Honourable senators, the Senate is resolved into a Committee of the Whole to consider the subject matter of Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.

Honourable senators, in a Committee of the Whole, senators shall address the chair but need not stand. Under the Rules, the speaking time is 10 minutes, including questions and answers, but, as ordered, if a senator does not use all of their time, the balance can be yielded to another senator. The committee will receive the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance and National Revenue. I would now invite Minister Champagne to enter, accompanied by his officials.

(Pursuant to the order of the Senate, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne and his officials were escorted to seats in the Senate Chamber.)

Minister, welcome to the Senate. I would ask you to introduce your officials and to make your opening remarks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My officials are right here. Would you please come to the bar? I think it’s best if they introduce themselves, if that’s okay with you, of course, Mr. Chair.

Good evening, senators. I’m the Director of Operations for Democratic Institutions at the Privy Council Office.

My name is Maude Lavoie. I’m the Assistant Deputy Minister, Tax Policy Branch, Finance Canada.

Good evening. Gervais Coulombe, Acting Director General, Sales Tax Legislation, Finance Canada.

Thank you, and welcome.

Senators, thank you for having me. It is a privilege and a pleasure. This is the first time I’ve appeared before a Senate Committee of the Whole in my 10 years as a parliamentarian.

Naturally, it’s a great honour for me to address the Senate on the subject of Bill C-4, a bill to build a stronger, more resilient economy for all Canadians.

As part of our ambitious plan to build the strongest economy in the G7, Bill C-4 will implement a middle-class tax cut — something that our fellow Canadians are looking forward to. It will help first-time homebuyers afford a new home across our nation, formally remove the consumer carbon price from law and make amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Faced with economic uncertainty caused by illegal and unjust American tariffs, Canadians have called for a serious plan for change to address this new economic landscape and the rising cost of living. They’ve asked for change that puts more money in their pockets, change that builds the strongest economy in the G7 and change that builds “One Canadian Economy,” not 13.

With Bill C-4, our government is delivering on that mandate, which received unanimous support in the House of Commons — something that does not happen every time.

Thank you, minister.

We will now move on to questions. We have a long list of senators who wish to ask questions, so I respectfully inform you, minister, that senators appreciate concise answers.

Good evening, minister. It is always a pleasure to see you. As I was saying, we spent the afternoon with LeBlanc, and now we have Champagne. What a lovely way to end the day.

Minister, speaking of champagne, it is rather costly, and so is the bill. It sets out a tax cut, a GST rebate and the repeal of the carbon tax. Can you give us an idea of the total estimated cost of your bill over five years? How can all of this be funded without increasing the deficit?

First off, I want to thank you for your question, senator. It is a pleasure and privilege to see you, whether in this chamber or elsewhere.

As far as the tax cut is concerned, we are talking about a measure that will cost $27.2 billion over five years. As for the GST rebate, we are talking about $3.9 billion over five years. Adding up these figures will give you a sense of the scale of what we’ve done.

I also think this measure meets a need among Canadians at a pivotal moment for the Canadian economy. At a time when we are also facing unprecedented tariffs, we want to give families a little boost. People asked us for two things during the election campaign. I am not just talking about our party, but all members of Parliament, because we got their unanimous support.

The first was that we give them a hand. Affordability is the number one issue for people. The second issue was housing. The first bill we are introducing in the House addresses both of these issues. I would say that, for communities across the country, these are the two issues that resonated most as the election campaign was wrapping up and we were asking voters how we could respond to their needs.

Speaking of housing, the GST rebate applies to properties worth up to $1.5 million. This may exclude buyers in urban areas, where housing prices are higher. How do you justify using the same eligibility thresholds for buyers in Vancouver and in Shawinigan? In your riding, I found eight houses for sale for more than $1.5 million on the Centris website. However, the average sale price of single-family homes in Vancouver is $2 million. People in your region will be very happy, but for those in Vancouver, the measure may not achieve the desired result.

You’re right to say that not that many houses in Shawinigan are worth $1.5 million. However, time will tell.

I do want to remind you, senator, that this is an affordability measure. In the bill, there are two tests. One has to do with first-time homebuyers. It has to be a new home. It’s a question of affordability, but also of increasing the new housing stock in the housing supply. The measures in the bill affect roughly 47,000 new homes across the country. If we look at the number of homes worth more than $1.2 million or $1.5 million in Canada that would qualify under the bill, we are talking about 1,000 homes. That number gives you an idea of the ratio. That is why our measure is targeted. If it affects only 1,000 homes worth between $1 million and $1.5 million, that should give you a better idea of the proportions. You have 47,000 homes on one side and 1,000 homes on the other.

The provision in the bill is an affordability measure that meets this objective. I’m glad you asked this question, because it gives me the opportunity to explain certain things to the Senate. I have been asked this question many times. I have been asked why we don’t use a different threshold. The Department of Finance analyzed the data and found that only 47,000 new homes would qualify under this program. Keep in mind that there are two tests. You have to be a first-time homebuyer, and it has to be a new home. There are 47,000 of those, and if you apply the same test, the number drops to 1,000 for homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million.

Our goal was to promote affordability. Canadians are, of course, making a collective effort to help those who want to get on the property ladder. At the same time, this allows us to increase the supply of new homes on the real estate market. These two tests yield those figures.

Why is it just for first-time homebuyers? If you really want to have an impact on the economy and renew the housing stock or the portfolio of residential properties, why not open up this GST credit to all homebuyers? The number you provided is not very high. We’re talking about maybe $400 million.

If we compare it to your tax cut, which is much more costly, in my opinion, it’s basically the cost of one cappuccino a week. That is not going to keep the economy going. For homebuyers, a GST credit would have a much greater impact. When people buy a new home, it frees up their old home. Freeing up homes also helps renew this portfolio because of renovations. The economic impact would have been multiplied tenfold if you had given this GST credit to all buyers of new homes. Why did you decide to limit this credit to first-time buyers? I agree that we need to help first-time homebuyers, but we also want to have an economic impact.

I want to come back to your first question. Obviously, you will understand that the fiscal cost would not be the same. We decided to cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. Since the measure targets the first tax bracket, all taxpayers in Canada will be entitled to a tax cut as of July 1, if the Senate passes the bill and it receives Royal Assent. This measure will affect many Canadians, as 22 million taxpayers will benefit. For some, the amount may seem modest, but for a two-income family, the savings could amount to $840. Considering that the median income in Canada is between $37,000 and $40,000, in such a context, for some families, that could be a significant boost at a time when, as you know, our fiscal framework is facing a number of challenges at the same time. Our top priority was the issue of affordability.

Getting back to your main question, it’s important to remember that what we’re actually doing here is asking all taxpayers to help people. We decided that what we want to do is help young families, help people trying to get into the housing market. I’m sure you agree that our children are finding it tough to get into today’s housing market. You mentioned numbers that reflect the reality in some big Canadian cities. It’s a massive undertaking for a lot of young people.

Look at my daughters, for example. If they wanted to buy a house today, depending on which neighbourhood or city they’re looking in, they would have to have saved up a lot of money to qualify. We really wanted to adopt an affordability measure to help young families get on the property ladder while increasing the housing stock. We could have done things differently, but we made this choice to stay within a fiscal framework, for one thing. Had we expanded the measure, the fiscal cost would have been different. At the same time, these two measures taken together will cut taxes for 22 million Canadians and have a positive impact on housing. These two measures will be a big help for many Canadian families.

There would have been a greater impact if you had granted the GST credit for all new homes. However, I understand that there was a political choice to be made.

You mentioned your daughters, so I will tell you about my daughter. She just bought her first home, which is not new, and she needs to remodel the kitchen. Your bill has a provision on substantial renovations. What constitutes a substantial renovation under the legislation? I tried looking for a definition, but I could not find one. Does replacing a kitchen constitute a substantial renovation?

It’s great that your daughter is getting into real estate. It will help the economy. I could ask the officials to answer you in greater detail, but to keep things simple, the bill relies on existing definitions taken from other enabling acts to avoid creating a new definition for concepts like first-time homebuyer. We used the existing tax rules to avoid creating a new category.

As you know, one of the issues that we often encounter is the fact that the tax rules are hard for families to interpret. That’s why we relied on definitions that already exist in various enabling statutes to define what a first-time homebuyer is and determine which substantial renovations could be recognized. I will leave it to the officials to answer your question or to get back to you with a written answer. I can ask them to speak to you this evening and answer your question in greater detail, because these definitions are part of other regulations and enabling acts. As I said, we haven’t created new categories or new rules for these definitions. We relied on existing rules to avoid further complicating a measure that we want to keep simple.

Minister, I hope you’ll understand that I may have to interrupt you at times. I apologize, but I am the timekeeper.

Welcome to the Senate, minister, and welcome to your officials. It is wonderful to see you.

My questions today have to do with Bill C-4, Part 4. I welcome the confirmation in Bill C-4 that registered parties and eligible parties are subject to federal oversight under the Canada Elections Act. I think that is a very good idea.

The role of political parties in elections is at the heart of Canada’s democracy. Research shows that 99% of MPs elected to the House of Commons over the last 30 years were elected as representatives of a political party, so they are very important in our system.

Minister, can you explain why the government has chosen not to implement the very clear recommendations made by the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, to Parliament on how to better protect electors’ privacy by applying the broadly accepted privacy principles and oversight mechanism that apply to other key federal institutions? These recommendations were made by the Chief Electoral Officer after the forty-third and forty-fourth elections. The provisions in Bill C-4 do not meet even the CEO’s minimum level of protection of electors’ privacy.

Further, can you be clear about why the government has not implemented other important recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer, for example, the collection of demographic information on electoral participants? Thank you.

Thank you very much, senator. Thank you for raising Part 4, about which, obviously, there have been some questions. You highlighted in your question the need for a national regime, for federal parties to have one common regime across the nation, as opposed to a patchwork that you would have if you left jurisdiction to provinces, for whom I understand some of the questions have been raised.

The other question that will certainly come is this: Why have we chosen that vehicle, Bill C-4, to do that? I would say it is because it was the first opportunity since 2000 to clarify the intent of the House to have exclusive federal jurisdiction over privacy matters with respect to political parties.

If you look at the current act and the enhancement that you have under the act, you will see there are a number of things that I think we have taken into consideration, because now political parties will have to explain not only what they do but how they do it. They will have to have a privacy policy. It will have to be published, it will have to be in both official languages and it will have to be in plain language. They will have to have a privacy officer.

So it is not just that we are going back to the original intent, which is what we want to clarify. You will see that in Bill C-4, there are a number of enhancements to the regime that already exists, which will all be subject to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections.

We also added administrative monetary penalties in the event of a breach. I think we will have a stronger regime than what we do now. If the House so chooses in the future, that could always be complemented. I think the urgency behind acting is to ensure that we have one national system, one set of rules that would apply to all federal political parties. I think that is preferable to having patchwork legislation that would cover federal political parties. That is why you saw the House adopt that unanimously.

Minister, the National Disability Network, March of Dimes Canada, and some of your colleagues in the other place are very concerned about the unforeseen consequences that cutting taxes from 15% to 14% could have on Canadians who receive the disability tax credit and the medical expense tax credit. According to them, reducing the basic income tax rate would reduce the dollar value of these two tax credits for those Canadians. We know that they already face significantly higher daily costs due to disability. We can all agree that this is surely not the intent of this measure.

I have two questions for you. Are you aware that this tax cut might not fully and equitably benefit people with disabilities? Do you intend to correct this unfortunate situation by making an amendment to Bill C-4, like these organizations are asking you to do?

Senator, thank you for raising this important issue, which could affect many people. Some of those watching us from home tonight will surely be asking themselves this question, so I’m glad you brought it up.

This matter was studied and analyzed at the Department of Finance. We need to examine the taxpayer’s situation. Some 4.5 million people claim the tax credit you mentioned. When we look at the net result, they will be better off because, on the one hand, there is a tax cut and, on the other hand, there is also a decrease in the tax credit. When you calculate the net effect of the two measures, the vast majority of people who receive the credit will be in a better position than before. That is our analysis.

When tax measures like this are introduced, there are always consequences. We made sure that the vast majority of people who receive this non-refundable tax credit will also benefit from the tax cut. This tax cut will be greater than the reduction in the credit, so in terms of net result, those individuals will be better off.

Thank you for your response. I understand that we are talking about the vast majority, but I would like to clarify something. Apart from the vast majority, will this group of people with disabilities be unfairly impacted? Would you agree with me on that point?

I would like to correct something. We are talking about the vast majority of people who receive the credit; we are not talking about the vast majority of citizens, but about all those who are eligible for the tax credit. I am talking about the vast majority. These cases would be exceptional, because the individual would have to have more tax credits than they are claiming on the other side. The vast majority of people who receive this tax credit will end up better off than before. Studies have been done on this.

I am afraid I will disappoint you, senator. I would say it is because it was the first time we could do it. It also reflects the intent of the House. I appreciate that some people may disagree, but the House wanted to clarify that this was the intent not just today but back in 2000. There is nothing new in that. It is just to reaffirm that when we modernized the Canada Elections Act — I think it was in 2023 — there were already clarification sections on that. As a lawyer, I would say it is just to clarify the intent of the legislature back in 2000. It was always meant to be the case, so there is nothing new in that.

On the other hand, I would say, to those who may have a different view, if you look at the provision in the act, it strengthened the regime to what it is today. The House certainly believed that it was better to have one national framework, one standard where you have a number of rules where parties must publish their privacy policy, must have a privacy officer, are subject to penalties and could even face deregistration as federal political parties if they fail to abide by the standards.

I would say there are a number of checks and balances in the bill, but I appreciate that some people may have a different view on that. Certainly, under the Canada Elections Act, I think it is a framework that is well recognized around the world as one of the best frameworks for democracy, and it has served Canada well for a very long time.

Minister Champagne, thank you so much for being with us today, together with your team. It is always a pleasure seeing you.

Minister Champagne, the repeal of the consumer carbon pricing and fuel charge provisions marks a significant shift in the government’s policy. Could you please explain how the government will continue to support emission reductions while ensuring affordability for Canadians, given the loss of the carbon tax related to this item?

Senator, it’s a real pleasure also to see you inside this house. It’s a real privilege to appear before you.

You are quite right. It’s a very good question that people will ask. This is a commitment we’ve made and, obviously, in the act, we’re just confirming what we’ve announced — that it would be effective as of April 1, 2025.

This is really to give relief to the consumer part of the act, as you know, because we’re still expecting — and Part 2 of that act is still very much in place with large emitters, which will obviously have to contribute to financing efforts on climate change.

I would also put that in the broad context of a number of things that we have proposed in terms of the incentives to make sure Canada not only fights climate change but leads around the world, with all of the incentives and the investment tax credits. You may have seen that we have a suite of investment tax credits which have allowed us, for example, to create the most comprehensive battery supply chain. Even Bloomberg ranked Canada ahead of China. It’s not every day that we are ranked ahead of China when it comes to industry, but Bloomberg recently ranked Canada ahead of China when it comes to the battery ecosystem that we have created in Canada. That just tells you that Canada is very much on top of that.

Prime Minister Carney said that we want to be an energy superpower because I think we have what it takes in this country to be that. We can exploit those resources responsibly and sustainably, with the best possible practices that you will find around the world.

On the one hand, we’re helping consumers, but, on the other hand, we have a commitment to fight climate change, which is really the existential threat of our century. We may feel we now have a number of things providing us headwinds, but I think that this house and all Canadians are still very much concerned that we maintain our efforts to fight climate change together.

Thank you. I’m also wondering if the government is exploring any alternative mechanisms, such as investment in clean technology or home energy efficiency, to help households transition to a post-carbon-pricing environment.

I’m happy you asked that question, senator, because I want Canada to be the supplier of choice to the world. When it comes to green technology, Canada can really be that supplier of choice to the world. The world is looking to Canada in many respects. We are a magnet for talent. We have strong industry. We are one of the few countries that produce cars, planes and ships. We have critical minerals. We have energy, and we’re the only country in the G7 that has a free trade agreement with all the other G7 nations.

On the one hand, I look at the world and I see there are challenges, but when I hosted the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors, I can tell you there were a number of people who would have liked to be in my chair. When you look at the world and at Canada’s debt-to-GDP ratio, we are probably in a better place than many to meet the challenges of this new world we are now facing.

That’s why I’m confident in the future, and that’s why this act to provide affordability, build more houses and address the issues with respect to carbon pricing is the kind of thing that Canadians want to see. They want us to think big. They want us to be ambitious. They want us to build a resilient Canadian economy, and we must all live up to that moment.

I yield the balance of my time to Senator Deacon.

Minister, you know I’m passionate about privacy and data rights and the Digital Charter and modernizing privacy protections for Canadians. We have spoken about it many times. As such, I also have to ask about Part 4 of Bill C-4, the making life more affordable for Canadians act.

It proposes a privacy regime that provides no consent, no reporting and no independent oversight when federal political parties collect data. It’s retroactive to 2000 — 25 years ago. Privacy experts and editorial boards have strongly criticized this proposed measure. Part 4 risks eroding the trust that the Prime Minister has worked hard to earn from Canadians.

Can you help us understand how Part 4 helps Canadians in this period of geopolitical and economic instability? What makes it an urgent priority, given the patchwork-preventing amendment that confirmed federal political party jurisdiction in the Budget Implementation Act, 2023? It has already been done. Is there a specific deadline that is forcing the government to pass these particular amendments right now?

Thank you, senator. I want to thank you for your work on privacy. You’ve always been a source of guidance and thoughtfulness on that, and I’m grateful for that; I just want to say that. That’s also the role of the Senate, to work with us.

On this particular piece of legislation, let’s go back to the essence of it. We’re going back to 2000. We’re just telling the courts the intent of the House back in 2000.

In addition to that, we’re improving the regime. Look at what is currently in the act and what will be added if it’s passed by this house and gets Royal Assent. You will have a privacy officer. You’ll have a statement on the types of personal information collected with respect to all the activities — what’s retained, what’s disclosed, what’s disposed of. We are in sync with the regime, I would say respectfully, senator.

Why do we need to do that? Because we need to provide predictability. We need to tell the courts the intent of the House. This time, it’s not only the intent of one party, but it’s the unanimous support of all members of Parliament who are telling the courts what the intent was back in 2000 to avoid any possible misinterpretation of the intent of the House. That is our role as legislators: to provide clarity so the courts can interpret the will of the people as expressed in the bill we passed and how we did that in 2000.

Thank you, minister. I’m struggling. Canadians want greater control and transparency. They want to be able to provide consent, access, withdraw personal data and have independent oversight. This bill doesn’t provide independent oversight. The two parliamentary officers who are responsible in this area, the Privacy Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, are recommending something very different. It’s out of line with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA; the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR; even the Consumer Privacy Protection Act, or CPPA.

I’m just wondering, if not now, when? When will the government introduce legislation that will address the lack of privacy rights for political parties — legislation that will grant Canadians that? Would you consider amending or removing Part 4 until proper privacy protections are put in place?

Again, senator, I appreciate the question. You know I worked hard to update our privacy legislation in the former House. I worked hard and, sadly, we did not achieve what we wanted. I agree with you; there’s a need to update some of the privacy laws. But when it comes to federal political parties, the act that’s going to govern privacy is going to be under the Canada Elections Act. That is the will of the House.

That’s why I say I appreciate what you’re saying, but it’s still going to be subject to the Chief Electoral Officer. It’s still subject to the Commissioner of Canada Elections. It’s subject to monetary penalties. It could even lead to a deregistering of a federal political party, which would be extraordinary under any circumstances.

Why did we need to do that? We needed to provide clarity as to our intent back in 2000, and we needed to send a signal to the courts about the will of the House with respect to that. We need a uniform framework with enhanced provisions. I’m sure the senator has read the act; there are enhanced provisions. Still, the government can eventually decide to amend that further in terms of the Canada Elections Act. For now, we believe this is what is needed to provide a uniform set of rules.

As I said, I appreciate that some may wish otherwise, but it’s rare in the House that you have unanimous consent on any subject. I would think the concerns of the different parties have been taken into account, and the House has spoken.

Minister, it is good to see you. Congratulations on your appointment as finance minister. I want to commend you. The aspects of Part 4 are really not in your straight-line responsibilities of the Elections Act and the Privacy Act, but I think your representations here this evening are much appreciated.

Could you expand a bit on why you think it’s important that these amendments received unanimous support in the other place? With regard to some of the concerns that have been shared, which are absolutely legitimate, we’re closer to the beginning of this Parliament than to the end, obviously. There is nothing in this bill that would preclude the government from moving to address some of the issues that have been raised so far this evening.

Thank you, senator. It’s good to see you in the Senate and to answer your questions.

Your question is a very important one. It goes to the member. I want to be very forthcoming. There is an urgency for us to clarify what the uniform standard is across the country to avoid a patchwork of policies. I’m very sensitive to the questions asked and comments made by other senators.

One thing I hear a lot about as well is organizations, and here I’m not even referring to federal political parties, just organizations. As you know, senator, I’ve been wanting a federal standard, because when you have 10 provinces and you have to deal with that, the patchwork does not help us to achieve a common denominator or standard.

In this bill, senator, I won’t say there are improvements. I hear senators who say that one could have decided to go farther, but there is already improvement to where we are today. That is because the act will require that you publish the privacy policy, how you will deal with the information and what information you will collect. You have monetary penalties for the political parties. As I said, that could even lead to a deregistration. That’s a fairly strong remedy for people who would not address privacy concerns in line with their privacy policy. So we’re moving a step forward.

Now what I am hearing from the honourable senator is that in the future Parliament might decide to go farther. Perhaps, but what I’m saying to the honourable senator today is that it’s a step forward. It reflects the intent, because we need to clarify what the intent was because we need to provide guidance to the courts. As a lawyer, I would like nothing better than to have the House clearly saying that the intent back in 2000 was that this was a national regime that would be governed under the Canada Elections Act. With this act, we will provide the clarity to the court so that we can have one uniform national standard.

Minister, thank you for being with us today, and welcome for your first appearance before a Senate Committee of the Whole.

Bill C-4 is being touted as a key affordability measure at a time when millions of Canadians are having a hard time making ends meet.

What surprises me about this bill is that low-income people — who pay little or no income tax — are likely to benefit the least. Economists say that refundable tax credits are a better tool, a very efficient tool for helping vulnerable populations.

Have you thought of other measures or considered bolstering refundable tax credits rather than lowering the marginal tax rate for everyone?

Thank you for your question, senator. It’s a privilege to be with you this evening.

You’re right, and that’s why we decided to cut taxes for the first income tax bracket, because we could have made a different choice. However, by picking the first tax bracket, which is for people earning $57,375 or less, we could be sure of reaching more Canadians. We are talking about 22 million Canadians. Everyone who files a tax return will benefit from this measure as of July 1.

The main measures we are proposing will go to the first two tax brackets. However, based on 2025 figures, 45% of all this will go to the first tax bracket, and 41% will go to the second. Low-income earners and the first two tax brackets will receive 86% of the tax relief.

We could have made a different choice, but picking that first tax bracket is how we’ll help the lowest-income people in the country. As of 2026, 44% of this measure will affect people in the first tax bracket. This is probably one of the most direct measures we could implement. I’m willing to suggest that leaving money in people’s pockets has got to be better than giving them a tax credit, because it’s money. As you know, the source deduction tables will be updated as of July 1 if this measure is passed. That will be an immediate, concrete and direct way for us to reduce the amount of tax these people have to pay.

Welcome back, minister, to the Senate Chamber in your new role. I just want to talk a little bit about co‑op housing. I’m pleased to see that it is talked about in the bill regarding amendments to the Excise Tax Act. It doesn’t help a whole lot in this bill, but I’d just like to get your sense of the importance of co-op housing and whether you see other measures you might take in terms of affordable housing.

I have a quick comment on the complementary piece of legislation we’re looking at regarding the ability of the Governor-in-Council to opt out of legislation. We’ve heard a lot of concerns about that, and I encourage you to consider constraining that power in Bill C-5, but I’d like your thoughts about co-op housing.

Thank you, senator. It’s a pleasure and a privilege to be with you tonight.

You’re right that this is not the only measure. Obviously, housing is probably one of the most concerning aspects Canadians are facing across the nation. Affordability and housing are probably the two things that people talk about the most because that is affecting people in their daily lives. It is something applicable across the nation.

The GST elimination and rebate are obviously just one part of a suite of measures we have seen on housing. This government has tackled housing a bit like we’ve done since the Second World War. It is a wartime effort to build more and make sure affordable housing is available. I can name the Canada Housing Benefit and the Federal Community Housing Initiative. We’ve invested significant money into supporting co-op and communities to build affordable housing. That’s why I am saying that you have to take the measure in Bill C-4 as part of a suite of measures to ensure that we offer as many opportunities to Canadians as possible so that they can afford a home in our country. Honestly, there’s no reason in Canada, in a country as big as ours and with all the industries we have, that we cannot tackle this challenge together.

The Prime Minister has been very clear about the ambition that we have to build more houses in this country — to the tune of 500,000. It’s an effort that we’ve seen. We’re also taking lessons from the book after the Second World War. You may have seen the booklets when people had approved plans. This country knows how to do big things. When we act collectively and face challenges, we are able to tackle them.

What we have in Bill C-4 is just one measure in a much larger suite of measures to address the housing issue across our nation.

Minister, welcome. It’s a pleasure to have you here tonight, and I thank you for arranging this morning’s tech briefing.

My question relates to Part 2 of Bill C-4. Notwithstanding that a prospective purchaser is a first-time buyer in the marketplace, the legislation imposes further restrictions beyond just being a first-time buyer: subparagraph 5(2.1)(e)(i), the need to occupy immediately upon closing, and subparagraph 5(2.1)(e)(ii), the need to declare the home as their place of residence. It seems to be a belt-and-suspenders approach to a critical issue of market entry.

There’s a very large group of first-time buyers who are not ready to occupy but wish to enter the marketplace and who do not benefit from this legislation. This group includes, to name a few, soon-to-be-married couples, recent graduates, those newly employed in the labour force and even individuals who live in their parents’ basement. This legislation prevents them from benefiting, because they’re not ready to occupy and declare their newly acquired home as their principal residence.

If the legislation was created to kick-start a hurting industry, we should have looked at ways to make the sea of first-time buyers larger and not smaller. A first-time buyer who chooses to rent his newly acquired home is no less a first-time buyer than one who decides to occupy. Why make the distinction?

Thank you, senator, for your question. It’s a very thoughtful question, and I’m grateful that you asked it.

We have to go back to the intent of the bill, which is affordability. This is to help young families — as in the case that you presented — and others buy their first home, a newly built home in this country. I don’t think it was meant to be seen as an investment.

Let’s keep in mind that we started with affordability. The bill’s title includes the word “affordability.” Affordability — at least when I read it — would to me mean helping a young family to buy their first new home.

I appreciate that we could have done things differently, but when you look at the affordability criteria first, this should be a home that you will occupy as opposed to an investment, because this is really meant for you to be able to get into that first home as opposed to, perhaps, having that as an investment and renting it out.

I appreciate that we could have done things differently, but I can assure you that the north star we had when we did that was really, “How can we help?”

We have heard from students. We have heard from young families. We have even heard from people in their thirties who are trying to buy a new home for the first time. We really wanted to make sure that it would be people who would occupy that residence and at the same time increase the stock of newly built homes in the country.

Minister, thank you for being here this evening. I want to change the discussion a bit.

According to the Market Basket Measure, 10% of Canadians live in poverty, and that is a measure that is, frankly, not sensitive enough and leaves many Canadians behind. One in five Canadian children lives in poverty.

What poverty reduction strategies did you consider in your deliberations around how to address affordability — and not just affordability for the middle class?

What other steps is your government planning to take to reduce poverty, especially for very low-income Canadians and vulnerable populations in real need?

Thank you, senator. I want to thank you for that question, because I think you need to see Bill C-4 as part of a broader suite of things we have done to tackle poverty in this country. I am thinking of the National School Food Program for children, which our government introduced. I don’t have the numbers with me now, but it is hundreds of thousands of children who do not go hungry in the morning when attending school.

I think this is who we are as Canadians. Tackling poverty should always be front and centre in what we do.

You could look at affordability also when we decrease or reduce taxes for 22 million Canadians. That’s going to help as well. The median income in the country is around $37,000 to $40,000. When you give a family with two incomes a break of up to $840, that helps. There is also the Canada Child Benefit.

There is a suite of measures that are trying to tackle the very important issue that you mentioned: reducing poverty in our country and child poverty in particular.

We have had the backs of Canadians when things were tough for them, and I think you can count on us to continue to treat affordability as one of our key priorities.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that all ministers need to think along these lines to ensure that in what we do, we ask how we can better serve Canadians, have a government fit for the 21st century and tackle poverty, which is one of the big issues in our country.

Welcome, minister, to the Senate, and congratulations.

My question concerns the eligibility criteria for Canadians under the first-time home buyer rebate. Paragraph 4(2.1)(b) specifies that the agreement of purchase and sale must be entered into after May 26, 2025, and before May 26, 2031 — May 26 being the date the bill was first introduced in the other place.

While I understand the government needed to establish a clear start date for the rebate’s application, was any consideration given to using the date of closing or possession rather than the date of purchase as the basis for eligibility?

I ask because it is a matter of discussion. As you may be aware, there’s an online petition advocating for this change, which has already garnered 2,500 signatures.

I appreciate the question. As you might expect, senator, it’s a question I have received before.

You want to have the date be the moment when people make the decision to purchase that house. Remember, the objective of this act is to provide affordability and eliminate GST for homes up to $1 million, and it needs to be a new home.

The practice, in terms of tax policy, is always tied to the date of contract. These are long-established fiscal policies of the Department of Finance Canada, and it is always the date of the act, when people are actually making the decision to purchase the home.

Looking back, the intent was to increase the stock of homes. People who have already contracted and are waiting for closing would not fit within the objective of the act that we present. As I’m told by the official, it’s a long-established practice where tax incentives are tied to the date of the contract to ensure that this is the time at which people make their decision.

If you look at the closing date, you could have unintended consequences, because closing, as the honourable senator knows, is not necessarily something that people would have control over.

But when they make that decision to purchase that house, that is the time. The policy objective we have is giving them the tax rebate; that will incentivize them to make that decision. That’s why we selected that date — the date of contract — as the one most aligned with our policy. Also, with respect to long-established tax policy in this country, you tie that to the date of contract.

I appreciate that some people would say “in lock” or “out of lock,” but this is tax policy, so you want to do it at the date when people made the decision. That’s the fairest way to pick a date, because any date you pick, there will be people on one side of the fence or the other. The fairest thing that we could do was to pick the date when they make the decision.

Welcome, minister.

Bill C-4’s tax cut purports to make life more affordable, yet one in four people — 9.6 million Canadians — with the lowest incomes and at the greatest risk of homelessness and hunger will not receive any benefit at all. This tax cut will cost Canadians $5.7 billion per year, while 75% of the benefits will go to Canada’s top 40% of earners.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives calls it “. . . a pricey measure that disproportionately benefits the rich . . . .”

The government can invest meaningfully in the resilience and capacity of Canadian economies and communities by ensuring that all are empowered to contribute. I would like to know when the government will be introducing measures to provide adequate income support for those most in need.

Thank you, senator, for your question. It is a very important question. The choice we made is probably the broadest possible measure you can have in terms of affecting 22 million Canadians. If you look at 2025, for people earning $57,375 and under, they will receive 45% of that benefit. If you look at 2026, it will go to 44%. I would say the vast majority of the tax benefit we’re providing is for the first income bracket of people who earn $57,375 and under. We have really targeted it to go to the first bracket of taxpayers to ensure it is the broadest possible measure.

To your point, senator, we have a suite of measures to support Canadians: the Canada Child Benefit, the National School Food Program and the child care benefit. We have done a number of things to support families, and we should at a time when we are facing unprecedented challenges. Families, communities and workers are expecting their government to step up and be there for them. I can assure you that it is a part of our DNA to be there for Canadians in a time of need.

I’ll underscore the fact that we are still not meeting the needs of the people who are most visible. By saying that you are reaching those most in need, many people in this country would think you are intending to assist the people who are visibly homeless and hungry.

Given that Bill C-4’s tax cut will primarily benefit higher earners, if the government chooses to proceed with this cut, will it at least commit to paying the $5.7 billion annual cost not off the backs of those with the least — through cuts to programs and supports — but by ensuring the wealthiest pay their fair share, including by finally recuperating the revenue lost through offshore tax avoidance and evasion, as revealed in things like the Panama Papers and Pandora Papers? I note that since Senator Downe spoke about this, Canada still has not recouped a single dollar of the estimated $83 million owed just due to the Panama Papers, yet economies like Iceland, with 340,000 people, have recouped some $25 million. It strikes me there are other options that could be looked at which would be more beneficial to more Canadians and also not cost all of us more.

Thank you, senator. I can tell you that I’m a hawk when it comes to making sure people pay their fair share. Financial crime is something I led at the G7. You may have seen in the communiqué from the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors, there was an initiative by Canada with respect to financial crime, including money laundering, as well as going after organized crime and ensuring we coordinate better so that we can enforce our laws and ensure we tackle the issue of money laundering. I am very much in the same spirit as you. You will see more on that. Canada was leading at the G7. There is more work to be done. As you know, these criminal organizations are becoming increasingly sophisticated. We had a number of people talking about the use of quantum technologies and artificial intelligence, or AI. We’re in a world where we need to put in additional resources.

You can count on me to be a hawk on these things. I brought that to the G7, suggesting to colleagues that we should work closer together to tackle that and to ensure we put all of our resources behind it to ensure everyone pays their fair share.

Thank you, minister, for being with us. It is always a pleasure to see you. For the record, minister, you know that I support good Conservative policy, even when it is found —

I needed translation to make sure that I got that right.

— even, minister, when it is found in Liberal government legislation. However, I am disappointed that you have been a little bit careless in your implementation of it. You did not match our income tax reduction to 12.75%, you are only offering a GST rebate on new homes and you have not removed the industrial carbon tax. These omissions make the policy far less effective than what was originally in the Conservative Party’s program.

Since Canadians need maximum assistance at this time, why did you not implement the policies in their entirety instead of a watered-down version, minister?

Senator, it is always a pleasure to see you. I can tell you that even your colleagues in the House of Commons were smiling when they voted in favour of our bill, senator. They were smiling, and I could see it in their faces and their eyes; they were glowing when they voted because now they are voting for tax cuts, reducing the GST for first-time homebuyers and removing carbon pricing for consumers. Senators, I have been in the other house for 10 years, and I can tell you that I saw so many smiling faces and glowing eyes voting in favour of a government bill that cuts taxes. I think we made their day that day.

Minister, that wasn’t my question. You keep missing the point. Obviously, we support an initiative, but we are just asking why you didn’t take it in its entirety instead of creating a watered-down version.

Obviously, we support Conservative policy. It has been a radical change for your government from the last 10 years because we heard very different messages in this place when you visited us in the past. I’m glad that you are turning over a new leaf and you see the light — finally — but we want to know why you are not more orthodox in taking the Conservative policies.

It is interesting because on the one hand, your colleagues voted for great Liberal policy, but at the same time, you advocate for fiscal responsibility. This made your day because we created a tax cut, but at the same time, we were rigorous when it comes to fiscal management and the fiscal framework. That is why I said that about your colleagues in the House of Commons on that day — senator, I know that you want us to be orthodox, but I’m Catholic, and I can tell you that on that day, everyone was cheering.

We all have the same objective: Orthodox or Catholic, we want the best for taxpayers and Canadians.

Minister, you know that we opposed the carbon tax for years, we were the first to propose removing the GST from home purchases and we were advocating for a reduction in income tax rates while your party was actively opposing all of those policies. Although we lost the election, I’m pleased that we won the policy debate after years of my good friend Senator Gold opposing removing the GST on new homes.

I’m wondering if you will tell us at what point you began to recognize that our position was the right one. Was there something specific that changed in your point of view? What was the moment that triggered the decision that this was good policy and we’re going to embrace it?

Senator, this is great; now I feel like I’m in the House for once.

Senator, we have always advocated for fiscal responsibility. We have always advocated for Canadian taxpayers. We always advocated to build a strong country. I would think that you would be pleased with the ways and means motion that we introduced. It was the first act we introduced in the House, and it was to reduce taxes. As someone with Conservative views, I would think you would be happy that the first act of this government — a Liberal government, senator, may I remind you — was introducing a tax cut and reducing the GST for first-time homebuyers while, at the same time, addressing carbon pricing to provide stability and predictability to Canadians.

To have unanimous support, senator, is something that is telling. Your colleagues in the House have also seen the light in supporting us to ensure that we can deliver for Canadians.

As you know, we are a very cooperative opposition, minister. The question, again, at hand is this: You talk about stability and consistency, yet we still have not received a fiscal update. We do not know what the actual deficit is this year. We do not know if it is greater or less than last year. Minister, is the deficit actually greater or less than it was last year, and will this be a hindrance in being able to implement this policy?

Senator, it is a pleasure. You will have to wait just a little bit, but you will be proud when we present the budget. It will be a budget to make Canada strong, resilient and the strongest economy in the G7. I’m sure that you are looking at The Fiscal Monitor, and you had an opportunity to look at the Main Estimates we presented in the House. At this point in time, the country is facing unprecedented challenges. You have seen our commitment on the defence side and our commitment to housing. You will just have to wait a little bit longer, but you will be very happy when it’s the fall and we present a great budget for Canada.

Yes, we will be waiting several more months, but we will be waiting.

Minister Champagne, part of Bill C-4 will finally repeal your government’s consumer carbon tax, and to this I say, “hallelujah.” We in the Conservative caucus have relentlessly pushed for this for many years. In fact, I first pressed your Liberal government about carbon tax by asking questions to then-Minister Goodale in our old Senate chamber in the Centre Block seven and a half years ago. On the other hand, minister, you have a very long history of supporting the Liberal carbon tax. Your predecessor, Minister Freeland, voted for the carbon tax at least 43 times, and I’m sure your voting record is very similar. Your pro-carbon tax quotes — my goodness. When you were asked about the cost of your carbon tax last year, you said:

. . . Canadians are proud of the environment minister because he is standing up for what is right for this country, while we have the climate deniers on the other side. They want to see the planet burn. We want to act for our children. We want to act for future generations.

And you contended:

. . . Eight out of 10 will get more money.

. . . We will fight for climate change, and we will fight for our children.

Last March, you told the media that putting a price on pollution is “the right thing to do.” You said:

This is an investment in the future. The plan is working, it’s going to bring more money in the pockets of Canadians, and we’re going to continue to do that.

Minister, I want to know how much money — how many billions of dollars — your Liberal government took out of the pockets of Canadians for the carbon tax you charged them for six years. You have been the minister for several months, so you must know the number. How much is it?

Madam Senator, I am pleased that you have all of these quotes. I will look at the answer to remind myself of all of the things that were said at the time.

I would say six weeks has changed the world, senator. These six weeks have seen a very different world than the one that we had before. I would say you should be pleased to see a government that, when they see circumstances have changed, they need to change course. That is what Canadians told us. We just had something called an election recently. We went out and we listened to Canadians. In our democracy, it is a good thing. Canadians told us we needed to change course.

Obviously, there is still concern about climate change, and we heard that from your colleagues. This is the challenge of our generation and probably of our century. At the same time, there are different policies to achieve the goal that we have as humanity.

You should be pleased — and your colleagues in the House were very pleased — to see that we have answered to one concern that was expressed by Canadians.

It is a good thing that we can realize. And they say there are different policy choices to achieve the big objective we have. We decided in this bill to make sure that, in law, we would repeal the carbon pricing for consumers. This was also applauded by your colleagues in the House, who said this is a measure that is going to help Canadians. It is all about affordability. You have to start from the basis. You always ask the why — or at least I always ask the why. The why is affordability. Reduce taxes, give people a chance to get their first home, reduce the costs when it comes to carbon pricing.

That suite of measures is helping our nation to be more resilient. We have heard Canadians. That is a good thing in a democracy that you listen to your constituents from across the nation who have told us, “We agree there is a bigger challenge, which is climate change, but there are different policies you can adopt; give us a break now. We need that in light of everything that is happening in the world now.”

I certainly look forward to receiving the actual number from you. Perhaps you can consult with your officials and get back to us with that.

According to an April article in the National Post, the total your government collected over the length of the carbon tax program comes to $44.9 billion.

Wow, that’s $45 billion taken out of the pockets of Canadians over those six years. During that time — and not just for six weeks but for a considerable period of those six years — millions of Canadians struggled as they lost their jobs or their small businesses during COVID and have suffered with the skyrocketing cost of living in Canada during an affordability crisis.

Minister, your Liberal government steadfastly and self-righteously, at times, backed the carbon tax for years, pushing it on Canadians who could not afford it. Why should Canadians trust that about-face now?

Madam Senator, I would say, when it comes to affordability, your colleagues in the House have voted against every affordability measure we presented for the last decade, and Canadians have noticed that in the last election. You voted systematically against all the affordability measures we presented, whether it was about child care, the National School Food Program or with respect to the disability legislation we presented.

When you look at the record of the Liberal government over more than a decade, when it comes to ensuring we have Canadians’ backs, whether during the time of COVID or after, our record speaks for itself.

I would say, sadly, that your colleagues in the House have voted against every single measure of affordability we presented in the House. Therefore, I think it is good that now everyone is supporting this bill; it is a step in the right direction.

If you want a quote, you should look at both sides and you would see that your colleagues have voted against about every single affordability measure presented in the House in the last decade.

Well, $45 billion of carbon tax is a lot of affordability measures.

Minister, I will move on. Since you just mentioned disability, I want to go back to that question. Another part of Bill C-4 provides for a modest one percentage point income tax cut, but this measure in your bill has the perhaps unintended consequence of also reducing the value of the Disability Tax Credit. As Inclusion Canada has stated, “The costs of living with a disability don’t [go down] when tax rates fall.” These disability advocates want an amendment to Bill C-4 to protect persons with disabilities from a sizable reduction to funds that are essential to them.

The National Disability Network has written to you about this and told you that without this amendment:

Those who face the greatest financial barriers stand to benefit the least from this policy, and in some cases, will be worse off.

I listened closely to the answer that you gave earlier to Senator Petitclerc on this issue. I note that in the letter they sent to you, the National Disability Network provided you with several examples of situations where persons with disabilities will be negatively impacted by the reduction of the Disability Tax Credit even with that modest income tax cut factored in.

Minister, the National Disability Network has proposed a concise technical amendment in that letter to you. Will you please use this amendment and fix your Bill C-4 to help persons with disabilities?

Thank you, senator, because that is a very important question. I want to thank also the senator who asked that question before.

I can tell you in the analysis that was done by Finance Canada, you have to look at the net of these two. The tax reduction they will receive from the tax cut will outweigh the reduction in the value of the non-refundable credit that would be received. That is why I say the vast majority will be better off; we’re very conscious of that. That is why we have looked at this issue carefully. As you said, we were seized of this issue that was mentioned.

The officials at Finance Canada have run with our tax policy people to make sure that what we have — as I said, I do not want to quote percentages because it is always dangerous — is the vast majority of the 4.5 million people receiving the disability credit who will be better off. If you look at the net of the two, they come out on the positive side of that. That is the analysis we have been conducting.

With that analysis then, you have just said that 4.5 million people receive this Disability Tax Credit. What is the, as you say, very small percentage who will be negatively impacted? You must know what that number is.

It is not even a matter of percentages. I can tell you — and I am very upfront with you, senator — I did ask that question very pointedly to the officials. You would have to be in a very unique tax position in order not to benefit from the measures when you combine them together. I can have the officials respond to that if you want a more fulsome answer, because we looked at that with our tax policy colleagues. You would have to be in this unique situation that you would have more tax credit that would outweigh that. That would be a unique circumstance.

If you want, I can ask the officials. We have the experts with me. If the expert wants to take the stand, we are more than happy to answer that question, if you want. I am happy. It is up to you, senator, or up to the chair.

Do I have more time or not really? Apparently, I do not have more time. I would specifically like to know the answers given those examples that the National Disability Network provided in that letter, if they could specifically address those examples in written form, perhaps, that would be sent to us.

Senator, we will respond to that letter and provide you a copy.

Good to see you again. Thank you for coming to our Red Chamber this evening.

My colleagues, as we move through, have asked the questions around privacy and housing and the carbon tax that I have been thinking about.

I would like to ask you about a few remaining issues on privacy and then something on defence versus tax cuts.

Having listened to some of the questions, as I was listening tonight, I wanted to come back to the issue of privacy laws relating to political parties.

You said that funnelling it into the tax bill was the first opportunity you had to do this. It’s quite possible there’s a gap in my knowledge, but I was wondering what was stopping you from introducing this as a stand-alone bill? For example, why couldn’t Bill C-2 be an act to amend the Canada Elections Act in a stand-alone legislation? It seems to me that this might have been the earliest opportunity, and one that would seem, on its surface, somewhat better than the bundling present in this bill, which raises some questions about optics and transparency.

Thank you very much, senator, for the question. I appreciate it.

We felt that this was the most expedient way to do it. But let’s be clear: We’re just clarifying the intent of the House back in 2000 and introducing improvements. So it’s just to clarify the matter for the courts. One thing the courts always want to know is this: What is the intent of the legislature? We’re very clearly now, indicating to all the courts in Canada that the intent of the House, which is responsible for making laws in this country, in 2000 was that it would be a unique regime governed under the Canada Elections Act.

So we’re providing clarity to the courts and saying, back in 2000, that is what the House intended. In a sense, you want to do that quickly because predictability is something you want to provide to the legal system regarding the intent of the House.

In 2023 there were some provisions that stated that, but it seems that it was not sufficient. So now we took the opportunity to go back and say to the court, “This was the intent back in 2000 when this was adopted.” So, therefore, you’re providing legal certainty in the country.

At the same time, there are a number of improvements that I mentioned. You have to have a privacy officer and you have to have it in both languages, for example. It would have to be public. You would have penalties. You would be deregistered as a federal political party if you fail to do that. You’re also subject to checks and balances under the Canada Elections Act.

The House wanted the privacy issues, with respect to federal political parties, to be under the Canada Elections Act. That was the will of the House back in 2000, and that’s what you’re saying. This is just to reflect on that, saying, “This was the intent back in 2000.”

Good evening, minister. Thank you for being here. When you come near the end, most of the questions have already been asked.

I just wanted to probe you a little bit. You had a very successful finance ministers and central bank governors meeting in Banff. You came out with a communiqué saying that each country would look towards growth and measures as they pertain to them in particular.

You have set out a target for being the best in the G7. With the elements that are particularly in part 2 of Bill C-4, how do you see those measures positioning Canada within the G7 in terms of affordability, competitiveness for middle-class families and incentives for housing? I ask this because the other countries have these concerns as well.

Did you have a chance to speak to your colleagues about that, saying, “Hey, we’re ministers, politicians and we all have the same problems. How are you handling it? How should I handle it?”

What measure are you using? There is an OECD standard. Is there anything in the G7 that would suggest that these goals can somehow be measured and compared?

That is a very good question. Thank you, senator. I learned from you how to run a good G7 meeting. Thank you for your advice.

Yes, it was successful. My message to my colleagues who are finance ministers and central bank governors was that we needed to get back to our core mission. What is the core mission of the G7 finance ministers and central bank governors? It is to restore growth and stability. This was the cardinal point I put on the table: to ensure we were going back to our core mission.

You are right: It is quite extraordinary to see the challenges we have been facing, particularly now that we are facing unjustified and illegal tariffs. If you look at the G7 economies, we are facing the same issues relating to affordability, housing, defence spending and the fiscal capacity of our colleagues. Everyone around the table is more limited; yet, at the same time, we are facing global issues of overcapacity and non-market practices that we need to tackle together.

One thing I was able to achieve, senator — and I think you would agree that you would always want to achieve it — was unity. The world is looking to the G7 to remain united, despite some differences pertaining to tariffs and other measures, which are making the situation more difficult.

We had Mathias Cormann, the Secretary General of the OECD; we had the President of the World Bank; and we had the Secretary General of the IMF.

When you compare Canada to many of the G7 economies, we are in a good position. For example, our debt-to-GDP ratio and the kinds of fiscal measures we’ve been taking, a number of which the OECD has mentioned. However, having said that, I’m very much informed by the best practices adopted by a number of G7 countries to make our country the most resilient and best economy in the G7. The unity of the G7 is more important than ever now, as we need to tackle global issues together.

I was inspired by your question.

Thank you, minister, for being here. My question deserves a short answer, but I have to give you the explanation first.

The Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut are acts of Parliament. Our place at the first ministers’ table has only occurred in my lifetime, and from the back of the room to the first ministers’ table has been quite a journey.

Section 21 of Bill C-5 may, by order, amend Schedule 2 to add or delete an act of Parliament. Senator Cardozo referred to it earlier today.

I am looking for reassurance, because you spoke earlier about how courts look at the intent of legislation. I would like a public assurance, on the record, that the government has no intention of including any of the three territorial acts on that.

However, Bill C-5 also discusses at length — and we discussed at length in chamber — consultation.

Bill C-4 references in clause 42 harmonized tax with the provinces. Tax-sharing arrangements exist in the Yukon with Yukon First Nations. The government of Yukon, First Nation governments and the Government of Canada are collaborating on a number of housing projects. I’m looking for your reassurance — perhaps from officials — that there have been thorough consultations with Yukon and that there is no unintended consequences in Bill C-4 to the arrangements on these tax-sharing arrangements or impact on the arrangements with the Yukon First Nations.

Thank you, senator. I will turn to the official just for the very specific question. I want to make sure that I’m thorough.

I can tell you one thing I have done, senator, is that I host meetings of finance ministers from the provinces and territories on a regular basis. I’m grateful for the contribution of the Yukon and all the territories. Actually, often even in our finance ministers’ meeting it’s the premiers of the territories who are coming. So just to tell you, we’re working hand in hand.

We consult with them regularly. I have calls with them and the Governor of the Bank of Canada to give an update about the state of our economy. We are working hand in hand with them.

But to your specific questions, I may turn to the officials just to be as clear as possible on the record to this point.

You mentioned, as well, Bill C-5. Are you referring to Bill C-5 or Bill C-4? I ask because I’m looking at the chair looking at me as well.

Unfortunately, I have to tell you that we can’t hear too well here in the back. I propose that we get back to you in writing, to make sure we understand the question.

I think the official was not able to hear the question. We had 30 seconds and we’re probably now at 5 seconds.

Senator, you know how much I respect your work. If you send me a letter, the official will get back to you, because it’s more technical in nature, and we want to make sure we answer you very clearly on the record.

Thank you, minister.

Thank you, minister. This afternoon we’ve spent time on Bill C-5, and many of us were concerned about its extraordinary powers to override laws and, in fact, the role of Parliament itself. However, I want to come back to Part 4 of Bill C-4 and talk about the powers that, in a sense, you are granting to political parties that the private sector has no equivalent freedom or protection from the privacy rules.

One of the experts on this issue described what’s going on as a bit of an arms race amongst political parties to collect data and begin all the micro-targeting of voters. Of course, there are conflicting views. I think, as Senator Simons put it, it’s the fox in the chicken house. We can understand, of course, why you would all vote for this, but it doesn’t necessarily improve — in fact, I think it distorts — democratic participation when you protect the political parties and allow them to micro-target and use that data in such a specific way.

I respect the opinion that you quoted, perhaps from some expert, but, again, let’s go back to the basics. We’re just reaffirming the intent of the House back in 2000 in this bill. We’re very clear to the courts —

In fairness, the technology has changed dramatically since the year 2000, as well as the ability to collect this data.

I appreciate that, but the House had a chance in 2023 and now in 2025 to vote unanimously, senator, to clarify that there would be one national regime as opposed to a patchwork of provincial regimes. I think you will find the bill requires a published privacy policy: how it will protect Canadians and what information will be collected. It needs to be public. Now there are administrative monetary penalties. A party can be deregistered or delisted. I think you will see that as an improvement compared to where we are today.

These measures, for example, will have to be in two official languages. I think we all want the privacy policy to be public and in both official languages of Canada.

Let me ask you more on that because, in fact, some of the principles reflected in the privacy legislation are really not reflected here. Having a political operative knock on your door to ask you questions during a campaign is considered and deemed consent. Limiting the collection of data would be almost impossible because, again, those same political operatives at the door are not only asking you questions but also noting what car is in your driveway and how many children are in your living room or around the door. This data may or may not be accurate.

If voters, or citizens in this case, don’t understand what has been collected, how do they know what to ask about? How do they put that forward? There’s very little recourse for the citizen. When we deal with the private sector, they are obliged by law to follow the rules, and we can ask them. This is a much more difficult situation.

I would go back to my previous statement. The situation you may have now or that you want to avoid is that of a patchwork of provincial regimes that apply to federal political parties. If you go back to the intent of the House, it was to have at least one uniform regime. That’s why we saw unanimous support from everyone.

We need to have a national framework. We need to improve it. This is an improvement on what’s happening today. I think the fundamental question is if we prefer the one national regime as opposed to a patchwork of provincial regimes that would govern privacy laws in the context of federal elections.

I mentioned to the senator before that when we tried to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, or PIPEDA, one of the things we heard during our consultations was that people really wanted to have one national standard because that’s the only way you can really operate.

It was the same thing when I was trying to pass the bill related to AI. If we want to have 1 economy and not 13, we need to have federal standards. When it comes to federal elections, I think the House has spoken three times on it being under the Elections Canada Act. I think the will of the people has been expressed clearly, and in this case even unanimously, that we believe it’s better to have one national system as opposed to a patchwork of provincial legislation.

I will agree that the will of the political parties has been reflected in the vote in House of Commons. Thank you, minister.

Thank you for being here, minister. I’m all that stands between you and your escape, so let me get to two requests that I have.

Number one is with respect to the GST for first-time home buyers. There are really two components when a first-time home buyer is buying a house. The first is if they have enough income between the two people or a single person to make the payments and satisfy Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, and the bank? The other is scraping up the down payment, and that is a substantial issue for many young Canadians.

I think it would be great if you would consider finding a way in the regulations around this to allow young Canadians who will be making this purchase to actually assign that rebate as part of their down payment. Rather than lowering the price by an amount that won’t be material for them to make the payments, allow them to keep the price higher but take that credit as part of their down payment. Would you consider that, minister?

Senator, thank you for that. The answer is that we will look into that. I heard there’s a possibility of assignment. There are different ways to do it because money is fungible. We heard from some offices — it might have even been yours — and some people in the industry about the possibility of assignment to facilitate that.

Senator, first of all, thank you for raising the question. Second, yes, we will look into that.

Let’s have the CMHC play ball with that, and that, again, will come back to you. Thank you.

For the second request, we’ve talked a lot about Part 4 in this bill. You’ve known about this issue since May 2024, so 13 months ago was when the B.C. Supreme Court determined that the previous attempt wasn’t retroactive. It wasn’t like you found out yesterday and this is your first chance. The previous government didn’t deal with it.

I would ask if you would consider in bills like this that are tax bills — they’re confidence bills — when you have a difficult issue that you really don’t want to talk about, that we stop this idea of putting them into bills that have this shield that don’t allow us to sever them out and study them properly and bring the light to them or amend them. We have a tradition and a respect for your chamber that we don’t mess with money bills, and this is a money bill. If it wasn’t for time and if it wasn’t for the fact that it was shielded in this bill, we would be looking very closely at spending a lot more time on this issue for the benefit of Canadians than we are being afforded now. There will be other opportunities, other bits and pieces that get thrown into budget implementation acts, or BIAs, that don’t need to be.

Would you consider starting something, a new tradition, where items that aren’t part of a budget don’t find their way into a budget implementation act where we have our hands tied behind our backs when doing what Canadians want us to? Would you consider that, sir?

Thank you, senator, for your comment on that.

I was comfortable with that provision in this bill because it reflects the intent from 2000. We’re not changing the law. We’re just telling all the courts in this country what the intent of the House was back in 2000. It made me comfortable that we’re merely clarifying the intent of the House and the fact that it had unanimous support, which is not something political but it reflects the views of the House. I think this has been expressed two times already. I think the court will take notice. As a lawyer, I would think that, after the House has spoken three times, the court would take notice of the intention of the bill.

To your broader question, senator, I hear you. What I can tell you is that I will always take that into consideration, and I’m grateful for your comments and your thoughtful analysis of that, senator. I am here to do the best I can — like you — for Canadians. We all respond to the same people in this land, and it’s to serve Canadians in the best possible way. That’s what I do, and that’s what you do. That’s what the people of this country expect from all of us.

Honourable senators, the committee has been sitting for 95 minutes. In conformity with the order of the Senate, I am obliged to interrupt proceedings so that the committee can report to the Senate.

Minister, on behalf of all senators, thank you for joining us today to assist us with our work on this bill. I would also like to thank your officials.

Hon. Senators: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Honourable senators, is it agreed that the committee rise and I report to the Senate that the witness has been heard?

Hon. Senators: Agreed.

Honourable senators, the sitting of the Senate is resumed.