Debates of Dec. 1st, 2025

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very articulate speech in which he criticized the inappropriate comments that some Conservatives allegedly made about the national school food program.

I would like him to know that, when Paccar, a truck manufacturing company in Sainte-Thérèse in my region, recently laid off 300 people, his Liberal colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville told these workers on Mario Dumont's show to seek help from food banks and other organizations if they needed to get back on their feet and, above all, to not to take their job loss personally. She offered no solutions, and the government provided no assistance to these workers. These comments by the member for Thérèse-De Blainville were heard by tens of thousands of people in the region.

I challenge my colleague to tell me whether he thinks it is appropriate to tell 300 workers not to take their layoff personally and to go to food banks to get something to eat. I would also ask him, in passing, if it is not high time the government implemented a permanent reform of the employment insurance system.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. The situation is indeed difficult right now. I imagine that these jobs losses at the trucking company are related to the tariffs and the situation between the United States and Canada. That is precisely why we made changes to the EI system. We wanted to make it available to workers who are feeling the impacts of the U.S. trade war and the U.S. tariffs. That is also why this government is focusing on creating major projects. We want to stimulate the economy to support workers and to work with them despite the current circumstances.

I am certainly available to work with my colleagues from Quebec and across the country to come up with solutions to address local situations in this context.

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

Madam Speaker, this is my first chance to weigh in on Bill C-4 and I have a very important question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. It is about part 4 of this bill, which has nothing to do with affordability and changes to the Elections Act.

My question for him has two parts. How is it that this is included in the Affordability Act; and why is it that, under part 4 of Bill C-4, if the member would turn his attention to the last section of the bill, clause 49, it states, “deemed to have come into force on May 31, 2000”? These are the sections that relate to personal privacy information held by political parties.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I do not have exact purview ultimately on the host leader and the team that put this together, but my understanding from the conversations we had is that the reason the provision is in there is to address something that all Canadian political parties agree upon, which is that we need a unified system around data management and the disclosure therein as parties collect information. The reason we are going back to 2000 is to make sure that there is a period in time where we can all agree that the information that may have been collected since that period is unified and handled from a data storage perspective so that we can be protecting the rights of Canadians in terms of the information that may be collected by political parties.

[Sima Acan, Liberal, Oakville West, ON]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act, puts forward three practical measures that would provide immediate relief for families: lowering taxes for nearly 22 million Canadians, a savings of up to $50,000 in GST relief for first-time homebuyers and permanently removing the carbon tax as of April 1. These steps would work together to help Canadians with income, housing and energy costs at once.

We know that the affordability challenges Canadians are facing are serious, and also we know that Canadians are looking for co-operation across party lines. However, we saw many support programs voted down by the Conservatives.

Could my hon. colleague explain to us the importance of supporting Bill C-4 so that we can deliver these benefits and beyond to Canadians without delay?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for her work in this place, and for highlighting the work and the importance of this bill and what it means to everyday Canadians.

Bill C-4 is about a tax cut for 22 million Canadians. It is also about removing the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers, as the member mentioned. I can imagine that there are many people in her own riding who would benefit from that type of program as we work to build out housing across this country.

On the elimination of the consumer carbon price, as the Prime Minister said, it was a program that became highly divisive, depending on which region one was in. We wanted to make sure that we had a policy we could bring forward that would help support the environment and tackle the ability to reduce emissions, but do so in a way that brings Canadians together.

The member is right, and it is a question all members in this House need to ask themselves. We need to get this bill done before Christmas, and hopefully, with her help and the help of other colleagues, we can make that happen.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Madam Speaker, there are two whoppers I want to address that the member spoke to.

The first was his idea that prices are high because prices are set abroad and we have nothing to do with that. Of course, under this government, our foreign exchange rate, the value of the Canadian dollar, has plummeted, which is why foreign goods have gone up so much. That is why it costs so much to live in this country and why families and businesses feel poor today. The dollar is down because investment is down, because of this government's policy. For 10 years, the Liberals put in place tax-and-spend policies that have led to that outcome; that is on the government.

Second, the member mentioned that the war in Ukraine drove up prices. I live in a border community. Today, if I go to the state of Maine to buy a litre of gasoline, it is 30¢ to 40¢ cheaper in Maine than it is in New Brunswick. That is not because of the war in Ukraine. All that gasoline comes from the refinery in Saint John, it is priced in U.S. dollars on both sides, and so it is because of tax. While getting rid of the consumer carbon tax helped, all the other taxes and regulations from this government are driving up energy, and that is why the government is going to find itself in the same position in a few years. High energy prices—

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

I need to give the hon. parliamentary secretary 10 seconds to answer.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I presume during the time that member was in government that the difference in the price of gasoline between United States and Canada was equally not similar. I think maybe he ought to ask himself that question on that side.

I recognize that this government is focused on what we can control in this country. However, the member opposite should get up more often, because too many of the colleagues around him would suggest that inflation and some of the affordability challenges are tied only to domestic policy and not to other international events. We are focused on what we can control in this country, and we are going to take care of that.

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

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for York—Durham, Border Security.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am very thankful for the opportunity to rise today in the House to speak to Bill C-4, a bill respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. I will not be speaking to the other measure, but I will be speaking to the first three.

I am splitting my time today with the member for Richmond Centre—Marpole.

Let me begin with a simple truth. Some elements of this bill are based on long-standing Conservative principles, but every single one of them has been diluted, weakened or watered down by a government that has spent nearly a decade creating the very affordability crisis it now claims it wants to fix. That is why I find it fitting that, perhaps unintentionally, the bill is titled “C-4”, because the Liberals have certainly blown up affordability in this country.

Bill C-4 contains four major components: an income tax cut, a GST rebate for certain homebuyers, a partial repeal of carbon tax measures and a legislative response to a recent British Columbia court decision regarding federal political privacy rules. Again, my remarks today will be restricted to the first three.

The first part of the bill would lower the lowest income tax bracket by 0.5% in 2025 and another 0.5% in 2026, reducing it to 14%. However, Conservatives campaigned on lowering this bracket to 12.75%, which is a real cut that would have offered meaningful relief to working Canadians who are struggling to get by. Under our plan, a typical worker earning $57,000 would have saved $900 annually and a couple would have saved $1,800. The Liberal plan, in contrast, would eventually save the average Canadian just $420. This is not even enough to buy a cup of coffee a day. It would be $840 for a couple. That does not come close to matching the rising cost of groceries, rent or mortgage payments.

While Conservatives support tax relief, we also believe in fiscal responsibility. This measure would cost $27 billion over five years. Canadians deserve to know that any tax reduction will be matched by responsible spending decisions rather than higher deficits passed on to future generations. I must say the problem is that the spending goes nowhere. It does not add meaningfully to anything in the country.

The second part of Bill C-4 would offer a GST rebate on new homes, but only for first-time buyers and only until 2031, with construction deadlines extending to 2036. Once again, the Liberal government adopted an idea rooted in Conservative policy and then stripped out the very elements that would have made it effective. Conservatives proposed removing the GST from all new homes under $1.3 million, because we recognize that housing affordability is fundamentally a supply problem. More homes need to be built, and the government should encourage construction across the entire market, not just for a narrow, politically sensitive subset.

The Liberal version is so restrictive that housing experts are already warning it would have little impact on construction or affordability. The Building Industry and Land Development Association in Toronto, one of the largest homebuilding voices in Canada, has said plainly that very few new buyers are first-time buyers, meaning the policy would barely move the needle. Even finance department officials admitted the measure could push prices up, not down, which is completely counterproductive if demand rises without matching increases in supply.

The rebate is also unfair. Canadians who are widowed or divorced and need to purchase a new home would be excluded, and so would anyone who signed a purchase agreement even one day off the arbitrary May 27, 2025, cut-off.

The third major element of Bill C-4 deals with the consumer carbon tax, which Liberals now admit, after years of denial and vehemently obstructing any discussion about it, has become unaffordable for Canadian families. Even as they attempt to backtrack on the consumer tax, the industrial carbon tax, which drives up prices for farmers, processors, manufacturers and ultimately consumers, remains firmly in place. That means the carbon tax will continue to increase the price of groceries and put punitive costs on farmers, who will have to pay extra to heat their barns, dry their grain, purchase and use fertilizer and buy and operate farm equipment.

As a bit of an aside, the carbon tax is also on steel, concrete, aluminum and glass, everything required to build homes, build businesses and build factories. It is increasing the cost of everything for everyone. This is not how we stimulate an economy. Farmers, truckers, small businesses and working Canadians understand that. However, the Liberal government seems unable to grasp the obvious: A tax on everything increases the cost of everything. Conservatives will continue to advocate for a full repeal of all carbon taxes, including the industrial carbon tax, so that families and small businesses can finally get the relief they deserve.

All these measures also come with significant fiscal implications. The first part would cost $27 billion, and the second part, nearly $4 billion. As carbon taxes are potentially reversed, GST and corporate revenues will inevitably decline. Without reductions in wasteful spending, these policies risk further expanding deficits.

I must say that spending is out of control. Conservatives will put forward amendments to ensure that tax relief is paired with reasonable, responsible savings, by cutting wasteful bureaucracy, reducing excessive foreign aid and eliminating corporate handouts that benefit the well-connected, rather than working Canadians.

In conclusion, Bill C-4 simply does not go far enough to address the cost of living crisis facing Canadians. The income tax cut is too small. The GST rebate is too limited, too temporary and too specialized. The carbon tax changes leave the industrial carbon tax completely untouched. As much as my colleagues across the aisle might want to claim that this does not impact affordability, it impacts all affordability at every level of the economy. These measures borrow from Conservative ideas, but they lack the ambition and substance required to give Canadians real relief. Canadians deserve a plan that delivers a stronger tax cut for working people, broader GST relief, a full repeal of all carbon taxes, including the industrial carbon tax, and responsible spending that finally stops driving up inflationary deficits.

Canadians cannot afford half measures. They need a government that will build homes, lower taxes, scrap the carbon tax and restore hope. Conservatives will continue working to deliver that future.

It must be noted that when Conservatives previously put forward common-sense amendments at the finance committee to expand tax relief to more Canadians, Liberals filibustered and blocked those proposals. That is their record, not ours.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that his premier, the Premier of Alberta, asked to sign an agreement in acknowledgement of the valuable role of the industrial carbon tax.

I have a two-part question for the member: Does he support the Premier of Alberta's signing of a document that ultimately inflates or causes a greater increase in the carbon tax for the province of Alberta, which he also represents?

The other thing, just to be very clear, is that a lot of Conservatives like to talk tough against this legislation. They like to filibuster the legislation. Can he give us an indication about how he will actually vote on the legislation?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is two parts, two questions and too much time.

With voting, it is up to the government to convince us how to vote and to bring in the amendments required to make this something that will actually help Canadians. It is up to the government House leader to earn the support across the aisle.

As to the first part of the member's question relating to the Premier of Alberta, the grand ransom was a deal where the premier did not have a choice because the government across the way boxed everybody in. It is a fallacy to think that the compromises that had to be made are going to result in anything productive or an improved economy.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, earlier, I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister if he thought the 13.6¢ per day that a single senior in this country is going to get as relief through this particular budget bill they are putting through is enough for a single senior who is struggling to pay for their groceries. When they go to the grocery store, they are making a decision as to whether they should buy less or they should eat less quality and less quantity, so that they can afford to live.

Does the member think roughly 13.5¢ a day is enough money to give support to a senior who has contributed to this country all of their life?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, the short answer is that the question answers itself. It is absolutely ridiculous that this is the circumstance seniors find themselves in after more than 10 years of the Liberal government. Thirteen and a half cents is a pittance and an insult to the people who have worked so hard and contributed their whole lives to the building of this country. It is absolutely not acceptable, not at all.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bill does three things. First, it reduces income tax. Twenty-two million Canadians are going to get a tax break. Second, it gets rid of the GST for first-time homebuyers. Again, it is a great tax break. Third, it deals with the consumer carbon tax in terms of getting rid of it in law. These are three things I would have thought the Conservatives would vote in favour of.

Can the member not agree it is unfortunate he has not been told how he is going to be voting by the Conservative leadership? I would have figured they would have been told by now that this is good legislation and that they will be voting in favour of it.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, again, the member opposite knows full well it is fully up to the government and the House leader to convince this side of the aisle that the government has good legislation, or it could accept our amendments and incorporate them into the legislation. It is absolutely a no-brain circumstance, and that may be part of the problem on the other side of the aisle. Amend the legislation. Make it actually useful. Eliminate all of the carbon tax. Make a meaningful tax cut that meaningfully affects all Canadians, and make sure the GST comes off homebuilding for all Canadians.

[John Williamson, Conservative, Saint John—St. Croix, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member in response to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, who, in responding to my last question, presumed that when Stephen Harper was in office, the tax differential on gasoline between Maine and New Brunswick was the same. It was not. He was wrong to presume. He should check his facts and get the story straight. It was half the amount. Under the current government, the carbon tax regulations and levies have gone up. My other colleague, my colleague from Saint John, knows this well.

Could the member please inform the House what the impact of taxes is on goods? When we tax something, what happens? Does the price go up? Does that explain that big yawning differential in gas prices?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, taxes on goods make everything go up, and make everything more expensive in life. There is less—

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

The hon. member for Richmond Centre—Marpole.

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

Madam Speaker, before I address Bill C-4, I want to speak about the tragic fire in Tai Po, Hong Kong, which is the deadliest in the city in 77 years.

Like many Hong Kong Canadians in Richmond and Vancouver, I immigrated from Hong Kong 37 years ago. I still have family there, including in the affected districts. Many people in our community are grieving and shaken.

Let us acknowledge the brave young firefighter, Ho Wai-ho, who lost his life in the line of duty. As a father of a firefighter in Richmond, this loss is deeply personal. My family understands the risks first responders face every single day. Our prayers are with the families who are mourning, with those waiting for news and with a city that is hurting. May they find strength and comfort.

After 10 years of the Liberal government, Canadians are living through the worst affordability crisis in over a century. In Richmond, Vancouver and across Canada, families face record food prices and rents, and mortgage payments that have doubled for many households. Young people say that they may never own a home. Seniors tell me they cannot keep up with everyday costs. Newcomers are struggling to build a stable life. Canadians deserve better than theatrical policies; they need real help.

The most affordable thing about Bill C-4, the making life more affordable act, is the title. The truth is that this is not an affordability plan; it is political theatre. The government is boasting a small reduction in the lowest income tax rate, but as the saying goes, “Distant water cannot put out nearby fires.” The actual benefit for most families is tiny. It is a penny of relief while the budget behind the bill brings a dollar of new costs: higher payroll taxes, higher debt servicing costs than Canada spends on health transfers, benefits that fall behind inflation, mortgage renewals that have doubled for many households in Vancouver and Richmond, and the largest deficit outside of the pandemic.

Groceries are up, gas is up, insurance is up, child care wait-lists are longer and families are losing their savings and financial security due to the government's fiscal incompetence. Canadians do not need pennies or a creative accounting bill; they need a government that understands the real cost of living, rent that does not take up more than half of their income, renewal rates that do not add thousands of dollars a month to mortgages, child care they can afford and groceries that are not so expensive that families need to cut back.

Parents should not have to skip meals so their children can eat. This is the reality Canadians face after 10 years of irresponsible Liberal spending. Bill C-4 does not change that reality; it offers scraps off the table of the Liberal government and their friends.

Food bank usage in our region is at the highest level ever recorded. Across Canada, food bank visits have more than doubled since 2019, reaching over two million visits a month. Seniors in Richmond tell me that they are rationing their medication because they simply cannot afford both groceries and prescriptions. I speak with young people who have moved back in with their parents, not because they want to, but because rent in Vancouver and Richmond has become completely out of reach. This is not normal; this is a crisis.

If the government has taught Canadians anything at all, it is that just because it glitters does not mean it is made of gold. The GST rebate for first-time homebuyers is a glittering gift with charcoal inside. In Richmond, Vancouver and the vast majority of Canada, almost every new home is above the $450,000 to $550,000 price cap. This measure helps almost no one, not young families, not newcomers and not renters trying to save for a down payment. It is a gift to Brookfield's bottom line, especially with their pending U.S.-manufactured modular housing project.

Real homebuilding is slowed by red tape, slow approvals and the current government's gatekeeping. Bill C-4 would not fix that. It would not build more livable homes. It would not lower mortgage payments. It would not make rent affordable. Canadians would save a penny while making a buck, and I will add that the pennies do not come free.

Inside the affordability bill, the government has hidden that it will weaken privacy protection for federal political parties by exempting them from privacy laws. That has nothing to do with affordability. It is blatant government overreach, a bribe at the expense of Canadians' civic liberties. It is an underhanded fire sale on Canadians' personal and private information. Why hide the changes inside a bill that Canadians think is about the cost of living?

One of the clearest examples of the government's creative accounting and misleading affordability policy is its decision, in the same budget, to eliminate federal student loans for most public career training programs. This is not a small adjustment; it is a war on the working class. These programs train tens of thousands of Canadians every year for jobs we desperately need: health care workers, childhood educators, trades and technical workers, IT and cybersecurity people, hospitality workers, medical administrators and frontline community service staff.

Students rely on federal loans because they cannot pay thousands of dollars upfront. There are also people who are career transitioning, low-income people, immigrants and people supporting families while trying to survive the government's crumbling economy. The government is closing the door on Canadians trying to pursue a livelihood. The decision would remove opportunities for young Canadians and second-career workers at the exact moment our country needs trained talents the most.

The government's claim that Bill C-4 would make life affordable is just theatre, while the budget does the opposite behind the scenes. Education would be harder to access, and training would be more expensive. Bill C-4 promises affordability but would not deliver. It gives pennies while the budget takes dollars. It glitters but hides unrelated privacy changes inside an affordability bill. It would do nothing for struggling Canadians. Families in Richmond, Vancouver and across Canada would only continue paying more each and every month.

Canadians deserve better than charcoal this Christmas; they deserve a real government with real and honest solutions. Canadians deserve a Conservative government.

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

Madam Speaker, right off the top, just to echo the member, my prayers and thoughts are with the 150-plus people who fell victim to the Hong Kong fires. I appreciate the member's making reference to that.

I have a few fascinating questions. I am sure the member is aware that the Conservative Party today is really a far-right political entity, and I understood him to have been a candidate for the NDP back in the day. That is a pretty big leap, from a progressive party to a far-right party. Could he could provide a comment on that, with respect to the bill?

The other thing is that I am told you are still a current city councillor. Is it because you do not have confidence in the leader?

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

The member has to speak through the Chair. I am not a city councillor anywhere.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, is it because of a lack of confidence in the leadership of the Conservative Party that the member is not giving up his seat at the council level?

Finally, could the member provide his thoughts on whether or not he will be voting in favour of the legislation?

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

Madam Speaker, while I listened to my colleague on the other side, I realized only one thing: The Liberals have copied from policies the Conservatives advocate.

In addition, as a city councillor, I have the privilege and advantage of listening to people right on the ground. They are telling me day in day out that they are having a very big problem with affordability, which Bill C-4 would not address.