This petition is entitled “Save Ontario Place.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario Place has been a cherished public space for over 50 years, providing ... recreation, and cultural experiences for Ontarians and tourists alike and holds cultural and historical significance as a landmark that symbolizes Ontario’s commitment to innovation, sustainability, and public engagement;

“Whereas redevelopment that includes a private, profit-driven venture by an Austrian spa company, prioritizes commercial interests over the needs and desires of the people of Ontario and it is estimated that the cost to prepare the grounds for redevelopment and build a 2,000-car underground garage will cost approximately $650 million; ...

“Whereas meaningful public consultations with diverse stakeholders have not been adequately conducted and the Ontario NDP has sent a letter of support for a public request to begin an investigation into a value-for-money and compliance audit with respect to proposed redevelopment of Ontario Place;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to halt any further development plans for Ontario Place, engage in meaningful and transparent public consultations to gather input and ideas for the future of Ontario Place, develop a comprehensive and sustainable plan for the revitalization of Ontario Place that prioritizes environmental sustainability, accessibility, and inclusivity, and ensure that any future development of Ontario Place is carried out in a transparent and accountable manner, with proper oversight, public input, and adherence to democratic processes.”

I fully endorse this petition, will affix my signature and pass it to page Beckett to take to the table. Thank you.

Mr. Saunderson moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr21, An Act to revive 1105954 Ontario Limited.

I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should take immediate steps to eliminate the carbon tax on grocery items.

The delivery of every single consumer good in the province, particularly fresh and processed food we eat, is being affected by the worst tax this country has ever witnessed—a tax that is harmful to hard-working Canadian families, individuals, farmers and businesses and provides no value other than to take money from families. This is the carbon tax.

The carbon tax is a fee imposed on the carbon content of fuels, including transportation and energy costs, which are ultimately passed along through the supply chain directly to every consumer, impacting every aspect of our daily lives. Although this costly carbon tax negatively affects consumer spending power by raising the prices on a wide range of goods we purchase every day, its impact on the agri-food sector is even more dramatic because it raises the real costs of essential grocery items that we depend on for sustenance.

Since the introduction of this carbon tax, total production costs for our farmers, greenhouse growers and food processors have risen substantially. In this scenario, the carbon tax itself has increased the cost of growing, producing and delivering products and services faster than the revenue generated for the products and services being created, which results in shrinking profit margins or margin compression. To survive and remain viable, food producers cannot simply absorb the tremendous costs associated with this tax and must rely on increased market prices to maintain any relative viability or profitability. Simply stated, as the cost of production increases with the implementation of this carbon tax, prices to the consumer increase proportionally. If they don’t, the very food production systems we rely on for our survival risk failure.

As a government, it’s critical to protect and preserve the viability of our farms and our food producers and their supply chains while ensuring an adequate, affordable, wide range of healthy products that are available year-round without interruption to maintain basic human health. This is precisely why this motion today is so important: The health of every Ontarian depends on our food supply and the ability to access it.

The effects of the carbon tax start with the farmer. For example, last year, a Durham-region-area chicken farmer would have seen an increase of 26% on their gas bill. A midwestern Ontario pig farmer would’ve seen a 38% increase. The cost of this gas, which is essential to heat the very barns that house and protect our livestock, rose dramatically and immediately after the carbon tax was introduced, shrinking the already slim profit margins of these farming groups which caused the cost of goods that each produced to increase proportionally—costs which are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

Processors also saw substantial increases in their real costs, as their fuel costs rose by 14 to 17 cents or greater, effectively increasing transportation costs immediately. Understandably, the costs of these finished goods were also passed on to the consumer. The carbon tax didn’t discriminate as it added pressures and reduced the profitability and the very viability of businesses big and small. These costs and the overall impact must also be measured in broader terms that include the imports of inputs used in Ontario agri-food production all the way to the exports of fresh and finished goods intra- and extra-provincially.

In a study recently completed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, they found over 56% of all businesses would need to increase their prices immediately due to direct pressures from the carbon tax. In the very same study, CFIB found that of the $8 billion small businesses will pay in carbon taxes, only a paltry $35 million will actually come back as some form of a credit in a program—$35 million as opposed to $8 billion. These factors contributed to the overall 11.4% increase in the overall grocery prices that we all experienced in 2022 to 2023. Consequently, the carbon tax disproportionately affects lower-income earners.

The added tax results in more money going to our bills, and less towards nutritious foods. The reality is, the current fiscal situation under the carbon tax forces farmers, processors and grocers across the value chain to increase their prices because of one unnecessary tax.

The carbon tax is harmful to the health, wellness and progress of Ontarians by adding an artificial barrier to the affordability of items considered to be essential to all. Our government is strongly opposed to the federal government’s costly carbon tax and we will fight to lower prices for all of Ontario.

In my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington, I’m proud to represent a wide range of hard-working food producers including farmers, greenhouse growers and food processors. The agri-food sector in Chatham-Kent–Leamington alone employs 24,000 people who support 2,000 farms and over 2,000 acres of protected greenhouses, growing sustainable fresh fruit and vegetables for consumers across Ontario and North America year-round. Further, this essential industry directly and indirectly supports thousands of other good-paying, stable careers in the trades, technology and transportation sectors.

My home community of Leamington is host to over 60% of Ontario’s controlled-environment agriculture and represents a concentration of the highest high-tech growing capability anywhere in North America. It’s often referred to as the Silicon Valley of the north, producing fresh fruits and vegetables. I frequently hear from my constituents who share their serious concerns about the negative impacts of this carbon tax and what it does to impact their budgets and their daily lives.

In 2022 alone, Ontario’s greenhouse growers were assessed and forced to pay an additional $12 million under the federal carbon tax regime, resulting in tax of approximately $3,400 per acre on fresh fruits and vegetables. The protected farming sector has long been dedicated to innovative and sustainable farming practices that dramatically reduce their carbon footprint, and recycling of water and recycling of nutrients while growing the trusted healthy fruits and vegetables we can enjoy and be proud of year-round, all while dramatically reducing food waste.

By year 10 of the carbon tax, 2030, one acre of greenhouse-grown fruits and vegetables will have incurred taxes of almost $90,000. This means that a small family-run 15-acre farm that produces Ontario tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers or strawberries will have paid $1.3 million in carbon taxes. This is money taken from the hands and the pockets of hard-working Ontario farm families that otherwise would have invested in expansions, technology, innovation and on-farm practices that optimize sustainability and, of course, lost potential in creating more upskilled jobs and more trusted Ontario-grown fruits and vegetables.

Organizations like the OGVG, Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers, prioritize year-round efficient production, which yields up to 15 times more produce per acre of production when compared to traditional field farms, while maintaining world-leading, sustainable on-farm practices such as carbon dioxide recapture, natural pollination, nutrient management and water conservation. Why are our food producers being punished with carbon taxes when they are already taking steps to ensure maximum efficiency, environmental stewardship and sustainability?

I have also consulted extensively with other leaders, who have said the following: “Natural gas is a necessary input required to produce fresh, nutritious, and affordable vegetables in our greenhouses all year long. The importance of a full exemption on carbon tax cannot be understated as our family farms continue to be penalized for their efforts in strengthening domestic food,” a system that we want to ensure maintains Ontario-grown food is on the shelves without interruption. “We applaud the actions taken by the provincial government to support agriculture in Ontario. An exemption from this tax will enable additional investment in the sector to enhance cutting-edge, innovative, sustainable technologies....” So says George Gilvesy, farmer, business leader and chair of the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers.

Another greenhouse grower shared the effects of the carbon tax on their family’s monthly gas bills. In March of this year, their farm paid $40,000 for their natural gas bill; $11,000 of that went to the carbon tax. At the same farm, in June 2023 they paid $7,000 towards the carbon tax alone. This year, these farmers will pay $150,000 of needless carbon taxes that should be going to their investment.

To strengthen supply chains and reduce the mileage that food travels from farm to table means growing sustainably, closer to markets, closer to our homes and year-round. This allows Ontario families to see healthy, nutritious greenhouse-grown fruits and vegetables on our store shelves throughout the year while reducing the reliance on distant growing regions that require sometimes thousands of miles of food travel before they reach our stores.

I’ve also asked our colleagues from Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association how the carbon tax is affecting their members, and they promptly shared the following: “The Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association continues to be deeply concerned about the affordability of food in Canada. It is crucial that government work with the industry to help reduce costs along the entire food value chain, including at the farm level. Ontario fruit and vegetable” growers “are facing historically high production costs as a result of the carbon tax applied to fuels for heating of greenhouses, packing facilities, and warehouses,” the very same places we’re “required to grow and store” our “quality produce” sustainably. “The carbon tax increases the cost of transporting inputs like seed, fertilizer and packaging, and the cost to transport fruits and vegetables to market. These additional costs ultimately increase the cost of food to consumers, hinders domestic food production, and reduces the financial stability of farmers who compete against products imported from countries where there is no price on carbon. The OFVGA appreciates efforts by the Ontario government to identify ways to remove the burden of the carbon tax on the fruit and vegetable supply chain.”

The costly carbon tax only builds on the increasing costs on fuel and fertilizer that farmers are facing. This is just the first stop on the food supply chain. Costs are carried through, ending with increasingly inaccessible prices for a wide range of grocery items for all of Ontario’s consumers.

Ontario’s agricultural sector is a multi-billion-dollar industry, a crucial pillar to our economy. It’s essential we stand up and fight for this sector. It’s essential that we work together in a unified voice to ensure its continual long-term growth and success.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer states that the carbon tax will cost farmers an added $108 million per year by 2030. Our government vehemently opposes the carbon tax because we want to support local farmers and local producers, the very people who ensure that we have the food that feeds North America. This is why our government has introduced the Grow Ontario Strategy, a road map to boost Ontario-grown agri-food production to strengthen our supply chains and to grow our economy. Grow Ontario focuses on strengthening supply chains and keeping more Ontario food available on our grocery shelves.

Removing the carbon tax from grocery items would reduce the constraints on farmers and small businesses and the consumer. This government is committed to keeping costs down and putting money back in the pockets of Ontarians. Our government has introduced several tax credits to provide relief to workers and families, including the Low-income Individuals and Families Tax Credit; Ontario Childcare Access and Relief from Expenses, another tax credit to ensure that working families can support child care expenses; and the Seniors’ Home Safety Tax Credit that keeps seniors in their homes that are safer and more accessible.

Our government is committed to lowering prices for all of Ontario wherever we can, and we need the federal government to come onside. Local producers must be competitive in the global marketplace. It’s imperative that they’re able to balance economic viability with sustainability and environmental responsibility. The costs associated with the carbon tax hit farmers and growers directly, which means it will directly impact consumers.

The carbon tax is set to increase $15 each year per unit. Currently, the rate stands at $65 per tonne. This number will increase to $95 by 2025 and $170 by 2030. The carbon tax affects the very profitability of companies, big and small, specifically companies in the agri-food industry. Companies struggle each day to stay competitive and viable in a global market. The Canadian Energy Centre estimates Ontario’s primary agriculture production costs will increase by 4% or more due to the carbon tax alone.

Madam Speaker, our government seeks to grow Ontario businesses, not hinder their ability to compete on the global scale. The federal government continues to create barriers for businesses and to disincentivize Ontario producers.

When Ontario businesses grow, Ontario grows. As Ontario exports fresh products, our GDP grows; Ontario families can grow. We must support our producers as they grapple with these rising costs to ensure they can remain viable and competitive, preserving our vital food supply chains.

Removing the carbon tax from grocery items is a very simple solution to reduce overall grocery costs while not punishing our producers. To quote two very well-known and venerable academics and economists in our public space, Mr. Stuart Smyth, an associate professor of agricultural economics at the University of Saskatchewan, stands firmly by this point and emphasizes that cutting the federal carbon tax for food processors and transporters would offer immediate relief at the grocery store for our consumers. Affordability at the grocery store has an easy solution: Cut the carbon tax.

Further to this point, Professor Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University’s agri-food lab testified to the parliamentary committee on finance recommending the carbon tax directly impacts food supply and Canadians need relief at the grocery store.

Experts from across Canada, like Professors Smyth and Charlebois are calling on the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax. It’s a simple solution to add affordability for all of Ontario.

As I previously mentioned, producers in the greenhouse sector are investing in renewable energy sources, reducing waste, reducing food waste, reusing water and focusing on carbon dioxide recapture. These innovations are happening right now in our communities. These innovations are designed to reduce their carbon footprint and ensure environmental responsibility. These innovations also ensure the long-term sustainability of our food supply in the agri-food sector. If producers did not have the ability to innovate, to invest, to grow and to grow our food, then we’re at risk.

Speaker, it’s simple. The carbon tax hurts Ontario. It places an unfair burden on producers. It forces small businesses to increase prices, making them less competitive and leads to higher grocery costs, which disproportionately affects all of Ontario, especially lower-income families.

Our government has fought back against the federal carbon tax because we understand it negatively impacts all of Ontario. In a time of high inflation and affordability issues, let’s not tax Ontarians more. Let’s put money back in their pockets. Let’s axe the carbon tax.

We cannot remain silent so, as a House, let’s remain unified and remove the carbon tax which allows farmers, food processors and our families relief from these higher, unnecessary costs. Say no to the carbon tax and yes to growing good things in Ontario.

I look forward to the passing of this motion. I look forward to your debate and your contributions to this very important component to relieve these costs in all of our everyday lives.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Mr. Glover moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Ice Hockey Resources Ltd.

Second reading agreed to.

Mr. Glover moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Ice Hockey Resources Ltd.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Ms. Brady moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr24, An Act to revive Parrington’s Food Market Limited.

Second reading agreed to.

Ms. Brady moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr24, An Act to revive Parrington’s Food Market Limited.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

Expand, please.

It’s an interesting debate that we have before the House today. First of all, we, as a party, have no problem supporting a motion because there is no federal carbon tax on groceries. This is a fact. We all know this.

The member is demanding that the federal government maintain the status quo, which is no tax on groceries. It’s a bizarre motion, poorly written. But okay, fine—no carbon tax on groceries, just like what exists already. We are all agreed.

However, cost-of-living pressures in the province of Ontario are very real, food insecurity is very real, housing insecurity is very real—and we are bringing those voices to this debate today.

It is possible that the member and the government are referring to a carbon tax on the inputs that go into groceries, like the fuels used by industrial agricultural producers. That’s not what the motion actually says, however, but maybe that’s what the member means. It would make more sense. But there is no federal carbon tax on industrial agricultural producers; there is, however, a provincial carbon tax—

Interjections.

I will also give a bit of a history lesson on how we got here. You’ll remember, in 2018, when this government first took their seats, one of the first things they did was promise to remove the carbon tax. The implementation of the carbon tax in Ontario faced significant challenges and changes. Prior to the carbon tax, we had a cap-and-trade agreement between Quebec and California. In 2018, this government announced its intention to repeal the carbon tax. This was a big deal. There have been a lot of big deals—you could be forgiven to be lost in the transgressions and the scandals and the walk-backs. I remember it very distinctly. This was a very heated debate in this House, and the decision sparked many views on carbon pricing—and those who saw it as a burden on businesses.

In response to the province’s repeal of the carbon tax and going to court—the government’s opposition to the carbon tax—the federal government imposed its own carbon-pricing system on Ontario. This system, known as the federal backstop, came into effect in April 2019. Under the federal backstop, a price on carbon emissions was applied to fossil fuels such as gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal.

In June 2019, the Ontario government launched a legal challenge against the federal carbon pricing. You’ll all remember this. There was a big hullabaloo. There were stickers on gas stations that didn’t stick. This challenge made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard arguments in September 2020, but in 2021, they ruled it was constitutional to have a carbon-pricing mechanism across this country, including in Ontario. That is why we have the Ford carbon tax in Ontario.

To go back to the motion—I just think it’s important context, because we had cap-and-trade. There are a lot of benefits to businesses, to consumers, and reduction in greenhouse gases, when you talk about cap-and-trade. It’s a very clear mechanism to address pollution, to price pollution, to reduce greenhouse gases, to strengthen the economy—the reinvestment in innovation, back to businesses. It’s a very clear pathway. Ontario does not have that right now, thanks to this government.

It is worthy to note that the province is expected to collect billions in revenues from the provincial carbon tax between now and 2030. This is an important piece of the conversation; I truly don’t want it to get lost. Millions of that revenue will come from food-related industries.

Maybe, just maybe, the province should exempt food-related industries from its carbon tax and shift some of the burden to other industries, high-polluting industries. It’s quite possible. You have a majority government. You can do this. It has the power to effect positive change for those sectors, but the member isn’t proposing this. He apparently wants his own government’s carbon tax on food-related industries, while asking the federal government to remove its non-existent carbon tax on groceries. It truly doesn’t make any sense.

This place, over the years—I’ve only been here for 11 years; there are moments when theatre and drama are called to our attention, but this is the theatre of the absurd. All the revenues from the provincial carbon tax on food-related industries are flowing into general revenues. That’s where the money is going. So if you follow the money here at Queen’s Park, you will see that the government is generating a fair amount of revenue from the provincial carbon tax.

Here’s an idea: Why doesn’t the government use some of this revenue to help food-related industries update their systems and become carbon-free, like the greenhouse sector? We meet with the greenhouse sector as well. They want to be part of the solution. They need a partner in government to get there. You have the revenue directly from them; feed it back to that sector, reduce greenhouse gases, make it more streamlined and really support the sector. If the government did that, we would be fully in support of that. But this would also reduce their carbon footprint, save them money and potentially reduce the price of their products. So if you’re going to get to the heart of the matter of the high cost of food, let’s do the full circle. Let’s have a holistic approach to this.

The province can totally do this, and I do suspect that there are some members on that side of the House who truly want to get this done, but that is not what we have before us in this motion. The government wants to keep the provincial carbon tax revenues to help pay for publicly funded parking garages for private luxury spas, and fight in court to avoid disclosing records related to the greenbelt grab, including the records on the Premier’s personal phone, where he’s clearly doing government business. This is truly about priorities, and about restoring some integrity and ethics back into this place.

It’s important to note that nothing that the government is doing currently will reduce the cost of groceries, even though all of us agree—and you only have to go to a grocery store these days to find out how expensive everything is. I’m not sure how much the provincial carbon tax is affecting everybody—certainly some of the clients of this government are not really impacted by that—but a bigger problem seems to be price-gouging by the giant grocery monopolies. These are the guys who were caught a few years ago—you’ll remember this well. They were found criminally conspiring to fix the price of bread. This is a serious issue in this province.

If you’re wondering who might be responsible for high grocery prices, I think the bread-price-fixing conspirators would be a prime suspect. In fact, they have just all been recalled back to the federal Parliament, because they made a commitment back in spring when they appeared before the finance committee. They said they were going to bring back a plan to reduce their prices. Nothing has come from them. There are no deliverables. There are no actions. Just like some delinquent students, they’ve been called back to the principal’s office to report on their lack of progress. This is a serious issue. It’s a federal issue, but it certainly is something that we should all be supporting the federal government on, to hold those grocery chains to account.

I remember how during the pandemic, when people were struggling, their profit margins skyrocketed, as people were seriously being hurt in this province. They jacked up the price of food and other essentials. Shareholder profits went up. Executive pay went up. The government passed an emergency anti-gouging law, but then never enforced it. This is well within your purview to address price gouging. This is something we could work on together across party lines, 100%. Bring it here tomorrow—

Further debate?

Hansard caught you going off-topic.

Yes, he did promise, but they haven’t enforced it.

So the government has the power to crack down on price gouging by the grocery monopolies, but the member isn’t proposing this today, and the government certainly doesn’t seem to have any problem with the price gouging of these certain grocery store chains.

But pointing the finger at the federal government on a carbon tax on groceries that does not exist is not helpful. I think that’s the key piece here. It’s just not helpful to address the very real issue of high grocery prices. In fact, the government is actually helping one grocery corporation expand into privatized health care. Now, this is interesting, right? There’s an acknowledged problem with price gouging; they’ve got the market cornered on groceries. They hold all the cards, Madam Speaker. But there is no attempt on behalf of the provincial government to balance that relationship out and address price gouging.

Maple, a Loblaw-funded virtual care business, charges $69 per doctor’s visit. It is illegal to charge for medically necessary care in Ontario, but it is happening anyway and it’s this government that is not doing anything about these fees. If you want to help people with their cost of living—going to a doctor should not cost you $69. In fact, this was the promise by the Premier: that you will never have to use your credit card. Well, these people who are going to Maple, a Loblaw-funded virtual care business, are using their credit card, not their health card. And this is a cost pressure that is impacting many Ontarians. Ontarians should only need an OHIP card to pay for health care, not a credit card.

And so we’ve already said the government doesn’t seem to care about Loblaws charging fees for health care, and it certainly doesn’t care about the grocery price gouging. Instead, it is pointing fingers once again at the federal government, which actually is now happening more and more in this House.

Let’s just move over to farmers, because we’ve spoken to a lot of farmers. We have a very strong agricultural critic in our caucus. We’ve spent a lot of time with speaking with farmers around the kitchen table and talking about their cost pressures and the reality that they face in a very competitive market. Ontario farmers are really, really upset with this government right now. They really are mad. The government keeps launching wave after wave of a tax on farmland and food security, MZOs, the greenbelt scandal, urban boundary expansions, allowing farms to be split in three and fragmented, gutting conservation authorities and wetland protections, increasing the risk of flooding and putting soil and water at risk. This government is actively working against farmers in Ontario. I mean, I’ve never seen anything like it, when you sit down with a farmer and they just say, “What is going on at Queen’s Park? Who is driving the bus?” Because we’ve now seen this government have to backtrack and reverse on so many of your policy initiatives, and nobody—nobody—in this province believes that you were doing it to increase housing.

Interjection: Not a soul.

So, all of these measures, which are actively working against farming, working against agricultural productivity, moving those farms further and further away from city centres—not in the best interest, Madam Speaker.

The government could have listened to its own Housing Affordability Task Force and made it easier to build homes within the existing urban boundaries. This would have been something that is a great idea, quite honestly. We all want it. We know that’s where people want to live. This narrative that has been espoused by the Minister of Municipal Affairs—the new one, the government House leader—that immigrants want to live out on the greenbelt: Immigrants who are coming to this country have enough challenges. They need to be close to transit, close to employment and close to education, and that’s what they’ve told us. So that informed our argument on many fronts.

Protecting the greenbelt and irreplaceable farmland is clearly not a priority. Instead, the government ignored the vast majority of the task force’s recommendations, wasted a year giving preferential treatment to favoured speculators, enriching them by billions while putting food and farms at risk. It is hard to be a farmer in Ontario, and this government keeps making it more difficult, disrespecting the work that they do.

After the vice-president of OFA warned that government policies were sacrificing “some of the finest and most productive farmland in the province” to Hamilton’s urban boundary expansion—our members fought hard against that—the other member in Hamilton said, “It isn’t being farmed.”

If Ontario farmers can’t make a living, it means higher food prices. But this motion won’t do anything to stop this government’s relentless attacks.

Really, that entire process has now clearly been articulated.

Now we have a criminal investigation from the RCMP. I was here when the OPP were investigating the Liberal Party on several fronts; I think at one point, there were four active OPP investigations—but an RCMP criminal investigation is a place that this Legislature has never been before. So it is precedent-setting that this government’s policies and actions run counter to the public interest. It is our job, as the official opposition, to hold the government to account and to make sure that every dollar that is directed from this place—that that return on investment goes to the people we’re elected to serve.

I hope that the government members are listening. I hope that you are as interested as we are in addressing the price gouging that’s happening in our grocery stores; the preferential treatment to some of these large grocery chains, as I mentioned with Maple—and their expansion into privatized health care is not in the best interest of the people we’re elected to serve.

So here we are debating a motion that will not address those cost pressures. While the government has well within your own purview, your responsibility, maybe even your mandate letters—we don’t know; they’re still in court. But if that were to happen and we were to look at your mandate letters, I hope that there would be some common ground, where we would be addressing the increased costs of basic necessities.

We also regard health care as a basic necessity.

We also regard housing as a basic necessity. When the Minister of Municipal Affairs stands in his place and says, “We must address the need for more rental properties”—how could you say that with a straight face, when just as many people are getting renovicted from those rental spaces?

Interjection.

I’m pleased to be able to rise today and speak to motion 69 and understand the government’s genuine concern for people by writing this two-sentence motion asking somebody else to do something. In my opinion, maybe it’s worth the paper that it’s written on, because it’s in a big book here right now. But honestly, folks, really?

First of all, you know how impractical what you are suggesting is. You know that it’s neutral. It’s great politics—sounds good—but when you start digging in, not so good. If you really were concerned about affordability, you would return rent control. People can’t afford to pay their rent. And when they do pay their rent, they can’t afford to buy their food, carbon tax or not, whatever you’re trying to do.

You know it’s not going to work, but you do like to say, “Hey, we’d like you to do something. We’d like you, this government over here, to do this,” or, “It’s their fault,” or, “They did this thing.” Five and a half years, no responsibility for anything—incredible.

But here, I want to help you. I do. I want to help you. Here’s how you could help: return rent control. Make sure people have enough money to buy their groceries. That would really help, and you can do that. The minister can do that. We talked about that this morning. The member from Scarborough–Guildwood mentioned that.

If you can’t do that, if you’re unwilling to do that, why don’t you just raise social assistance rates? The people who are most impacted by grocery price increases—I spent 22 years in the grocery business. I go into grocery stores all the time. It’s hard, so you’re right in that part of it. But the action you’re suggesting is, let’s be clear, abdicating any responsibility.

If you can’t do that, if you can’t do rent control and raise social assistance rates, let’s try something else maybe a little easier—a little easier for the government to swallow, apparently. That’s not a food joke but it just ended up happening. What about the Ontario Child Benefit? One year ago, we said you need to raise the Ontario Child Benefit. For those families—and there are a lot of families that are captured by that—it would help them pay for groceries. Fifty, 100 bucks a month is going to help.

You could’ve done that. You’ve done nothing. You didn’t even entertain it. Why not? I don’t understand. Given your genuine, deep, abiding concern with people’s ability to buy their groceries, I just can’t understand why you haven’t increased the Ontario Child Benefit. It’s something I think we could all agree on. I think it would be fair. But you know what? Now’s our opportunity. We have an opportunity here today. You have an opportunity here today.

Speaker, I would like that the motion be amended by adding at the end: “And that, the government of Ontario, move to raise the Ontario child tax benefit.”

Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent for this motion to be considered by the House.

As a matter of fact, it was shorter than your motion. It was shorter. But I’m going to tell you one thing: This motion is worth way more than the paper that it’s written on. And it’s important to families and it’s a serious thing. I know I’m chiding you and I know I’m smiling, but it’s serious. Think about this—think about this when you go back to caucus, think about this when you go back to cabinet. Think about it.

Okay, let’s try for something else. You can throw me an idea from behind or over there if you’d like, I’m good. Hey, why not give a tax credit to families who are trying to put their kids in extracurricular sports, or something after school so they’ll have a bit more money to pay for the groceries because they’re trying to make sure that their kids have the activities that they need to be healthy, and they can have the food to be healthy. Why not that?

I’m not going to put forward another amendment on that because I want you to remember the last amendment. I want you to remember the last amendment, because you can do that. You can do that in the fall economic statement. You’ve got a couple of days to figure it out. It’s going to help a heck of a lot of families.

Okay, so, it’s clear, to me anyway, that it doesn’t look like the government wants to take any real action, any kind of meaningful thing that they can do. They don’t want to pick up a hammer or a screwdriver or anything—to do anything to help families with their grocery prices. I spent 22 years in the grocery business. I know how it works.

If they’re so concerned about grocery prices—I mean we saw the bread-fixing thing. We know that happened, and it wasn’t just bread. There’s more stuff in there. I go into a lot of grocery stores because I like to, because I love what I used to do, so I know how the prices are. So I really don’t understand why the Premier, the Premier for the people, the little guy, isn’t running to write—well, actually, if he started with writing, I think there’s too much letter-writing and motion-writing going on here—but if he wrote the grocery CEOs and said, “Get your act together. Stop putting it to the people of Ontario. Stop doing the things that you’re doing and profit-taking and think about what’s happening to families right now.”

Maybe he could write a letter to the Competition Bureau, maybe he could dig a little deeper. But you know, the stuff on the surface, that’s so easy. Writing a 12-word motion that says, “Hey, you, over there. You need to fix this thing, and we’re not even going to tell you how to do it.” With all due respect to the member, I understand the politics and I understand why you’re doing it, but you know what? It ain’t putting food on anybody’s table. Whether it passes or whether you write the letters that you write—you know, write the Governor of the Bank of Canada—tell him to do something and he’s going to totally ignore you. Come on, guys, this is a serious place. We need serious motions. We need serious things like raising the Ontario Child Benefit.

So, think about this, if you leave this debate today, if there’s only one thing you remember, one single thing is that if you raise the Ontario Child Benefit, you’ll be putting food in front of children right away, not writing a motion that is essentially meaningless.

And demovicted.

It is heartbreaking to see what we saw here in the Legislature this morning—to have a very callous response to a 92-year-old woman being evicted.

There is so much more that this government can be doing to make the lives of Ontarians better, not more difficult.

As I said, there is no carbon tax on groceries, so the government is going to be sending a motion to the federal government to ask them to do something that they can’t do.

But the provincial government, the Ford government, can invest the carbon taxes that you are collecting on the food agri-business, on the agri-industrial sector, and put that money back to those stakeholders. They’re looking for a partner to reduce their greenhouse gases. They’re looking to this government to show some leadership on this front, and if you were to do that in a very strategic and targeted way, we would be very supportive of that.

Further debate?

We’re back to the debate.

It’s a great pleasure to rise to speak to this motion about the government abdicating its responsibility to do anything whatsoever to assist families in their desperate time of need during this economic crisis.

As we know, this government has failed for the last five years—

Second-best.

Mississauga Centre.

Thank you so much, Madam Speaker. I am pleased to rise today to join my colleague the deputy House leader in speaking to his motion 69: that the government of Canada should take immediate action to end the carbon tax on grocery items.

In 2018, when I first ran for political office at the age of 28, I served as an emergency room nurse at Etobicoke General Hospital, and I saw first-hand the devastation caused by the Wynne Liberals. Let’s not forget hallway health care, with vulnerable people being underserved and not properly cared for, and the opioid crisis—not having life-saving naloxone within reach for those suffering from substance addiction. I also heard from friends and family that life was getting too expensive in Mississauga. Everything was going up—food, gas, utilities. Ontario was their home, and they didn’t want to leave. I wanted to help make this province a world-class place to work, play and raise a family.

And to this day, I get emails and calls from constituents sharing how the price of gas and food has reached unfathomable levels.

I was elected by the people, and I’m honoured to serve for the people—and that includes fighting daily to keep Ontario affordable for all.

This is why our government has always been a steadfast opponent of the federal government’s carbon tax. We were re-elected to get it done. And we have been cutting taxes, reducing red tape, and we’ve brought hundreds of thousands of jobs back to Ontario.

Last year, we passed Bill 23, which, among many things, eliminated development charges for non-profit and affordable housing. People regularly call my constituency office asking for help with housing. This is, I think, the number one issue that all Ontarians are facing. When it comes to vulnerable Ontarians, we do not believe affordable housing providers should be charged massive and unsustainable fees.

J’ai été élue par le peuple, et j’ai l’honneur de servir le peuple, ce qui implique de lutter quotidiennement pour que l’Ontario reste abordable pour tous. C’est pourquoi notre gouvernement a toujours été un opposant résolu à la taxe carbone du gouvernement de Justin Trudeau, le gouvernement fédéral. Nous avons été réélus pour faire ce qu’il fallait, et nous avons réduit les impôts et la bureaucratie. Nous avons ramené des centaines de milliers d’emplois en Ontario.

À la fin de l’année dernière, nous avons adopté le projet de loi 23, qui, entre autres choses, a supprimé les redevances d’aménagement pour les logements à but non lucratif et abordables. Les gens appellent régulièrement mon bureau de circonscription pour demander de l’aide en matière de logement. On sait qu’on a une crise de logement. Lorsqu’il s’agit d’Ontariennes et d’Ontariens vulnérables, nous ne pensons pas que les fournisseurs de logements abordables devraient se voir imposer des frais massifs et insoutenables.

We increased the eligibility for the Low-income Workers Tax Credit to $50,000 for individuals and $82,000 for families, to provide well-deserved relief for hard-working Ontario families.

Our government also offered further tax relief through the Seniors’ Home Safety Tax Credit, the Ontario Jobs Training Tax Credit, the Ontario CARE tax credit, and more.

Madam Speaker, I have many seniors living in my riding—at Camille’s Place, at Aghabi Place—from different walks of life, different ethnicities, and they all agree that for seniors who live on a fixed income, the price of food is becoming out of reach. We all know that the carbon tax is causing everything to go up, but especially these items.

I have a price comparison of one specific food item: ground beef. Back in 2019, before the carbon tax was introduced, 750 grams of ground beef cost $2; after the carbon tax was introduced, and today, that same 750 grams of ground beef costs $4.89—that’s more than double.

So we really need to do everything we can to ensure that the price of food items that our seniors and all Ontarians rely on is maintained at a level that is affordable for all.

Madam Speaker, we eliminated licence plate renewal fees and plate stickers.

We removed tolls on Highways 412 and 418, so people in southern Ontario can have a painless commute to work.

Nous avons porté l’admissibilité au crédit d’impôt pour les travailleurs à faible revenu à 50 000 pour les particuliers et à 82 000 pour les familles, afin d’offrir un allégement bien mérité aux Ontariennes et Ontariens qui travaillent dur.

Notre gouvernement a également offert d’autres allégements fiscaux grâce au crédit d’impôt pour la sécurité domiciliaire des personnes âgées, au crédit d’impôt pour la formation professionnelle en Ontario, au crédit d’impôt « CARE » de l’Ontario, et plus encore.

Nous avons éliminé les frais de renouvellement des plaques d’immatriculation et les vignettes. Nous avons supprimé les péages sur les autoroutes 412 et 418, afin que les habitants du sud de l’Ontario puissent se rendre au travail sans problème.

Lastly, we extended the gas tax cut, which freezes the tax on gas and diesel at nine cents per litre. This is a much-needed relief for so many families. I think all of us probably commute to Queen’s Park every day, and we can see the difference that this particular action of our government to freeze the gas tax makes on our wallets and on the wallets of all Ontarians. Madam Speaker, I could go on and on.

While our government is working hard to make life affordable, Prime Minister Trudeau continues to be out of touch with the struggles of everyday Ontarians. Not everyone was brought up on Sussex Drive, so I can imagine why maybe the Prime Minister struggles to really put himself in the shoes of hard-working moms and dads in the province of Ontario.

The carbon tax is, in essence, a tax on everything: your groceries, your gas, heating your home and more. It’s even a tax on fun stuff. On a night out, your food order, your pint of beer, your Uber ride—all these things have gone up since carbon pricing was implemented in 2019 by the Trudeau Liberals. At a time when inflation is at record-breaking levels and grocery prices are rising, this is the last thing Ontarians need in their lives.

In fact, Madam Speaker, even the federal Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that the carbon tax will cost Canadian households more than they will ever get back. They reported that it will cost the average household between $402 and $847, even after the rebates.

À une époque où l’inflation atteint des niveaux record et où les prix des produits alimentaires augmentent, c’est la dernière chose dont les Ontariennes et Ontariens ont besoin dans leur vie.

En fait, même le directeur parlementaire du budget fédéral a indiqué que la taxe carbone coûtera plus cher aux ménages canadiens et qu’elle ne leur rapportera jamais. Il a indiqué qu’elle coûterait au ménage moyen entre 402 $ et 847 $, même après les remboursements.

The proof is in the pudding, Madam Speaker: Ontarians are suffering. Food bank usage is at an all-time high. Half a million adults and children in Ontario accessed a food bank between April 2021 and April 2022. Visits last year increased by 24% when compared to the previous year with one in three people being first-time visitors. As someone who was raised by a single mom, we struggled when my dad left and went back to Europe, and I know how much it takes away from someone’s dignity when you have to go to the food bank, line up and depend on your community to help you at a time of need. So when I see that one in three people are first-time visitors, I can relate to that, because my mom was that first-time visitor.

So I think it’s imperative on all of us to do the hard work to ensure that Ontarians can actually afford food and grocery items. We live in one of the richest places in the world, and we need to ensure that we keep those prices affordable. At my local Mississauga food bank, in the previous year, they served 18% more users than the year before and—get this—more than 82% more than before the pandemic. That is a frightening statistic. This speaks to the real challenges people in my city are facing, and when we plead to the feds, our complaints fall on deaf ears.

According to a report from Dalhousie University published this past April, Canada is experiencing the highest rate of food inflation since the 1980s. In 2022, vegetable prices rose by 12%, bakery items by 15% and meat prices by 7.6%. Right before Thanksgiving, there were many reports coming out and everyday Ontarians were saying that this year, they will not be able to afford a turkey and that this year they will be having chicken instead. So again, I think it’s in all of our interests to work together to ensure that next year, Ontarians—hard-working families—can afford to buy that turkey and to celebrate.

Our government was re-elected because we represent the core issues Ontarians care about: affordability, building more homes to cool the market and investing in transit infrastructure to get people to and from work as painlessly as possible. While the federal government keeps raising taxes, thereby increasing the cost of groceries and gas, our government reduced the gas tax—while the Trudeau Liberals raised the carbon tax by three cents earlier this year. Another increase: Isn’t that unimaginable? The more taxes go up, the more our people are hurting. Our government is doing everything within our jurisdiction to make Ontarians’ lives more affordable, but we are not getting the proper co-operation from the federal government.

Notre gouvernement a été réélu parce que nous représentons les enjeux fondamentaux auxquels les Ontariennes et Ontariens sont attachés. L’abordabilité : comme construire plus de maisons pour refroidir le marché, et investir dans l’infrastructure de transport pour que les gens se rendent au travail et en reviennent le plus facilement possible.

Alors que le gouvernement fédéral ne cesse d’augmenter les impôts, faisant ainsi grimper le prix des produits alimentaires et de l’essence, notre gouvernement a réduit la taxe sur l’essence. Tandis que les libéraux de M. Trudeau ont augmenté la taxe sur le carbone de trois cents au début de l’année, plus les taxes augmentent, plus cela nuit à nos concitoyens.

In conclusion, the last thing Ontarians need is another tax. What the Prime Minister has proven is that he’s really out of touch with the people of Ontario and I think with the people of this entire country. I think the Prime Minister has to step up and do the right thing and axe the tax because Ontarians are suffering. The carbon tax is essentially driving the price of everything up—the price of fuel to deliver the products that our farmers grow to the markets.

Farmers—we are very lucky; we are fortunate in Ontario. We have a great agricultural sector. We have our farmers. Great things grow in Ontario. There are many products that we can buy locally, and I encourage all members to buy local so that we support our farmers. When I go to the grocery store, I’m fortunate; I don’t have to look at price comparisons. I’m very fortunate and blessed that I don’t have to look for that $1 saving. But what I do look for when I go to the grocery store is “made in Ontario.” We have our beautiful made-in-Ontario logo, so when I go shopping and I look at my tomatoes, apples, I try to buy local, and I really, really encourage all of us to go out there and buy local.

I know that we recently celebrated, also, Agriculture Week in Ontario—the Minister of Agriculture. Again, we need to highlight the great work that’s being done, the products that are being grown, and support our farmers. But part of our job to support our farmers is to ensure that when they grow their produce, it can get to market at an affordable rate and that Ontarians can afford to buy those groceries. So I’m very honoured to be able to contribute to this debate today and I call on the federal government to do the right thing and remove the carbon tax.

The member from Orléans.

We’ll recognize the member from—

Centre.

It’s always an honour to rise in the House today and respond to the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington, who I quite enjoy discussing issues with. I’d like to read the motion in the House first: “That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should take immediate steps to eliminate the carbon tax on grocery items.”

I have to echo the member from Waterloo that the motion, quite frankly, as written, doesn’t make sense, because there is no direct carbon tax on grocery items. I listened very intently to the member when he made his presentation. What he was actually talking about was the cumulative effect of the input costs of the carbon tax on the end price of groceries. I think that’s what he was trying to say, but that’s not what the motion says. There is no carbon tax on groceries, so I have no problem voting for this, but it doesn’t make much sense, honestly. There wasn’t a lot of horsepower put in this.

Let’s think back on things we can agree on here. The reason there’s some kind of regimen on carbon is that the use of fossil fuels is impacting climate change, global warming. Can we all agree on global warming? Because there are a few people—and I’m not saying people in the House, but I’ve heard a few people who even disagree that the world is actually a globe, that it’s not round; it’s flat. So let’s all agree that the world is round and it’s being impacted by—what happens is, over millions of years, we have used a lot of the leftovers from dinosaurs, from plants and animals, which have turned to oil. We’ve burned it all in 100 years, and it’s impacting our climate.

Forward-thinking countries are looking for ways to use less carbon. We hear a lot about electric cars. We talk a lot about electric cars. That’s one of the reasons we’re trying to get rid of the use of carbon.

But if you don’t go back that far, I was here when—and I don’t agree with everything the former Liberal government did. I disagreed with a lot of it. But when the Ford government got elected, there was a cap-and-trade system in the province of Ontario. Actually, it was done with Quebec. Did you know that the federal carbon tax doesn’t apply in Quebec? It doesn’t apply because they came up with their own program to try to help their residents use less carbon. Ontario had that chance as well. The federal carbon tax is a backstop. If you can’t think of anything else to do, you get the federal carbon tax.

So the Ford government didn’t really know the difference between cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. They all put it under one umbrella, and they cancelled the cap-and-trade. But have no fear, folks. Have no fear. The Ford government—I think at one time they called themselves the greatest government ever known to the people—they knew how to deal with the carbon tax: gas pump stickers. The first line of defence against the carbon tax: gas pump stickers. And at cabinet, “If that doesn’t work, we’re going to go to court.”

That’s what they did: spent millions challenging the federal government whether they had the right to implement a carbon tax, and they lost. And they still didn’t realize that the federal carbon tax is a backstop program. A provincial government can come up with their own program to try and lessen the use of fossil fuels so you lessen the impact of burning carbon and—and—eliminate the need for the feds to use the carbon tax. You can still do that, and perhaps if you put some horsepower into it, you could make that program work, but that’s not what you’re choosing to do.

What’s really sad about that—and I listened very closely to the member from Mississauga—

You have the power in the province of Ontario to actually do things. And the member for Waterloo also brought this up: There is a provincial carbon tax on manufacturers and it applies to food processing facilities, bakeries, meat-packing plants. So if you want to have an immediate impact, a provincial carbon tax holiday on food processing plants—as long as those savings get passed through to consumers—you could do that, actually, and make a huge difference very quickly. And you can do that right from this Legislature, not simply just pointing at the next level of government.

I’m getting a bit worked up, so I’m going to calm down a bit.

It reminds me of a story I was once told. Have you ever heard, Speaker, that there’s a custom in some governments that, when a government loses power, the head of the government—Premier, Prime Minister, President—leaves three envelopes for the next Premier, Prime Minister or President? And when they really get in trouble, the advice is that you open an envelope. So the government gets in a lot of trouble and the leader of the day opens another envelope and the advice is, “Blame the previous government,” right? Now, we’ve heard that.

I’ve got to say, I was talking to the former House leader for the Wynne government and it was a great conversation with Mr. Milloy, who I respect. And he asked me—and I hope he doesn’t get angry with me for it, but, he said, “John, you were here when I was the House leader.” I said, “Yes.” He said, “Were we that bad?” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “Did we actually do nothing in 15 years like the government said?” I said, “John, that’s not actually true. You did absolutely nothing.” He laughed as well.

So anyway, they opened the envelope. They blame the previous government—and this government’s really good at blaming the previous government—and then they get in trouble again. And do you know what? I would say that right now, the current government has got a few problems: the RCMP, greenbelt, special prosecutors—man, I didn’t even hear words like that with the Liberals. So they’ve got a few problems.

So they’re opening up the second envelope. They open it up, and you know what it says? “Blame another level of government.” That’s what this motion is; this motion is part of the second envelope: Blame it on the feds.

Do the feds have things that they should work on? Absolutely. But there are things that we can work on, that you can work on right now, that will actually make a difference on people’s grocery bills, right now, that you have the power to do. Because if you don’t, at some point you’re going to have to open up the third envelope, Speaker. Do you know what the third envelope says?

The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

I do. Do you know what the third envelope says, Speaker? It says, “Prepare three envelopes.” And that, Speaker, is where we are.

I don’t want to make light of the subject matter; I’m making light of the motion itself. The subject matter is extremely serious. The fact that people in this province, many of them, can’t afford to eat, can’t afford their rent, can’t afford in many cases to live—I’m from northern Ontario. Everything is more expensive where I’m from. There is no public transport, so regardless of how little you make, you need a car. So I’m making fun of the government, that they seem content to try and play political games, instead of actually looking at what they could do.

And I’m being serious about the industrial carbon tax. Why don’t you, if you’re serious about making food cheaper in this province, take the industrial carbon tax that food processors have to pay now to the province? Because the province does have a carbon pricing scheme for manufacturers and processors. They have it. They put it in, and they’re getting big bucks from it. They could make a holiday for food processors, provided that’s put through to immediate relief. Hopefully some of the members will talk about that, but I haven’t heard anything yet about what they could do.

Something else that the province could do is, yes, look into price-fixing with the major retailers, because retail is controlled by three or four major companies, and that is a big part of the bottleneck in food pricing. The bottleneck isn’t at the farm level. I’ve been a farmer my whole life. Actually, I’ve gone for 15 minutes without mentioning cows, but I’ve been a cow farmer my whole life. It’s not there. It’s not even at the processing level. Because if you talk to processors, whether they’re milk processors, beef processors—they’re not the issue either. It’s the major retailers who call the shots, because they have all the power. And the major retailers have done this before—price-fixing on bread. It’s not a new concept. Why isn’t the government looking at that? Why isn’t the provincial government pushing for a grocery code of conduct so that consumers can be sure they’re paying the actual cost? Should retailers make a profit selling food? Yes. Should they be able to gouge because of their monopoly? No. That’s where the government should come in. I don’t hear anything about that.

So there are things that we could do. But the Ford government chooses not to act.

Do you know where the Ford government did choose to act? They did choose to try to gobble up the greenbelt. They did choose to take Hamilton boundaries—to take farmland to supposedly build housing that they already had land for.

Did you know that even without the greenbelt grab, we lose 319 acres of farmland every day in this province? You think that food prices are high now? Just wait. Remember, I started this speech about climate change. Well, climate change is going to have an impact on our food prices, big time, because there are going to be big parts of the world that now grow food that are going to be able to grow less, or maybe not at all—but specifically, in southern Ontario. I’m from northern Ontario. I’m proud to farm there, and it’s a great place to farm. But the land in northern Ontario is not equivalent to the land here. Why? It’s not just the land, but here, we’re surrounded by the Great Lakes. We have the best climate to grow the 200 various crops we grow in the world. It’s a gift. And the Ford government chooses to stand idly by—not even stand idly by; to actually increase the process. They want to eat up more land.

I listened to the member from Perth–Wellington yesterday, and he was responding to our housing motion. He said that there was a housing project in his riding and it was stopped by NIMBYs, and the government stepped in and eliminated the NIMBY problem. Then, I kind of heckled, “Yes, that’s when the RCMP had to step in.

Please, I urge you—you have a majority: Actually do things for the right reasons. So look at the industrial carbon tax. Look at trying to make a carbon-pricing scheme, so that we won’t have to be under the yoke of the federal one. You should be able to do that.

To the member across: You’re right on the border of Quebec. They don’t pay a carbon tax; your folks do. You’re in the government. Fix it. How come Quebec doesn’t pay a carbon tax and you do? That’s a good question.

No, but I think you know.