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

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act.

The bill would enact three important measures designed to make life more affordable for Canadians at a time when a range of economic headwinds are combining to pose significant affordability challenges. First, we would cut taxes for 22 million Canadians; second, we would eliminate the GST for most first-time homebuyers for new homes; and third, we would cancel the consumer carbon price while keeping industrial pricing regimes in place and, in fact, reinforcing them so we can make life more affordable for Canadians while tackling the existential challenge of climate change.

In a rapidly changing and uncertain world, Canada's government is focused on what we can control. We are protecting our communities and our country, we are building our economy with major projects and millions more homes, and we are empowering Canadians with lower costs and new opportunities to help them get ahead. Bill C-4 is part of our government's plan to ensure that every Canadian has more control over building their own future.

Bill C-4 would lower taxes for 22 million Canadians. In practical terms, this means that the tax rate on the first personal income tax bracket would drop from 15% to 14%. In 2025, this first tax bracket applies to the first $57,375 of taxable income. For individuals whose taxable income is below that cut-off, their entire income tax will be reduced. The taxes of people whose income is above the cut-off will be reduced on the first $57,375. In total, this represents a tax reduction of up to $420 per taxpayer in 2026. For a family with two taxpayers, it would be up to $840.

After the bill was introduced, the Canada Revenue Agency updated its source deduction tables for the second half of the 2025 tax year. That means the reduced tax rate is already in effect for many Canadians. Let me remind the House that the tax cut specified in the bill came into effect on July 1.

Ultimately, because the one percentage point cut in the lowest tax rate would come into effect halfway through the year, the full-year tax rate for 2025 would be 14.5%, while the full-year rate for 2026 and future tax years would be 14%. However, for that to happen, Bill C-4 must be passed. This is important support for Canadians. It is a very good reason to vote in favour of the bill.

Another good reason to vote for Bill C-4 is a GST rebate that would help Canadians access the housing market. Under the law, the GST generally applies to the sale of new or substantially renovated housing. Bill C-4 would eliminate the GST, or the federal portion of the HST, for first-time homebuyers on a new home valued up to $1 million. It would also allow first-time homebuyers to reduce the amount of tax they pay on a new home valued between $1 million and $1.5 million.

The first-time homebuyers GST rebate included in Bill C-4 would save Canadians up to $50,000 on a new home. It would allow more young people and families to enter the housing market. Moreover, this measure could incentivize first-time homebuyers to buy newly built homes. In turn, this increased demand would encourage developers to build more homes, which would have a positive effect on housing supply. Expanding the housing stock is indeed key to addressing housing affordability.

Canada has been in the midst of housing crisis for several years now. Our government has a plan to double the pace of residential construction over the next decade. Any policy that can contribute to that is welcome. There are others, such as Build Canada Homes, which is investing in and will invest in the renovation and construction of many social and deeply affordable housing units across the country.

The third thing Bill C-4 would do would be to remove the consumer carbon price from law following its cancellation back in April.

Large emitters will still be subject to pollution pricing, as that is an important and central pillar of Canada's plan to build both a strong economy and a greener future. Industrial carbon pricing systems encourage investment in technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Our government has been very clear. Pollution pricing for large emitters will remain a key part of our plan to build a strong economy and a greener economy.

In conclusion, the bill proposes three clear measures that will help Canadians in very concrete ways. First, there is a tax cut that will put more money in the pockets of Canadian workers, up to $420 per taxpayer and up to $840 for a family of two, impacting 22 million taxpayers across the country. Second, there is a GST rebate for first-time homebuyers purchasing a new home. This represents savings of up to $50,000 on the initial cost of purchasing a new home to help first-time buyers and young people in particular enter the housing market. Third, there is the removal of consumer carbon pricing from law.

I urge all members of the House to vote in favour of this bill.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am curious. The Liberal Party seems to be very excited about giving tax cuts and making things more affordable for Canadians. I wonder why it took the luxury tax off luxury vehicles but continues to keep the HST and GST on health care services such as massage therapy.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the new member and obviously commend his important work. However, I would warn him about the things that previous members of the Conservative Party have done over the last few years.

The first thing Conservative MPs did in 2016 was vote against the middle-income tax cut at that time. Another thing that other Conservative MPs did, just a few years later, was to again vote against a middle-income tax cut. That was around 2020 or 2021. Therefore, I invite him to consider very carefully how he will vote on Bill C-4 so that future Conservative MPs can base their future votes on his soon-to-be-known behaviour.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is proud to talk about eliminating carbon pricing. I would remind the House that this was one of the marquee policies of this government, which boasted that 80% of people were receiving more money than they paid. The government scrapped it without putting any other measures in place.

Here is what interests me as a member from Quebec. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that Quebec has its own system and that the federal government took $814 million out of Quebeckers' pockets to send vote-buying cheques to Canadians during the election campaign.

As a member from Quebec, does he agree with this decision to steal $814 million directly out of Quebeckers' pockets to send vote-buying cheques?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows very well what has taken place over the past few months. A payment was promised to all Canadians in the provinces that participated in the consumer carbon pricing regime, which did not apply to Quebec or British Columbia. The regime no longer exists. Therefore, the rebate does not exist either.

That has been very well understood, I think, by everyone who has been following the situation over the past few months.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that as soon as he gets a chance, my colleague will travel around in his riding and speak with his constituents.

I have a two-part question.

First, what are people saying about all the programs he talked about? Second, in his view, what does the Leader of the Opposition think about the measures that we want to bring in for Canadians?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou, who is now a Liberal member from the greater Quebec City area and who has increased the number of Liberal members from the greater Quebec City area by 50%.

It is not complicated. The Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois voted against the Canadian dental care plan and the Canada child benefit. On top of that, the Conservatives called the national school food plan wasteful and trash. They also voted against child care.

These are examples of measures that are very important to the people in my riding, and it is unfortunate to have to repeat once again that the Conservative members have systematically opposed them.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the first-time homebuyer tax credit the Liberals are offering, which Conservatives loved because it was a part of our platform.

I am in the housing market. That is my background. I am wondering if the Liberals have given any thought, considering the cost of housing, as to how many young people this is actually going to help with getting into the housing market given the high price of construction in the current market.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's input, which suggests that she will vote in favour of Bill C-4 because she seems to be supporting the removal of GST on the purchase of new homes for first-time homebuyers. That is excellent news.

We look forward to confirming that vote soon in the House. It is great that she supports the measure, and we look forward to seeing that in the House through her vote.

The House resumed from November 19 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, be read the third time and passed.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. This weekend, we got to experience the first real blast of winter back home. It was down to the mid minus 20s. We had a bit of snow on the ground. I think we are fully into the grips of winter here now. To everybody who is out driving on the roads, or out working in the cold, I thank them for what they do and hope they stay safe. Again, it is an honour to be able to represent them here in the House of Commons.

I would like to say, as well, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Markham—Unionville.

We are speaking today on Bill C-4. If the government were to come up with a creative title for this bill, it could start with “repealing Justin Trudeau”. This would be a good way to frame this bill, because, for the last number of years, we heard over and over, time and time again, from the Liberals on that side of the House that Canada had to have a carbon tax, that the carbon tax was the most effective way to deal with climate change, that the carbon tax was an affordability measure.

We heard all kinds of ludicrous and crazy comments from the government about the carbon tax, and the Liberals told us repeatedly, again and again, that we had to have it. We had to have it. Conservatives needed to support the government, or else, and so on and so forth, yet here we are: One of the Prime Minister's first acts after becoming Prime Minister was to halt the regulations on the carbon tax. Here in this bill, we have it written in part 3 about how they are finally going to repeal all the clauses of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the fuel price on consumers. This is great. Conservative pressure got the government to finally admit and realize the carbon tax was punitive and punishing to Canadians.

Further proof of that is that right now, the price of gas around the country is actually at a nice low point. I would like to see it even lower yet. I will be honest; it could and should be lower, but at this point in time, it is significantly down from the highs of around $1.80, when we were at the peak of the madness with the Liberals and their insistence on the carbon tax. The last time I filled up, it was $1.18. Removing the carbon tax has had a huge portion to do with that. There are market measures, of course, that impact that, but the carbon tax was something that was imposed by the government on Canadians.

However, what the Liberals do not do in this bill is repeal the industrial carbon tax. We are seeing them actually double down on their insistence that it has to be in place. I am referencing the industrial carbon tax because this is an affordability bill, and the industrial carbon tax is a hidden tax on Canadians, but, in particular, it is because this bill also deals with housing and how the government is going to repeal the tax mechanism for first-time homebuyers on new or substantially renovated properties. Again, that was actually a Conservative idea. Conservatives were the ones who first proposed removing the tax on new and purpose-built homes, but the Liberals commandeered that as well.

Again, it is good to see two Conservative proposals and ideas make it into this bill. Our proposal would have gone a little further than this one does, but nevertheless, two Conservative principles in one bill is a good place to start for the government.

However, I would like to see them go a bit further. Why? Well, back in January, the Prime Minister, before he was the Prime Minister, was giving an interview, and he said to the interviewer something along the lines, “How much steel do you actually use? How much steel do you actually use?”, to downplay the role steel plays in the Canadian economy.

Well, this bill talks about housing. Within it, there are provisions on multi-dwelling units, condos and things like that. Just about every single condo that is built in this country has steel in it. We need steel in order to build high-rise buildings. We need steel for manufacturing. We need steel for all kinds of things.

I represent a riding in Saskatchewan. We have some manufacturers there. They tell me the industrial carbon tax is one of the single biggest threats they face. Again, because it is a hidden tax, they do not see it on their line items of the material they are bringing into their business to make their products with, but they know it is there, because it is forced onto the large emitters, which again are largely steel producers, concrete producers and things like that. This is one area where it applies.

However, it is also driving up the cost of housing. It has also had a dramatic impact on the cost of being able to build recreational facilities. I know the City of Swift Current is looking, first, to build a new swimming pool, and in the long term to add an indoor soccer facility and things like that. The cost to build this project in Canada has more than doubled in just the last couple of years.

The costs continue to skyrocket. We hear the Liberals get up and say it is Donald Trump's fault, or it is because of global issues, and so on and so forth, but the reality is that there are self-imposed issues at play here, and the industrial carbon tax is one of them.

There are other small towns affected, smaller communities, like the community of Biggar, for example. It is facing problems with its curling rink, which has been shut down for a couple of years. Biggar is one of the best communities for curling in Canada. It produces world champions, Olympic champions. People like Sandra Schmirler are from there, among a few others as well. It is a fantastic community that has always punched above its weight. The costs are exorbitant for Biggar to replace its curling rink, and when we look at a community of roughly give or take 2,000 people, plus or minus a few, that is a huge cost for a community like that to bear.

The government is single-handedly driving some of those costs to be higher than they need to be. If the government truly wanted to make this bill about affordability, it could have scrapped the industrial carbon tax, but it did not do it.

Another measure that the government could have taken is around lumber, so let us talk about lumber for a minute. If we are talking about housing, lumber is a huge part of that. We just had a take-note debate in the House last week on sawmill closures and on the softwood lumber issue. I will just reiterate that B.C. has seen around, give or take, 40 sawmill closures since 2015. Members will note that 2015 was the beginning of Canada not having a softwood lumber deal with the United States. That represents jobs and paycheques, but it is also GDP that Canada no longer has.

This time last year, there was an article written about nine forestry plant closures in Quebec. That was a CBC article. If anybody does not believe me, they can look it up. The CBC even wrote about it. Then we hear the Liberals trying to say that Canada has a better deal than everybody else around the world with the United States when it comes to tariffs and things like that, but we have some value-added products we make in Canada, such as kitchen cabinets, which we used to send down to the United States, and these have almost ground to a halt. Why is that? It is because we have one of the highest tariff rates in the world on these value-added products going down to the States. It is more than double what Europe's tariff rate is, so the Liberals' argument does not hold any water when it comes to some of these products.

If the government wanted to address affordability for Canadians, one of the places it could have started was getting a softwood lumber deal with the United States and prioritizing that. The Prime Minister said that he was the man for a crisis, and that was why Canadians needed to elect him. Tariffs have only gone up. They have gotten worse on steel and on lumber. If we look at affordability, it has gotten out of hand.

Part of this bill, as I mentioned earlier, is the tax cut for Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer did a nice report outlining the impacts it would have on Canadians. The average Canadian is going to see $280 in average savings, which is a small amount, but every bit of savings would help. However, let us break it down a bit more. When we look at what a single parent in the first income tax bracket is going to save in one year, it is $140. A single senior in the first income tax bracket is the biggest loser here, with only $50 in savings.

If we compare that to a senior couple in the second income tax bracket, they are going to save $680. The discrepancy between people who are in the first bracket and later in the second, third, fourth and fifth income tax brackets is crazy. When we look at the cost of living, we know it is seniors on a fixed income who are disproportionately impacted. When we look at single mothers with children, trying to put healthy, nutritious food on the table, they are struggling. This tax break shows that they are basically getting the equivalent of a couple of loaves of bread and a couple of packages of sandwich meat. That is about what it would amount to.

If the government truly wants to tackle affordability issues, I have outlined a few areas where it could do that, and there are many others. I am sure I can get to them in the questions and comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to the industrial carbon tax. Look at the Alberta premier, who is a Conservative, by the way. She is supportive of the industrial carbon tax.

My question is related to Bill C-4. It is a very powerful piece of legislation that would enable over 22 million Canadians to get a tax break. The Conservatives like to talk, and talk is cheap when it comes to delivering on important issues. They like to filibuster to prevent laws from passing. Back in the day, I guess it was in 2015 or 2016, the Conservatives voted against a tax break for Canada's middle class.

Will the member commit that they will not only vote in favour of this bill, but also see this bill pass before the end of the year?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I told the member, this bill has some Conservative values and Conservative principles in it. The Liberals are starting to run out of ideas. This is Bill C-4. It is only the fourth piece of legislation that this place has seen, and already, they are trying to plagiarize Conservative ideas and principles.

Of course, we are all for tax breaks for Canadians. We would like to see the government take it even a step further. When we look at the tax that is collected, it is not even enough to cover the cost of servicing the debt load the government is saddling onto the next generation of Canadians.

It is time for the Liberals to start talking about and doing things to try to increase productivity in Canada. Canadians need to see their paycheques go further and be able to do more. That would solve a lot more than the government coming up with more programs that do not actually help Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, and I especially appreciated when he mentioned the forestry plant closures in Quebec. That is what happened with the Arbec mill in Amos, in my riding. I wonder if he could talk about solutions that could have been included in this bill.

For example, the Bloc Québécois is proposing that the federal government pay 50% of the countervailing duties being imposed. Everyone agrees that borrowing from the federal government is essentially cost-free. The result is that it is the people on the ground, namely the machinery owners and so on, who end up paying. A wage subsidy would also be useful.

That is the context, but what did the government propose in this bill? It plans to lower taxes. What does that mean? It means that one-third of this year's deficit will go into people's pockets. People will take the cheque, but the generational debt will remain.

Should that money have been invested elsewhere, perhaps in our forestry industry?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the member is right. The forestry sector is one of the breadwinners for Canada, or at least it has been historically. The government has completely abandoned and neglected it. I would have liked to see more measures to support economic growth, because that is what the forestry sector brings. Unfortunately, the member's riding has been decimated by bad Liberal policy, again ignoring getting a trade deal done with the United States.

We need more demand for these products in Canada. Housing starts are still going down across this country. If the government got out of the way so that we could truly enable homebuilding to happen, the forestry sector could continue to go up and we would have more places to be able to use these products here in Canada.

The government cannot quite figure out how to take advantage of this strategic asset that we have.