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

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech and on the comments he just made, but I would still like to ask him the following question.

The so-called architect of environmental policies that he mentioned earlier—obviously referring to the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie—was there six months ago when the government decided to get rid of the carbon tax. He was there when the government introduced and voted for Bill C-5, which allowed for last week's announcements.

Did the architect's conscience finally catch up to him, well after all the things he did in the past? We must not forget that he was elected by the people of his riding with a 17,000-vote majority after getting rid of the carbon tax, this government's flagship environmental measure.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague, who always has good, intelligent and well-thought-out questions.

I have to agree that, yes, he seems to have woken up. At the same time, I cannot criticize the guy. He was trying to change things from within.

There are two ways to work in politics. The first is to come in and toe the line, and the second is to try to get inside the system and make changes from within. I think what ultimately pushed the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie to resign was the cap on greenhouse gas emissions and the fact that generating electricity from thermal power plants in the west will now be permitted, but it will no longer be included in the pricing. Those things matter. I mentioned architecture earlier. There is not enough time to say very much in a 10-minute speech. I think that is what was so disappointing. Sooner or later, after swallowing so many bitter pills, the last one is too much to bear.

I have to say yes, that I agree in part with what my colleague just said, but I still—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must give the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle a little time to ask a question in 30 seconds.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague whether he heard the response from Quebec's former finance minister when I asked him a question and told him that investments are assets and equipment. Investing in loans and in tax cuts is an economic lever, but no one can convince me that that is an investment, per se.

Would my colleague agree that the current budget is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to win votes?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was quite the assist. Yes, I agree with my colleague. Her comment basically demonstrates what I was saying in my speech.

I was saying that this government is all about looking and sounding a certain way. It talks about a generational budget, saying that it is an investment. However, when we scratch beneath the surface and take a closer look, it is clear that they are spending money and pretending that they have just bought a house. I am sorry, but people cannot go to the bank one morning to borrow money saying that they gave their brother-in-law $10,000 and claiming that is their collateral. It does not work that way. To provide collateral, they need to have an asset.

The finance minister's creative accounting is nonsense.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend from Richmond—Arthabaska.

I rise today to speak on Bill C-4. Although this bill is inspired by the Conservatives' platform and promises, Bill C-4's collection of half measures does not deal with the real drivers of the affordability crisis: large deficits, high spending, and heavy taxation and regulation. We acknowledge the Liberals for admitting that certain measures are needed after 10 years of Liberal economic mismanagement, which has caused high inflation, doubled housing costs, and high food prices, and, on top of the pandemic pressures, has made life unaffordable for everyday Canadians. However, no matter how we slice it, Bill C-4's impact is too small compared to the previous tax increases, carbon pricing and other failed Liberal economic policies.

When I think about affordability, I think of the residents of Edmonton Northwest who have been hit hardest by Liberal policies that are out of touch with everyday Canadians. For seniors on fixed incomes, who are among the hardest hit by rising grocery, energy and housing costs, Bill C-4 does not provide targeted relief. Seniors are worried about being able to stay in their long-term care facilities or their own homes, or even being able to afford to be active in the community, such as at the Westend Seniors Activity Centre. I also think about the many others who are left out of Bill C-4: low-income, working-age adults who do not earn enough to pay income tax; people who pay large shares of their income on rent; people not old enough for OAS; food-insecure households who need more than hampers; women-led households with multiple children; uncompensated caregivers; people new to Edmonton Northwest; and the list goes on.

Food Banks Canada reports that food bank visits doubled since 2019 to about 2.2 million in March 2025. These are everyday, middle-class Canadians who are now relying on food banks. One in five clients is employed and one in three is a child, with 70% living in market-rent housing. The Liberal government's school lunch program ignores the two-thirds of individuals who rely on food banks who are not children. In their recent report, Food Banks Canada says, “the program does not directly address the structural causes of food insecurity”. Critics also say that this government is out to lunch:

The Carney government says its November budget empowers and invests in Canadians. But it lacks meaningful measures to reduce food insecurity—an important indicator of economic well-being and a strong predictor of poor physical health. It is therefore out of touch with the financial struggles that millions of Canadians face.

Eighty-three per cent of food banks say that “more affordable housing [is] the single most important policy intervention”, which is up from 61% in 2019. Low-income households are now spending about 66% of their disposable income on shelter. Instead of flowing funds to the many urban and indigenous organizations, who have plans and shovels ready to address housing, the government wants to put more money to grow the Ottawa bureaucracy it promised to cut.

Existing renters, especially in big cities, see little in Bill C-4 that addresses their rent increases this year. This is yet another example of elite-banker policies that are disconnected from the realities faced by everyday Canadians. Supply-side housing measures, such as Build Canada Homes and the GST rebate on new rental housing, will take years to see more new homes built. They also do not compare to the stated need for 500,000 homes per year and do not immediately lower rents for current tenants.

In Edmonton Northwest, these measures structurally leave out a growing group of residents who can only afford to rent. Record rents and huge mortgages benefit banks, institutional investors, property management companies and other friends of the Prime Minister. The government has no serious plans to help young people who struggle to build their lives or to restore affordability. While young people are looking to move into affordable starter homes, house-rich but cash-poor seniors are paying ever-increasing property taxes on homes they cannot afford to live in or sell.

Announcing the concept of a plan for housing at Build Canada Homes without money and programs on the ground only delays investments that could be made today in the hope that government will subsidize some of the costs. This is just another example in the government's suite of affordability failures and half measures.

We have heard from stakeholders that the dental care plan requires significant new red tape on the part of dental professionals, who are already in short supply. Being modelled on the non-insured health benefits program for indigenous peoples means that this dental care program will more strongly favour the minority of Canadians who are lucky enough to have practitioners who will spend hours or sometimes days on the phone with the insurer to advocate persistently for the basics of medically necessary treatments for their patients. On the other hand, this will give Canadians a taste of the disastrous bureaucratic inequities that many indigenous people face daily.

We have heard directly from persons with disabilities that the Canada disability benefit and the entire system for enrolling into the federal program is a nightmare for taxpayers and practitioners. The government has built massive paperwork and inconsistent bureaucracies, where somehow we put CRA instead of medical professionals in charge of determining who does or does not have a disability. The Auditor General found that CRA was unreliable even for tax information. Why would vulnerable Canadians trust CRA on medical matters?

Now I will speak to the few positives of Bill C-4. Bill C-4 would finally repeal the consumer-facing carbon tax, after nearly a decade of stumbling around. I am glad the government has finally listened and admitted its cornerstone climate policy failed, but that has not changed its overall spending and regulatory approach. It had the power to fix the carbon tax without a bill years ago, but waited to maximize political benefit over the needs of Canadians. Household goods and services that have the industrial carbon tax baked in are not suddenly going to be less expensive.

Many car-dependent workers and families in Edmonton Northwest will certainly benefit. Tradespeople, delivery drivers, warehouse and logistical workers, health care staff and others commuting by car from the northwest into other parts of the city will feel the immediate gain from lower fuel charges at the pumps brought on by the lobbying efforts of the Conservative Party, but that leaves out the lowest-income Albertans who cannot afford to drive or have no jobs to drive to. Those are some of the people the Liberals exploited to champion the carbon tax years ago with the promise of rebates.

This new automatic tax-filing program will probably increase the take-up of benefits, which matters a lot for very low-income households who currently do not file. We heard from students studying in health fields that couch surfing without a permanent address to file taxes remains a top concern, just as it would be for some of the folks who would gain the most from access to benefits.

Going forward, how can Canadians trust the same Liberal government that saddled current and future generations for the last decade to fix what it has broken? The Prime Minister promised to get tariffs fixed in July, and now Liberals are promising to make life more affordable. This is another promise they are poised to break.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about Bill C-4, obviously we are talking about the carbon tax. The point is that when we talk about the carbon tax, we are talking, sincerely and correctly, about the exploitation of all kinds of energy and natural resources.

Can the member inform the House about his experience as a leader of his community in terms of natural resources? Can he share with the House his experience with his community and the federal and provincial governments?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly in my experience as the chief of my community, we always had the paternalistic aspect of the federal government with Indian Oil and Gas oversight of how we developed our resources. There always seemed to be some kind of hidden motivation there when it came to limiting access to the resources back directly to the community or whether it was negligence on its part to actually regulate.

Again, this is the same federal government that is administering a carbon tax for the whole country with the same principles and the same bureaucracy. I do not trust it to be any better at making life more affordable by keeping these same policies in place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I found my hon. colleague's remarks to be balanced. Obviously, there were moments when he critiqued, but remarkably, he talked about some things that are positive in the bill, which gives me confidence that he will hopefully see this bill through before Christmas.

There are a couple of things I want to highlight. It was the Atlantic caucus and the rural caucus of the Liberal Party that helped make the adjustments and changes to the consumer carbon tax. On carbon pricing in this country, again, to change the record, we allow provinces to do that. Premier Danielle Smith made it very clear during her UCP address that it is the provincial government that actually controls the carbon pricing at the industrial level in the province.

Will the member support passing this bill before Christmas? It is urgent that we get this through for Canadians. He highlighted some of the positive aspects. Will he talk to the House leader and whip of his party to see this bill pass before Christmas?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, proper due diligence is still required on this bill. As mentioned, it has several shortcomings. It did do a few good things when it came to the consumer carbon price, but at the end of the day, I still think it was this side of the House that advocated for that and made it happen for Canadians. We will still do our due diligence on this side of the House, and we will see what happens to make life more affordable for Canadians. In the first place, it should have happened a long time ago. Canadians should have had a Christmas in 2025 that was more affordable, instead of having the one of the last 10 years, which was set up to fail by the Liberal government.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Edmonton Northwest. I particularly appreciative his very sensible contributions to the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs and the role he plays as a first nations member in ensuring that the voice of first nations is heard in the House.

Bill C‑4 does not put forward anything specific for first nations, yet the needs are enormous. The government is saying that cutting taxes, eliminating the carbon tax and other measures will have a huge impact on the budget deficit. These are funds that could have been invested in communities.

What impact will this really have? What measures would my colleague have liked to see put in place to help his community and many others across Quebec and Canada?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I like serving with my colleague on committee as well, but that aside, as for his question today, nothing in this current bill, Bill C-4, addresses first nations. The current Liberal government is doing cutbacks on the ISC budget to the tune of over $2 billion. In addition to that, it has zeros across the board for years to come when it comes to reconciliation. I find, again, that first nations are being left out. The excuse from the government is that it will consult them on Zoom, but nothing is ever going to happen. It is all reconciliation rhetoric from the Liberal government.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on his own leader's position in regard to a pipeline going through the province of British Columbia. The leader of the Conservative Party believes he does not need indigenous consent or the consent of the Province of B.C.

What are the member's thoughts in regard to his leader's commitment to not consult with indigenous people?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our leader has never said anything as of such. We certainly have section 35 rights. Nobody has ever talked against those rights. I think it is the leader's position that the Liberal government has said it will do consultation half-assed, therefore setting this project up for failure. It had eight months to do this one-on-one engagement. It is only now saying it is going to be done through Zoom in the months coming forward. I have no faith in the government to get reconciliation done in order to get a pipeline built.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today, we are here to talk about Bill C-4, which seeks to make life more affordable for Canadians. My Conservative colleagues and I supported Bill C-4 at second reading. I think that all members agree that we need to put more money back in taxpayers' pockets. Since 2015, everything costs more and Canadians are working harder for every dollar they earn. It is more important than ever for the government to take measures to support our workers, our families and our seniors during this cost-of-living crisis.

It is especially important to help Canadians who continue to struggle because of food inflation. It is becoming more and more difficult to put food on the table. A father told us that he and his wife eat only if there is any food left after their children have eaten. Who here has ever said that they would eat if there was any food left? There are people out there right now who are saying that. That breaks my heart. We need to do everything in our power to put money back in the pockets of these men and women so that they can earn a decent living and support their families.

According to the food price report published by the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, 80.6% of Canadians say that food is the main source of financial stress and 25.5% of Canadians are food insecure. That is one in four. The average family of four is going to spend $800 more this year on groceries than it did in 2024. According to Food Banks Canada, the number of Canadians visiting food banks reached a record high of 2,165,766 visitors in March 2025.

Food Banks Canada has even said that “employment is no longer a reliable buffer against poverty”. What does that mean? That means that even Canadians who have a job are not immune to food insecurity. Among those experiencing food insecurity—one in four—are those who work full time and are still struggling. People in my community and all across the country are working hard, but the Liberal government's endless spending continues to make livelihoods unaffordable.

I have the privilege of serving as a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and the Conservative members of the committee proposed several amendments to Bill C-4. This bill essentially incorporates three of the Conservative Party's election pledges. It lowers income tax, offers a tax rebate on new homes and eliminates the consumer carbon tax. The difference is that we want to go further.

First, the bill reduces the tax rate from 15% to 14%. We proposed reducing it from 15% to 12.75%. Our proposal would have saved Canadians $900 per year instead of $420. As costs continue to rise, Canadians deserve a bigger tax cut so they can buy the food they and their families need. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals rejected our amendment. I also want to mention that, during committee proceedings, the Liberals systematically filibustered this amendment for over an hour, proving how reluctant they are to lower taxes.

Second, our Conservative team proposed expanding the tax rebate on new homes. Bill C‑4 proposes a rebate, but only on new homes that are first homes. What we are proposing is that this rebate apply to all Canadians who purchase a new home. This would stimulate the construction industry, ease pressure on the housing market, and provide significant assistance to Canadians. On this side of the House, that is what we believe is needed.

We did everything in our power during the housing crisis to call for more affordable housing and more construction using this approach, but unsurprisingly, the Liberals refused.

Third, we proposed permanently axing the consumer carbon tax and the industrial carbon tax, which make life less affordable. The Conservatives were ready to do that. Unsurprisingly, the Liberals rejected that proposal.

The Liberals took one tiny step forward to alleviate the cost of living crisis by introducing Bill C-4. However, they took several steps backward when they tabled this budget. The Conservatives consulted Canadians and then recommended priorities that should be included in the budget to address the cost of living, such as bringing down the deficit, eliminating the taxes on groceries and ending the inflationary taxes. Unfortunately, but once again unsurprisingly, the budget did not address these priorities. Instead, the Liberals chose not to tackle the issue of affordability. They decided to use our children's, grandchildren's and great‑grandchildren's credit cards. They decided to spend, spend, spend, spend and run a $78-billion deficit.

The federal bureaucracy has increased by 80% since 2015 when the Liberals came to power, yet services have not improved. Instead of reining in the inflationary spending that keeps making the cost of living crisis worse, the government continues to favour bureaucracy over affordability. Taxpayers continue to bear the cost of these deficits. Interest on the public debt will reach $55.6 billion in 2025–2026. Each and every Canadian will owe approximately $1,350 in interest. It will cost $1,350 per person in interest alone.

Personally, I am still stunned that the Liberals decided not to tackle the cost of living in their budget. However, the Prime Minister decided that it would be a good idea to lower taxes on luxury items, more specifically, the tax on private yachts, instead of focusing on removing the taxes on groceries. We are talking about priorities. As the Prime Minister has shown, his priority was the luxury tax on private yachts.

Meanwhile, a record number of people are using food banks. Household budgets are getting tighter and tighter. The cost of housing is extremely high. Everything is more expensive, yet the government is lowering taxes on private yachts.

In committee, the Liberals had a chance to support our amendments to lower taxes for all Canadians. The Liberals had a choice: They could lower taxes for workers and families or they could lower taxes for private yacht owners. They chose to help private yacht owners.

Canadians are worried. Food costs more. Housing costs more. Everything costs more. Bill C-4 aims to make life more affordable, but we would like to see it go even further. We have made proposals. I hope that the Liberals will listen to our suggestions to finally help Canadians make ends meet.

On this side of the House, our priority will always be to help make life in this magnificent country of Canada safer and more affordable for Canadians and their families.