Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières / Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 15, 2023, on the amendment to the motion regarding taxes on fuels for home heating.

The member is quite correct. The standing orders indicate that we should be debating the amendment to the main motion, and I would ask all members to ensure that their remarks conform to that standing order.

The member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington has the floor.

Merci, monsieur le Président. Peut-être qu’on peut donner aux membres l’option pour avoir la traduction.

Je voudrais soulever une motion de procédure conformément à l’article 25(b) du Règlement, qui stipule que le député ne peut parler que du sujet autour de la question à l’examen. On a un changement à la motion pour discuter la TVH et pas seulement la taxe de carbone.

Thank you very much, Speaker.

Again, I thank you for that reminder and my points will come back to the egregious compounding of the carbon tax and the HST. It is absolutely all relevant on the price of food, the price of vehicles, the price of our home heating and the cost of living for all of our residents.

Coming back, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, Ontario agricultural production costs have increased 4% because of the carbon tax, and it continues with the HST. All of these costs are being passed along to families at the grocery store.

I must come back to the statement—as families across this province are struggling with food, they should not need to continually be deciding between heating and eating.

While there are good reasons to be concerned about policy implications with a heating oil exemption, the analysis has found, according to the Canadian Climate Institute, that the effect on emissions will be negligible.

Even Enbridge estimated that the federal carbon charge will add almost $300 to the Ontario household natural gas bill. This is the home heating bill, and we know that there is HST on top of that, and this will only continue to increase year after year until 2030.

The bottom line: The federal carbon tax, including the HST component, is not a balanced tax.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that $8 billion will be collected from small businesses and only $35 million returned, and that most businesses—56%—will have no choice but to pass on those increased prices caused by the carbon tax and the HST to the consumers. We’ve all heard different estimates—but even the Bank of Canada itself says a major component of inflation right now are these taxes.

Again, I come back to the geography. The reports are very clear that while the vast majority of eastern Canadians, Maritimers, are using furnace oil to heat their homes, only 2% or 3% of Ontarians are. Most of us in this province are using the less-carbon-intensive natural gas or propane. And yet, the federal government has crassly decided to exempt the people of the Maritimes while ignoring the people of Ontario. Trust me, I don’t begrudge the discount to the people of the Maritimes. They’re suffering from bad federal policy on the economy as well. I’m only asking to have that same exemption—the same recognition that we here in Ontario are suffering from the high costs and need the same exemptions that are being offered to eastern Canada.

That is exactly what the general motion, not including the amendment, is asking for—“That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should take immediate steps to eliminate the carbon tax on fuels and inputs for home heating.”

This is Canada; home heating is a basic necessity. Adding to the costs of a basic necessity, on top of all the increased costs for all the other necessities, including the HST, is just adding insult to injury.

It has long been said that it’s very expensive to be poor. If you can’t afford to buy a new $7,000 or $10,000 high-efficiency furnace, then you’re paying more for the same amount of fuel with no improvement in your situation, but you are paying a higher level of tax. If you can’t afford to buy the latest, most fuel-efficient car, then you’re paying a higher level of tax. If you’re struggling with your food budget, then you tend to buy smaller portions and in turn higher prices.

If you can’t afford to buy a locally made product—we know that right here in Ontario, in all of our small communities, we grow some of the best food. We make some of the best products. But we also know that the stuff that’s shipped in by freighter from other parts of the world sometimes is cheaper, and we end up resorting to that, so we’re not feeding our own economy. This tax is encouraging us to not feed our own economy. We need to continue to utilize our local suppliers. Those products coming from other parts of the world don’t have the CO₂ emissions controls that we have here. They don’t have a carbon tax. They aren’t suffering from this.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, it’s well supported that struggling with affording heat, struggling with affording adequate shelter, struggling with affording good food and nutrition—these are basic elements of the socio-economic factors of health. This carbon tax is adding to health challenges in this province, and it’s adding to the cost of our health care system. All of this adds up to: It’s a horrible decision by the federal government.

But I do have to mention that here in Ontario we are helping. We are doing our best to improve the situation for Ontarians, to make the cost of living better. Our government, under this Premier, has been consistent. We want to support Ontarians and help them fight inflation and high interest rates. We fought this horrific carbon tax and continue to advocate to reduce or eliminate it. We lowered the cost of driving by lowering the gas tax and removing road tolls. We lowered taxation. In fact, in this province right now, if you don’t make $50,000 in income, you don’t pay any provincial income tax. This government, most importantly, has built up our economy, added 700,000 more jobs that are good-paying high-wage jobs so that the residents of Ontario can better afford the cost of living. So yes, Speaker, this government, under the leadership of the Premier, is making life more affordable for Ontarians, and all the while the federal Liberal government under Justin Trudeau is making it more expensive.

Speaker, I’ll end with a little analogy. Many people across this province here have savings. Many homeowners are saving for a future renovation or repair to the house. We know that, at some point, the roof on a house will need to be replaced, so the homeowner begins to save money towards replacing that roof. However, life sometimes throws some different circumstances at that homeowner. They may need to change the amount that they’re putting way each month in that savings or even take a break from it so that they can afford the necessities of the day. The carbon tax is taking far more from the people than it’s giving back. Are we actually saving money to help repair the environment? Can we afford to save for tomorrow by starving or freezing today? No, that’s not where Ontarians are at. Now is not the time for Ontarians to be putting money into the carbon tax while they struggle to make the decision between heating and eating. I urge all members to support this motion.

A point of order, Madam Speaker.

I apologize to the member. I recognize the member from Orléans.

I will ask the member to resume his debate.

How many reminders does he get?

Good morning, everybody. It’s a pleasure to be here to have the opportunity to debate this fine motion and amendment to it. As many of you have heard me say, when I speak and when we look at the types of resolutions that we look at to fix the various problems that we try to fix, I always like to begin with looking at what is it that we are trying to solve and what’s the problem we’re trying to solve.

Well, obviously we’re dealing with some significant cost increases across the board. People are dealing with inflation. They’re struggling to be able to put food on the table. They’re struggling to be able to pay their rent. They’re struggling with being able to buy their groceries and heat their homes and put gas in their cars, or struggling to be able to get a bus pass. The struggles just are quite significant.

We are the government, and the reason why we are the government is because people have a lot of problems and they have elected us to fix those problems, because when the coalition of the Liberals and the NDP were in power, they caused all these problems. While they were causing all these problems, the people saw how terrible they were at effectively managing anything, so they decided to elect some people that they thought were going to be a lot better at managing things. I think the people have spoken, Madam Speaker.

Interjection.

So it’s incumbent on us as members in this House to recognize what the people of this province—all across this province in every single riding and every corner of it—what they are saying and what they’re concerned about. Right now, one of the principal concerns is affordability. It’s a basic reference. So, again, back to the question, what is the problem we need to solve? And the problem is affordability. Now, the nature of the motion that is before us and the amendment to the motion is to call upon the federal government to do something. So in this case, we’re calling upon our brothers and sisters in the—

Interjections.

And so, again, I ask, what is the problem we’re trying to solve and how will this amendment or this motion address that? I challenge myself because in order to answer that question, you have to get to the root, right? You must come to the root, and the root, ultimately, as the amendment is addressing an HST issue, the motion is addressing a carbon tax issue—which is all, again, aimed at how do we fix this affordability problem.

Well, you have to ask yourself what each one of those taxes—what they were all about. The HST, obviously, has been around for a very long time. The GST before it was around for a very long time. The carbon tax is a recent issue, and it comes about for very different reasons, so let’s focus there as a starting point.

The carbon tax: My understanding—I stand to be corrected, Madam Speaker—is, somehow, a tax that was contemplated, envisioned, would solve certain environmental problems. They would produce people’s environmental impact. It would protect the environment. Okay—in theory, I can understand how that works. But in so doing, we’re taxing businesses on just about everything we do—literally, quite frankly, everything, whether it’s your food—you know, we’re hearing people talk about what it costs to run a fan, to dry our foods off before we can put them out to market so they don’t rot or mould.

We’re talking about how much it costs me to fuel gas in my home, and I don’t even use that much. My own home—I burn a lot of wood. I just had my three sons and myself getting ready for the winter. We’re prepping our woodshed. We’re getting everything set. My wood cost has gone up $10 a cord and they’re telling me it’s because of the cost of fuel. All of these costs just keep on growing and growing and growing.

Me heating my home with wood is a little bit more environmentally friendly than using natural gas. Now, I’ve got to pay more money for that. Okay, I can understand that. But is it going to fix the problem? Is it going to fix the grander issue of protecting the environment? Those costs are just getting pushed on to me, the end user. The cost of that bologna sandwich is just going up, but the person who is paying for it is that end user. I used to bring my kids to Subway a lot after soccer practice. We used to always go to Subway; it was a thing. Until I went to Subway recently and a sub cost me, and a diet Pepsi—it was like $18, for one. I mean, you multiply that out by the whole family and I’m thinking, that’s a really expensive lunch, right? That’s a really, really expensive lunch. Why am I paying that price? It’s because of all of these costs going up, and I’m just paying for it.

So, is the environment getting protected? Did anybody stop doing anything to hurt the environment because they had these taxes? No, they’re just paying more money to do the business that they’re doing, and they’re making me pay for it. It’s a really challenging situation that now I’m just paying for and you’re paying for and the member for Niagara is paying for and all of his constituents are paying for—but again, are his constituents seeing any changes in the world? Are they seeing the impact of the carbon tax fixing the environment? I’d love to know if the member actually sees a change in the environment because of all the extra costs his constituents are paying, for basic items like a fried egg in the morning.

Interjection.

Point of order, Madam Speaker.

Merci, madame la Présidente. Si vous voulez prendre un moment pour avoir la traduction, s’il vous plaît, allez-y.

Je me lève sur une motion de procédure conformément à l’article 25(b) du Règlement, qui stipule que le député ne peut parler de sujets autres que la question à l’examen.

La motion sur la table est d’éliminer la TVH sur le chauffage domestique. Ce n’est pas une question de demander au gouvernement fédéral de changer la taxe de carbone.

I will remind the member from Niagara Falls to come to order.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that.

Interjection.

Interjection.

I really, if I can, and if the member from Niagara will allow me, would love to be able to speak to the member for Orléans’s amendment to our motion at this time, which of course as we all know is about affordability. I think that it’s a challenging situation, though, Madam Speaker. It’s a very challenging situation when we sit in this House and we look at ways that we can fix things, and yet when I look at this carbon tax, I can’t fathom how it fixes the problem. Here at home, I’m challenged to see how it fixes the problem, but what I can clearly see—and I think we can all see—is how it’s costing every single one of us, the end user, more for everything.

The HST does cost everything more. We’ve been paying for the HST now for a long time. We’re all used to that. I mean, hey, I’d be happy to pay no tax. Mea culpa, I would love no tax. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House would ever argue with that. But, maybe there is some argument of, like, “the end justified the means.” We needed income to pay for things like health care. We needed money to pay for various items. And a lot of this revenue for the government allows us to be able to afford the things that we enjoy, as people in a free and democratic society, here in this province and certainly in this country, enjoy—and, arguably, maybe some should be able to enjoy more than others. I think that there are certainly challenges in that regard.

All that being said, this particular carbon tax—it’s a tax. It’s not fixing the problem it was intended to solve. So if it’s not going to fix the problem that it was intended to, then maybe the feds should look at a different way of doing it. How else can we protect the environment? Let’s not even talk about how the lack of this—

Both of these measures—whether the carbon tax or whether the HST—are all coming from the feds. So we’re looking at the feds and saying, “Hey, guys, you’ve got option A and you’ve got option B. Option A, the carbon tax, is supposed to fix the environment, but it’s just costing us all more money. Option B is a way to fill our coffers, and it’s costing people more money. You should change something here.” Well, let’s be reasonable. The whole concept of this amendment is, which one should we ask for; which one do we want to bug the feds about? Do we want to say to the feds, “Hey, guys, stop charging people more money for something that isn’t fixing the problem you’re trying to fix”—the environmental concerns—or, “Stop charging people more money for this other problem, which is just trying to pay for all of our other goods and services that we have out there”?

Madam Speaker, I’ll repeat what I said earlier. Personally, I’d rather have no tax of any kind. Don’t tax me at all. Keep your hand out of my pocket. I think most people would agree. Nobody wants government’s hands in their pockets.

But I do like the services that I have. I do enjoy having roads to drive on. Sometimes I wish they were nicer. Sometimes I really wish there were more of them. I like being able to go see my doctor. Sometimes I do wish there were more of them. Sometimes I wish there was better access to different things. But I do like what I have. I like being able to send my kids to school. Actually, I’ve got no concerns with my kids’ schooling. They’re doing really good in school. They’ve got nice teachers, a good team there, a good board, a nice facility. I’m quite happy with that side of things, to be honest with you. But I recognize that that costs money. So we’ve got to pay for that—and we are.

The carbon tax—what is it fixing? It’s not fixing the environment. Is it going to change how much pollution someone generates in any jurisdiction outside of this province or country? Is it going to change any of that? No. We know for a fact that it won’t change that at all. But members in various—and rightfully so—would say, “We’ve got to worry about our own house first. We can’t worry about everybody else. We’ve got to worry about us.” That’s a fair argument, right? It’s a very fair argument. It makes a ton of sense. You’ve got to worry about yourself first. Lead by example, right? That’s really relevant. But is it going to do anything? It doesn’t seem to be fixing it. It just means I’m paying more money for my baloney sandwich, for my cord of wood, for everything, and it’s not fixing the problem. It’s not changing anything. So why are we doing it?

So, should we vote for the amendment? Let’s tell the federal government we don’t want to pay any more money. We want them to stop charging tax for all the stuff that we enjoy, those goods and services that we really, really appreciate and that we love as Canadians. Or should we ask the federal government to stop a tax that absolutely is not fixing the problem they want to solve?

And then when you look at—I’m going to use a personal example. Here I am, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. My local steel plant—one of only three steel manufacturers in the country, all three of which are here in the province of Ontario, two in Hamilton, one in Sault Ste. Marie—Algoma Steel, greening its steel, reducing carbon emissions, a huge economic investment, a huge benefit, actually making a difference on the environment at a huge level by making critical investments that our government has made without resorting to a carbon tax, without jamming our hands as deep as we can into every single business and thinking that it’s going to change anything other than them then making us pay for it.

I say we get rid of the carbon tax, Madam Speaker. To me, I would say I have really, really honestly considered the member’s amendment to the motion, but personally, I’m not convinced. And as I’m speaking, I don’t know, I hope I convinced a few people here today that the amendment doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Gouging.

Further debate?

It’s a pleasure to rise to debate this motion. Before I get into the need to address the affordability and climate crisis that we’re facing in Ontario right now and the fact that this government has failed to address both of those, I’ve got to say it’s been interesting listening to the member from Sault Ste. Marie defending taxes. I’ve got to say, folks on the other side of the aisle oftentimes don’t defend taxes. It was interesting hearing the member defend taxes, because we know taxes pay for our health care system. They pay for good education, universities; addressing the housing affordability crisis; addressing the climate crisis; basically, making life livable in this province.

They say taxes are what fund civilization. So I was happy to hear the member acknowledge that. I’m hoping that the government members, when things like gimmicks like licence plate stickers come up again—and being the only MPP in this entire Legislature to vote against that, because I wanted to see the $2.5 billion that was lost in the first year and the $1.5 billion we’re losing each and every year actually going to helping Ontarians access high-quality health care or education, better long-term-care services, building affordable housing. So the next time the government brings up a gimmick like that, I’ll be reminded of the member’s elegant defence of the role taxes play in funding our government and our society.

Speaker, we are facing an affordability crisis and a climate crisis. And I would say to all members of this House of all political parties, you ignore them at your peril. We have to address both, and we can address both at the same time, but not by the actions of this government.

Think about the fall economic statement. There wasn’t a single measure to address affordability in the fall economic statement, nor were there any measures to address the climate crisis. As a matter of fact, since this government took office, they ripped up Ontario’s climate plan. They cancelled 750 renewable energy contracts, costing the province $230 million. They cancelled EV rebates, which would help people drive lower-cost cars. They ripped out charging stations to help people charge those cars at a lower cost. They changed the building code to make building retrofits—

So we have an amendment here to take the HST off home heating, to a motion to remove the carbon price from home heating. If people really want to address the cost associated with home heating, the best thing we can do is to help people avoid both of those costs: the HST and the carbon price. How do we help people do that, Speaker? We help them save money by saving energy and by helping people reduce the need to purchase fuel to heat their homes.

Unfortunately, when the current government took office, they cancelled all of those programs to help people save money by saving energy. The Ontario Greens are saying, “Let’s bring those programs back.” I want to give you just one example: Corporate Knights hired a number of economists to do an analysis of what it would look like if we brought in a building retrofit program in the province of Ontario—or across Canada, but I will give you the numbers for the province of Ontario. A $5-billion investment in building retrofits would leverage $83 billion of additional capital investment in the province, creating over 800,000 jobs, contributing $196 billion to Ontario’s GDP, reducing climate pollution by 14 metric tonnes, and saving energy consumers $4.8 billion each and every year. To me, that’s the most logical, sensible, fiscally responsible and economically responsible way to help people with home heating costs and be more effective than removing the HST or carbon price from home heating fuels. Why don’t we invest in that? Why don’t we actually help people save money by saving energy—not just this year, but the next year and the next year and the years after that? That’s how we can address both the climate crisis and the affordability crisis that people are facing.

There has been a lot of talk about the cost-of-fuel inflation that we’re facing, whether it’s home heating, at the gas pumps, or whatever. If you look at what is driving it—this is according to PBO—the carbon price went up two cents last year—that’s per litre; it’s two cents per litre. Profits for the oil and gas companies, last year, went up by 18 cents a litre—

I would say to your average consumer looking at heating their home, “What’s hitting you harder: the two cents that the carbon price raised per litre last year or the 18 cents that went to oil and gas profits last year?” If we’re going to write letters—essentially, what these motions are about is writing letters to the federal government. If we want to write a letter to the federal government, why don’t we write a letter to the federal government to bring in the exact same excess profit tax, they brought in for banks and insurance companies, to the oil and gas sector? That would raise $4.2 billion. We could then take that $4.2 billion and follow the analysis that the Green Budget Coalition has done showing that we could actually do zero-cost energy retrofits for low-income households, including providing them with a heat pump at the exact same price, saving them far more money than either the original motion or the amended motion provides for people.

Speaker, the point is, we have solutions. As a matter of fact, the province wouldn’t even have to write a letter to the federal government on carbon pricing if we would just actually bring back the programs that would help people save money by saving energy, which, by the way, would benefit our economy and reduce climate pollution at the same time.

Speaker, the other thing that I, when I’ve heard the government discuss this—I see the energy minister here. I love debating the energy minister.

It’s an honour to rise today and speak to the motion. Madam Speaker, I know there is an amendment on the floor, and I can speak to the amendment as well, but before I do that, I want to move the following:

I move that the amendment be amended by deleting everything after “remove” and replacing it with “the carbon tax on fuels and inputs for home heating.”

Colleagues, you will know that the focus of today and this motion has been on the carbon tax. That is what we have been debating about. That is what is seizing the country right now, the value and the impact of the carbon tax on families; the fact that a federal Liberal government has brought forward an amendment to the carbon tax which favours one region of the country over everybody else, a decision that was plainly made for political purposes.

We saw that the member for Essex and a number of other colleagues last night were talking about why we were bringing this forward, why it was important for us to do that. It’s not only just because of the fact that the carbon tax is hurting every single person; it is because of the fact that the federal Liberal government, a minister of that government, has admitted that the decision to remove the carbon tax on fuels in Atlantic Canada was based solely on politics and no other reason. So for that reason, provinces and communities across this country—our federal Parliament has been seized on what has happened with respect to the carbon tax and why it is not only a bad tax, but why the Liberals have now made it even worse, turning it into a national crisis.

Now, I can appreciate the member for Orléans wanting to distract from that with another motion. Let’s talk about it. We were here last night until midnight debating this motion. Not one member of the Liberal Party felt it was important to get in their place and defend the amendment that was brought forward by the member for Orléans—not one. In eight hours of debate, the Liberal caucus sat on their hands and spoke not even once on the amendment. They didn’t get up and speak on the carbon tax. They didn’t speak even once. They just sat there in agreement all night.

And now, this morning, they get up in their place—the same group; the member himself, the member for Ottawa-Orléans—to defend the sanctity of the amendment that he brought forward on the HST. But a speech to defend it? No. Did any other members of the Liberal Party feel that it was important for them to get up and talk about reducing taxes? No. Have they? No. We will continue this debate, and I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, that not one more Liberal will have the courage to rise in their place and talk about either eliminating the carbon tax or the Harmonized Sales Tax.

Let’s be very clear: I will give credit to the NDP. Having said that, they didn’t speak either last night on the carbon tax motion, but I will give credit where credit is due. They themselves could see the damage that this tax was causing on the people of Ontario, and when we brought another motion last week with respect to eliminating carbon taxes on groceries and on inputs, the NDP voted with us—with the people of Ontario, frankly—to remove that tax.

That was a big change for the NDP. It was a big change for the NDP. What they had said, the NDP, is that after all of the huffing and puffing and talking about how important a carbon tax was, that finally—and you will know, Madam Speaker: The NDP have come a long way. They’ve come a long way.

The member for Sarnia–Lambton—you’ll remember in the last Parliament we had a motion to protect—I think it was line 9?

Further debate?

Further debate?

Keep talking.

I know. I need to start asking you some questions.

I’ve had to ask the housing minister a lot of questions lately, but I’ll get to the energy minister soon enough.

He talks about energy poverty, and that is a real issue, but most of the measures the government has brought forward to address that issue actually disproportionally benefit high-income households—including the original motion and the amended motion; including the $7 billion that we’re spending to subsidize electricity prices in Ontario. The FAO has done an analysis, and that disproportionately benefits high-income households at the expense of low-income households. When you look at carbon pricing, it’s the low-income households, according to the PBO, who receive more money back through rebates than they pay in to carbon pricing. So if the government’s concern—and I think this is a valid concern—is energy poverty, we’d be much better off having income means-tested programs and/or just doing what I’m suggesting: having programs in place that would help working-class, middle-class families be able to save money by saving energy. That is the most effective way we can address the affordability crisis and the climate crisis.

I know the members opposite have talked a lot about food inflation and how carbon pricing can connect to food inflation. But if you talk to food economists, do you know what they’ll tell you the number one drivers of food inflation are? The climate crisis—they usually say weather; they say there’s drought in most of the major growing areas in the world. Of course, there’s conflict in the Ukraine; that’s contributing. There is grocery-gouging; that’s contributing. But the primary driver is the fact that we have drought and floods in the major growing areas, which is driving up prices, because it’s a supply and demand issue. So if we truly wanted to address that affordability challenge, we would address the climate crisis, and we would do everything possible to protect local food supply chains. That’s exactly why we need to be building homes in communities that people want to live in, on land already approved for development, so we don’t have to pave over farmland to do it—so we can protect those local supply chains, so we don’t have a handful of wealthy, well-connected speculators cash in billions at our expense. And when we build those homes—and this is where we need to change the building code—we need to ensure that they’re energy-efficient, so that way, they can save money by saving energy; they can avoid paying HST; they can avoid paying carbon pricing, because they’re using less energy. It’s common sense. It’s basic economics. And by doing it, we benefit our economy by creating jobs; we make our businesses—especially if our commercial, industrial buildings are more efficient, we make them more competitive, more profitable, saving money, generating more prosperity; we ensure that renters and homeowners save money, because they’re saving energy. So it’s a win-win-win—oh, and by the way, we reduce carbon pollution, which is driving the climate crisis.

I want to close by saying to all members of this House—

Interjection.

I want to ask members what message we’re sending to young people. What message are we sending to young people? Because when I talk to young people, they have two major, major concerns. They have lots of concerns, but the two biggest concerns they have are, “How am I ever going to afford to own a home or even pay the rent, given the skyrocketing housing costs and the skyrocketing costs of rent?”

Then the second one is, “What’s my future going to look like because of the climate crisis?” especially after the summer we’ve been through this summer, Speaker, with smoke from forest fires causing bad air quality here throughout Ontario. As a matter of fact, the lung association was just here yesterday talking about lung cancer, and they’re saying that the number one driver historically has been smoking, but now it’s becoming air pollution, primarily driven by the climate crisis, which is then going to put pressure on our health care system, driving up costs for people.

Young people are asking about their financial future. According to Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer, the climate crisis is going to cost an extra $26.2 billion this decade alone just for public infrastructure if we don’t start reducing pollution. Over the course of this century, we’re going to have an additional $4 billion a year in transportation costs due to climate-fuelled extreme weather events; an additional $1.5 billion a year for costs associated to public buildings.

Young people are saying, “How am I going to afford a home or pay the rent? “They’re saying, “How am I going to afford these escalating costs due to the climate crisis?” Last year alone, $3.1 billion in insurable losses due to the climate crisis. So young people are saying, “How am I going to afford all of this?-

Then, they’re looking at what we’re debating right now in this House, and they’re saying, “Why don’t you take real action; real action to save me money? Build a home I can afford and make sure it’s energy-efficient. Make sure that I have a heat pump. Make sure that I have good insulation and good windows and that I can significantly reduce my home heating costs in that home.”

Speaker, let’s build homes people can afford in the communities they want to live in, that are affordable, that are close to where they work so they don’t have to have long, expensive commutes. Let’s build those homes so they’re energy-efficient, so that we can address the real affordability concerns people have, young people especially, about what it’s going to take to heat that home, and we can address the real concerns they have about the climate crisis.

We can do both. We can do it in a way that benefits our economy and creates more jobs. We can do it in a way that addresses the affordability crisis and the climate crisis. That’s the debate we should be having in this House today, not a debate about sending a letter to the federal government to maybe possibly do something that, quite frankly, is just yet another attack on taking action on the climate crisis. Let’s solve the problem of affordability and climate. That’s the debate we need to have. Thank you, Speaker.