SoVote

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 10:59:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, contrary to what the opposition member just said, the State of California does have a price on pollution. However, that is not the question I have for the member. At the end of the day, we take a look at the cost factors, inflation rates and the impact that these things have on society. We want to see food prices stabilized. Ultimately, people need to have comfort in knowing that the government is acting on their behalf. We brought in the Competition Act, which the member made reference to; this is one way in which we can ensure that we are having more stabilization of food prices. Could he just expand on why it was important to make changes to the Competition Act?

125 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/4/24

Hon. Chrystia Freeland (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Jun/4/24 3:08:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during the 2021 election campaign, every Conservative member promised to put a price on pollution. That was important, especially in Quebec, because Quebeckers understand the importance of climate action. We now see the Conservatives doing an about-face. The thing that concerns me is the Conservatives' future about-face on a woman's right to choose. The Conservative member from northern Alberta said what he really thinks. We should be afraid of those Conservatives.

76 words

Context: House Hansard - 324 - Jun/5/24

Mr. Francis Drouin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Lib.)

Jun/5/24 12:23:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have an almost five-year-old in my household who likes to play I spy with my little eye. When we play, however, he cannot see the South Pole. The savings my hon. colleague is calling for with his motion would have Canadians driving to the South Pole and coming back to the North Pole. We know we cannot get there, but it is just to demonstrate the distance families would have to travel during a summer. I drive a lot in summertime because I represent a big riding. I know my hon. colleague also represents a big riding, but I know for a fact he does not drive over 40,000 kilometres and that no family in Canada drives that in a summertime. Through our carbon rebate, our government is helping families in these provinces cope with the cost of living while encouraging choices that will help Canada reduce its emissions. In so doing, we are ensuring that eight out of 10 households in these provinces receive more money through quarterly payments of the Canada carbon rebate than they pay through carbon pricing. As members can see, we are making life more affordable for these families. Thanks to our pollution pricing system, a family of four living in provinces where the fuel tax applies can receive up to $1,800 under the base carbon tax rebate this year. We are not just fighting climate change, we are also giving money back to Canadians. I want to make it clear that the federal government retains none of the direct proceeds from the federal pollution pricing system. Instead, the government returns the proceeds collected to Canadian households, small and medium-sized businesses, farmers and indigenous governments. As members know, budget 2024 proposes to urgently return over $2.5 billion in fuel charge proceeds from 2019-20 to 2023-24 to an estimated 600,000 small and medium-sized businesses through a new refundable tax credit. This return will make a huge difference for these businesses, and a welcome difference, I should say. I would also like to remind my hon. colleague that international experts agree that our pollution price mechanism is an effective way to fight climate change. It is important to realize that we are sending a clear message that pollution has a price. By putting a price on carbon pollution, we are encouraging a reduction across the economy while giving households and businesses the flexibility to decide when and how to make those changes. To achieve this, we need to maintain a price signal that, over the long term, is necessary for carbon pricing to work and bring emissions down. If we were to remove the price signal, we would end up eliminating a powerful incentive to encourage people and businesses to pollute less. I have not even started talking about carbon adjustment border mechanisms, which Europe is already starting to implement. This will have an impact on jurisdictions that do not have a price on pollution. On that side of the House, they have no plan to fight climate change. On this side of the House, we have a plan to fight climate change.

529 words