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

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

Madam Speaker, I am just looking for clarification from the member. Under first-time homebuyer rebates, I thought there was some consideration given for condominiums and, I think, even housing co-ops in the current legislation. Is he saying that is not the case? I am not 100% certain, but I thought I had read something that indicated it was. Does he know whether that is the case?

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to provide clarification to the member opposite. My comment on that was not about new homebuyers; it was about buyers in general. Many homebuyers start in a condo, and of course, they may benefit in the first instance but not as they move throughout different life phases. For example, someone moving from a small condo, which they had when they were first married and did not need more space, to a home, where they want to have children, would not benefit from this proposal.

This is unlike our proposal, the Conservative Party's proposal, where they would have benefited. That is why industry has said that the Liberal proposal will not significantly improve affordability. Those are not my words; those are BILD's words.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for an excellent, well-thought-out speech. One of the issues of this so-called significant tax cut, as we constantly hear the member for Winnipeg North call it, is that it only provides $271 this year, according to the Liberals' own numbers from their campaign platform. That is less than one dollar a day. However, according to Dalhousie University, the average family will be spending over $600 more on food this year.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the so-called significant tax cut when the Liberals will not even cover half of the increase in food costs this year for the average family.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, not only are the employment numbers bad; food inflation numbers are bad. Again, do not take my word for it. Look at the "Food Professor", who put the numbers out this week. We saw things like the price of oranges up 26% and beef up 33% or 34% depending on the cut.

The costs are spiralling out of control, and the Liberals' approach is this: “Let us give a few breadcrumbs back, and we will ask you to thank us for it.” I think Canadians will see through that and will see that it is really the job-killing regulation, the industry-killing emissions cap, that is putting people out of work so they cannot afford the groceries that are getting even more expensive.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking residents, my family and the dedicated team in King—Vaughan for once again placing their trust in me to represent them in this House.

I rise today not just to speak to Bill C-4 but to speak for those who are not mentioned in it, for those who are too often left out of our national conversation. I rise for our seniors. As shadow minister for seniors, I must highlight how this legislation fails to address the unique challenges seniors face and why this omission fails to support those who built the foundation of our nation.

Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act, is a missed opportunity. It offers tax cuts and housing rebates, but nowhere in its pages, not once, does it mention the word “seniors”, not in the context of housing, not in the context of health care, not in the context of pensions and not even in the context of affordability. Their voices, contributions and needs deserve recognition and action.

Seniors are the fastest-growing demographic in this country. By 2030, nearly one in four Canadians will be over the age of 65. They are our parents, our grandparents and our neighbours. They built this country, and now too many of them are being left behind.

Bill C-4's attempt at affordability falls short. The Liberals blatantly neglect seniors on fixed incomes who are struggling with soaring costs for essentials like medication, housing and care. The industrial carbon tax, which inflates prices across the board and burdens all consumers, hits seniors particularly hard, as their fixed incomes are unable to keep pace. This oversight reveals a flawed approach of prioritizing certain demographics while ignoring the vulnerable elders who face relentless financial strain without adequate support.

Seniors face tough challenges today. Many live on fixed pensions that do not stretch far enough to cover rising costs for such things as medicine, rent or groceries. People with disabilities and seniors who cannot afford to feed themselves are increasingly turning to food banks. I have volunteered at seniors' homes for over a decade, and when I speak to seniors in my community, I hear day in and day out that they do not understand why their taxes and utility bills continue to go up.

In Canada, seniors face a variety of challenges that are often overlooked. Access to health care and long-term care remain significant issues, worsened by the growing shortage of family doctors and specialists. As a result, many seniors are left without regular medical support, leading to preventable health complications. This often forces them to seek care in emergency rooms, placing additional strain on already overburdened hospitals and tying up critical resources.

Chronic diseases, such as arthritis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes and respiratory illnesses, disproportionately affect seniors and severely impact their quality of life. Meanwhile, the rising costs of essentials, such as groceries and electricity, are particularly harsh for those living on a fixed income. Can we imagine having to choose between heating a home and buying food?

Perhaps the most heartbreaking issue is loneliness and social isolation. Many seniors spend their days in solitude. Studies have shown that approximately 41% of Canadians aged 50 and older are at risk of social isolation. Up to 58% have experienced loneliness. This is not just a statistic. Rather, it is a silent epidemic that has severe mental and physical impacts.

Let me talk about a senior couple in my riding, Philip and Angela. They are a retired couple in my riding. For months, they have been living in their car, not because they want to, not because they made poor choices, but because the rent on their modest apartment went up $700 a month.

They sold their furniture, gave away their books and packed their lives into the trunk of a 2008 Toyota Camry. Now, every night, they park behind a grocery store, hoping not to be noticed. They take turns sleeping in the back seat. They wash in public restrooms. They eat cold meals from a can. This is not the Canada they worked for. This is not the retirement they expected, and yet Bill C-4 offers them nothing.

Seniors in the GTA are very upset. They are now looking at leaving their home and trying either to live with their children or find an encampment because they cannot afford to stay in their home. Anyone who has volunteered with seniors knows that when a senior is moved out of the environment they are accustomed to, they do not survive. This is the sad reality of the Liberal mismanagement of taxpayer money that has caused the inflationary situation we all face in Canada.

The bill is a patchwork of half measures. It is not a plan. It is not a vision. Conservatives pledged during the campaign that seniors who choose to work would be able to earn up to $34,000 tax-free, which is $10,000 more than the current threshold. RRSP flexibility was proposed to allow seniors to keep their savings in RRSPs until the age of 73 instead of the current mandatory withdrawal at age 71. This would give seniors more time to grow their retirement savings.

For protection of retirement benefits, we also committed to keeping the retirement age at 65 and protecting benefits like old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the Canada pension plan. The Liberal government has stolen many of our policies but has watered them down. Why not take this one, implement it word for word and assist our seniors? The measures are framed as part of broader efforts to give seniors more control over their finances and to ensure that they are not penalized for going to work if they choose to.

What we need is bold action on housing; what we received was a tax cut that barely covers a week's worth of groceries. What we need is a national strategy to end homelessness; what we received was a throne speech that did not include a housing plan for seniors.

The Conservative Party believes in real affordability. That means building more affordable housing, especially for seniors, so they can move into comfortable, cost-effective communities. This not only improves their quality of life and reduces isolation but also frees up existing homes for first-time homebuyers. By creating dedicated seniors housing, we can build vibrant communities where seniors live with dignity and connection, while also opening doors for younger generations to enter the housing market.

A car is not a home. A parking lot is not a retirement plan. We must prioritize affordability to ensure that seniors have access to nutritious foods and a secure livelihood. This support can help reduce isolation and restore dignity.

I met a senior in my riding who skips meals to afford her medication; her pension is not enough. Stories like this are common, yet Bill C-4 offers no support and no hope. This is not just a mistake; it shows that the government's priorities are wrong. The only way low-income seniors are going to afford to live is a reduction of the tax on affordability. As shadow minister of seniors, I say that the Liberal government must do better. Seniors are not asking for charity; they want fairness and dignity. After years of their contributing to Canada, the bill fails them. I call for changes to include real help for seniors or a new bill that puts them first.

I would like my colleagues to imagine this: We have worked our entire life and are looking forward to a well-earned retirement, only to find that we cannot afford it. We quietly struggle to make ends meet, not wanting to burden our loved ones with our hardship. What happens when our career has moved on without us, and our income no longer covers our basic needs?

This is the reality for far too many seniors. We must restore dignity to those who paved the way for us. Let us ensure—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, before, I was a little bit hesitant, but now I am 100% sure. In regard to the legislation, it does, in fact, provide tax relief for individual first-time homebuyers for condos and co-ops. That is something that was raised as a possible suggestion from the Conservative Party. That is why I say that, when we take a look at the legislation and the ideas that are within this particular bill, I would think the Conservative Party would feel comfortable in supporting them.

Does the member support the principles of this bill herself, and can she reflect on what the Conservative Party's feelings are on this legislation?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to speak to Angela and Phillip and explain to them why they are living in their car. Their $800 savings will not even pay for one month's worth of increase in rent. How do we explain this to the seniors who are living in their car and having to hide so they do not burden their families?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, like many Conservative Party members, my colleague has a great deal to say about the infamous carbon tax. The subject is clearly inevitable in the context of the bill, since it contains a section on eliminating the carbon tax for individuals.

In fact, the government eliminated the carbon tax for individuals, but it still sent cheques giving Canadians refunds for taxes they never paid. That means that these cheques were paid for out of federal revenues, meaning Quebeckers contributed.

What does my colleague think about the fact that cheques were handed out to buy votes in the rest of Canada and that Quebeckers paid for them?

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for an excellent question. He has just proven a point that we have been stating on this side of the House all along. The Liberals do not have a budget or a plan. They have no idea how they are going to make life more affordable, and they need to review Bill C-4 to ensure that all Canadians can live in dignity.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from King—Vaughan for her excellent speech and especially for her advocacy for seniors. I introduced a private members' bill in the 42nd Parliament to eliminate the mandatory RRIF withdrawals entirely. It would help seniors. I want to note that every single member of the Liberal Party voted against that and actually voted against affordability for seniors.

To get back to the bill, one of the failures of Bill C-2 is that every penny of these tax cuts is coming from borrowed money. The Conservative plan was costed; we were going to reduce reliance on Liberal-friendly consulting companies instead of packing on the debt.

I wonder if my colleague thinks that, perhaps, instead of adding more debt, the Liberals should cut back the billions they are giving to their friends at McKinsey and other management consulting companies.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I do agree. The life expectancies of individuals have grown, from my time in the financial industry, from 73 years for men and 75 years for women to the late eighties, so the RRSP suggestion makes sense. We should give them more time to save money and reduce the opportunity for them to have to live on a fixed income later on in their life.

As far as the budget is concerned, why do we have all these individuals, who are employed by the government, to help us do our job when the Liberals have to spend billions of dollars hiring these consultants, and at the end of the day, we get nothing for it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, can the member explain to me why it is that the Conservatives should have any credibility on the issue of seniors when Stephen Harper and Pierre Poilievre tried to raise the age of retirement, of OAS, from 65 to 67?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for King—Vaughan, a very brief answer.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will give a quick response.

My hon. colleague across the way has to know that the average age people are working in my riding is into their late seventies, because they cannot afford to live. How does he explain—