tax cut in Bill C-4, which, unfortunately for Canadians, is all smoke and no fire. I have talked to a lot of families who are barely getting by, and now the Liberals want people to believe that this tax cut will fix things. Let us be honest. It is a weak copy of the Conservative tax cut we promised in our platform, and it does not even start until halfway through the year. That means the cut is only 0.5% in 2025. Most people will get about $420 back. That is not help; it is barely enough for a coffee a day.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are spending money like there is no tomorrow. They are handing out billions in consulting contracts, even though the Auditor General just exposed that many of these contracts cannot even prove value for money. Canadians are being squeezed at every turn, and the government keeps throwing cash at well-connected firms while offering working families crumbs.

In fact, when we add this all up, including the billions it plans to spend on fancy consultants, which will cost families around $1,400, Canadians will be losing ground, so while they are getting back $420, they are paying more than triple to fund Liberal waste. That is not a tax break; it is a bad joke. This tax cut is not about helping Canadians. The Liberals did not do this because it is good policy. They did it because they were losing support and hoping Canadians would not notice. Canadians actually know the real thing when they see it, and this is not it.

Now we come to the GST rebate. It sounds nice, but it helps almost no one. The Liberals say they are helping first-time homebuyers by giving them a new GST rebate, but the truth is that it will not help most people. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this program will cost $1.9 billion over six years. That sounds like a lot, but only about 5% of new homes will actually qualify. That means more than nine out of 10 Canadians will not get any help at all.

Also, it is only for first-time homebuyers, so if a family is growing and they need a bigger place, too bad. If they have gone through a divorce and need to start fresh, sorry, they are not included. That is not fair. That is not real help.

Even for newcomers to Canada, if they are a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and have not owned or lived in a home anywhere in the world in the last five years, they can qualify. If they are still waiting for their permanent residency, even if they have never owned a home, they are out of luck. Even for those who do qualify, this applies only to brand new homes, not resale homes and not older homes, which might have been more affordable for someone. People who are hoping to rent out a suite to help pay the mortgage do not qualify either.

This rebate is like offering a life jacket to a handful of people while the rest are left to tread water in a sea of rising prices and shrinking hope. I have talked to families in my riding who are doing everything right. They are working hard and saving what they can, but they still feel like home ownership is slipping further and further out of reach. This plan will not fix that. It barely even tries.

It is clear. The Liberals copied our homework, but they got the answers wrong. Canadians deserve better than this half-baked rebate. Canadians are exhausted. They are working harder than ever, and they are falling further behind. Instead of bold action, Bill C-4 gives them a series of half measures that copy Conservatives' ideas without the conviction or the follow-through: a carbon tax that is half removed, a tax cut that barely buys a daily coffee and a housing rebate that helps one in 20. This is not leadership. It is damage control. The government has spent 10 years creating a cost of living crisis, and now it wants credit for tossing out a few band-aids. Canadians do not want slogans. They want solutions, and Conservatives are the ones who will deliver.

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

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I am sorry that this question falls on her. The Conservatives keep saying that the government is spending too much, but they never tell us where budget cuts should be made.

Can my colleague tell us where budget cuts should be made if we are spending too much? Should we cancel the tax cut? Should we eliminate dental care? We are told we are spending too much, but we need to know where we are spending too much. We will stop doing that.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell members where Canadians are making cuts. I have had conversations with families in my riding who are cutting back on groceries, skipping meals and putting off their bills. The government wants them to believe that a few tweaks to these policies are going to make the difference, but the truth is that the pain is still here. The carbon tax is still driving up prices. The debt is still ballooning, and the bill does nothing to stop that. Canadians need relief that lasts, not just relief that polls well.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her excellent synopsis of the bill that we are debating today. Any discussion around affordability and improving one's standard of living has to come with energy and resource development.

Does my hon. colleague not think that the Liberals should join us in passing a real sovereignty law that gets rid of Bill C-69, the industrial carbon tax, the shipping ban and the energy cap?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been watching the legislation come through the House. It has harmed the entire Canadian economy, and we have asked over and over that the Liberal government, this old Liberal government, actually reverse those painful and destructive bills. The hon. member is absolutely right. We need to get rid of the tanker ban. We need to make sure that we can build pipelines. We need to get our energy to market. Yes, we need to get the Liberals to actually do the right thing. That would be the way to get our economy back on track.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we hear the government announcing even more spending. Earlier this week, it announced a whopping $9 billion in spending. Now we are looking at a bill that includes incentives, tax cuts and some fairly significant tax measures.

I would like to ask my colleague if she is as eager as I am to see a budget or, at the very least, an economic statement. Presenting a budget would be the least the Liberals could do.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have been asking constantly to finally have a budget. It is with a budget that we would better understand where the money is going and how we are going to pay for it, and it would let Canadians truly understand the actual situation that we are facing.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow member from British Columbia, I wonder if the hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City would recognize the significant investments in infrastructure and fossil fuel development that have happened in our province in the last 10 years: not only the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion but also LNG Canada, the largest private sector investment in this country's history, of $40 billion, and the Coastal GasLink pipeline.

Contrary to the hon. member's statements, there has been a lot of growth and investment in this sector. Will the member acknowledge it?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was the previous Liberal government, which is now the new Liberal government, that turned away eight countries when they asked for LNG, so, no, I am sorry, we do not have what we need. We have been turning away many dollars, and we need to actually get our resources to market.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to Bill C-4. First of all, I want to make a couple of observations about the legislation we are seeing in this place under the new government.

I am distressed. It may be a manageable issue, and maybe I am the only one who is noticing that almost every bill that comes before us is in omnibus form; in other words, many different bills are addressed within the same bill. Some of the issues are connected one to the other, which makes it a legitimate omnibus bill, and some seem to be for the purpose of convenience, to save the government time. For instance, in Bill C-2, the strong borders act, there are some aspects that do not really have to do with borders at all, and there is significant concern from people who are in the refugee law community, and from Amnesty International.

We are looking at Bill C-4 tonight, and I will give it more detail, but briefly, Bill C-5 should have been two different pieces of legislation. Part 1 deals with interprovincial barriers between labour mobility and recognizing different kinds of restrictions to moving goods. Part 2 is the building Canada act, which is entirely different. Part 1 has drawn attention from the Canadian Cancer Society, as it is concerned the bill may lead to a weakening of standards across the country. Meanwhile, part 2 needs massive study, appears, at least to me, to give unprecedented levels of unfettered political discretion to cabinet, and is unprecedented in its scope.

On Bill C-4, before I go to the affordability section, let me just point to the anomalous inclusion of changes to the Canada Elections Act. The Canada Elections Act and privacy concerns for Canadian citizens under the Elections Act have no connection whatsoever to affordability. However, here we have it: part 4, Canada Elections Act amendments that are similar to what we saw in the previous Parliament in Bill C-65, which I do wish had carried before we went into the last election, as it would have certainly expedited the collection of signatures for candidates and their chances of getting nominated candidates onto ballots.

This is weaker than that, but it does have some connection to what we saw in Bill C-65 in relating to restrictions on political parties' ability to save information and violate Canadians' privacy. It does not belong in an affordability act at all. We have heard at least one other MP tonight, the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain, mention the issue that we want to protect personal information and that privacy laws should extend to political parties.

Unusually, in Bill C-4, new subsection 446.4(1) would assert an ability for federal legislation to negate provincial privacy laws and what provincial privacy laws can say about federal political parties. That is questionable at best. It also, to me, is somewhat offensive, or very offensive I suppose, that clause 49 of part 4 of Bill C-4 deals with the date of coming into force.

Experienced members of this place who look at statutory interpretation, which we do, and I hope we all read the legislation and all bills carefully, know certainly that coming into force is usually a date in the future. A bill would pass through the House, pass through the Senate and then come into force, sometimes at a date that is certain. I have a pretty good memory. I may have forgotten that there was ever a bill like this one, but within my ability to remember everything I have ever read in legislation, I do not think I have ever seen a bill that purports to come into force 25 years before the date on which it is passed.

Members who are learning this for the first time, if they look at clause 49 of Bill C-4, will find that the date on which the bill we are discussing today, June 11, 2025, would have come into force is May 31, 2000. This would exempt federal political parties from any offences they may have committed in failing to obey provincial legislation to which we were subjected, by going all the way back, resetting the clock, to May 31, 2000.

In this place, we like time travel; let us face it. We do like seeing the clock at midnight when it is not midnight, and we can do that in this place. We can say, “Gee, I wish it were midnight. I am ready to go home. Let us all agree we see the clock at midnight.”

I do not know whether anyone has ever tried a trick like seeing the year at 25 years ago. I am worried about this, and I do not know that we will have time, but I certainly hope we will properly study Bill C-4 in committee, and maybe we can persuade the government that part 4 should be pulled apart and studied separately from the rest of the bill.

The rest of the bill is tax measures. There is only part of the tax measures I would want to address at this point, and I am cognizant of the time. I know we are coming near a point where I should close to avoid being interrupted, but I do not mind interruptions, certainly for unanimous consent motions, because I think we are unanimous on that.

However, let us just say I am probably the only remaining member of Parliament who will stand up and say that the consumer carbon price was a good idea. It is a shame to see such cowardice on all sides of the House from the parties that used to support using market mechanisms, which is actually from the right-wing tool kit invented by Republicans in Washington, D.C., of how we can reduce emissions of whatever. Air pollutants in the area around Los Angeles is one of the first places market mechanisms were used.

Carbon pricing is being accepted by economists around the world as having a more efficient economic impact, reduced transactional costs of implementing the regulatory approach. Generally, people on the right do not like regulation. That is a choice: If we are going to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, we could use a regulatory approach. We could use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, part 4, which already exists, and put in place regulated, required hard caps on emissions of any pollutants, thus bringing them down sharply without having to use the more complex measures of pricing.

I would rather see the consumer carbon price used as what is called, in the literature, carbon fee and dividend, in other words, maintaining pollution taxation as revenue-neutral. A key feature in good, solid gold-standard carbon pricing is that the government should not live on pollution as a source of revenue to government. We want to make sure that whatever we take in on a carbon price is rebated as efficiently as possible to those who paid it.

To the idea that we do not want to have this, I just add again that according to the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising.

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That the debate on the second reading motion of Bill C-4, an Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be deemed concluded and the Speaker proceed to put the question

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Accordingly, pursuant to order made earlier today, it is my duty to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.