They don’t, and they shouldn’t.

So this motion asking the federal government to remove the HST from home heating—it’s pretty straightforward, something we could support. We will support. Pretty simple. But what we really should be doing in this Legislature is looking at things that we could do immediately—immediately—to help people with their heating bills; help them to be able to afford the latest technology—heat pumps—so they can actually reduce the cost of heating their homes and reduce the impact on the environment, because that’s something that both squabbling parties over there, the Liberals and the Conservatives, have seemed to have forgotten.

Now, the Conservatives never really cared about the environment, and we know that. And you know what? I can respect that. They’re open about that. The Libs, they pretend to care. They really do pretend to care. But we’ll go back to the federal government. The federal government says the carbon tax is supposed to help the environment, and then they say, “But some people should pay more than others.” That’s defeating the whole purpose, because everybody has to buy in.

And just for the record, Speaker, we’ve never been in favour of the carbon tax. We are in favour of a program that puts pressure on the use of carbon to reduce the use of carbon throughout the province, throughout the country. We support cap-and-trade. And people say, “Oh, there’s no difference between cap-and-trade and the carbon tax.” That’s not accurate. I’m going to explain cap-and-trade from a dairy farmer perspective.

Interjection: Oh, no.

Some industries will have an easier time of making big changes, and they’ll have credits because their production of carbon will go down quicker than the quota they’re allotted. They will be able to, yes, sell those credits. And some industries won’t be able to adapt as quickly, and they might have to buy those credits. But overall, the production of carbon will go down. Because as governments, we have to worry about home heating, absolutely, but we also have to worry about what’s going to happen to our kids and our grandkids. So overall, we have to reduce the production of carbon.

Now, the funny thing about the current Conservative government talking about the carbon tax is that the only reason we have a carbon tax in Ontario is that they cancelled the cap-and-trade system. That’s the only reason we have a carbon tax in Ontario, because they can’t tell the difference, and they won’t tell people the difference. They use stickers on gas pumps, and they go to court because, perhaps, they don’t know the difference themselves.

Let’s all agree that the number-one issue in all our constituencies right today is affordability. Let’s agree. Let’s agree, okay? But let’s also agree that a big issue that is looking over the whole planet and Ontario is that the climate is changing and we have to look at what we can do to slow that down. Let’s all agree on that. Let’s all agree on that. So, let’s come up with programs that actually work.

Now, the federal Liberal government has basically said, “Well, we don’t think our program works because we’re making carve-outs.” So that tells you that the carbon tax program isn’t working—isn’t working. One of the things in the cap-and-trade program that the former government put in, that this government scrapped—there was a fault in it, a fault that we identified: that cap-and-trade wasn’t going to work for everyone either. Because some people in places like where I live, where there’s no public transportation, it’s really cold, there’s a lot of—it’s a great place to live, Speaker. I highly recommend Timiskaming–Cochrane as a place to live, but you have to like winter sports.

But there was a fault with cap-and-trade, and that’s why we proposed to take 25% of the proceeds from cap-and-trade and direct it to areas and sectors that would not be able to compete—

You know what? Guess what? Guess why Quebec doesn’t have a carbon tax.

Interjection: They have cap-and-trade.

It should actually be the Ford carbon tax. It should. It should be the Ford carbon tax, because that’s what it is.

Now, I listened to government members and ministers tell me that they’re doing these fantastic things—you know, green steel and electric cars. Great. Great. Put some horsepower behind those programs so you can actually show that you’re reducing carbon and then you will be able to get rid of the carbon tax. Put some work behind it instead of rhetoric. The Liberal Party—or the kind-of-Liberal Party, potentially-Liberal Party, maybe-never-again-Liberal Party—they’re all rhetoric right now too, but so are you. The Ford government on environmental issues is pure rhetoric. They’re following their federal cousins; “Axe the tax” is the only thing they can think of, and that’s what they’re doing.

They want people to think that the only thing that is going to make life more affordable is eliminating the carbon tax. That’s not true; it’s not. There are many things that could be done right now in this province by the current government—maybe by the next one if the current government doesn’t do it. Make actual changes so that things like heat pumps, things like super-insulating your homes, things like putting top-quality windows in so you reduce not just the use of carbon but reduce the price of heating for the people in this province. Make long-term reductions so that they can improve where they live, for those people who actually can afford to live here; so they can make long-term improvements on their energy efficiency; so that they can actually benefit.

Because there are ways, Speaker, to actually benefit, for people to benefit from making changes so that they burn less carbon. The biggest benefit is for their kids and grandkids—that’s the biggest benefit—but there is an immediate benefit too, and it’s called a lower heating bill. A lower heating bill—imagine that. Imagine if a government member stood up and said, “We are going to do this. We’re going to fund heat pumps. We’re going to fund insulation”—all kinds of things. Who knows what they can come up with? But that is not their answer.

Their answer is, “We’re going to send a letter to the federal government.” Send a letter. Put it in big block letters, because, you know what, the stickers didn’t work. And now they’re angry and confused when sometimes you’re not supportive of the letter, or you are supportive of the letter.

This government has been in power for five years—

Interjection: Five and a half.

That’s right; they don’t.

Further debate?

Five and a half years—and they have, to their credit, fought against the carbon tax which they created for that whole time. So they create the carbon tax; they didn’t like cap-and-trade. Do you know what? Cap-and-trade wasn’t perfect. We tried to make it better. We tried. But they didn’t like it, so they cancelled it, knowing full well that cancelling cap-and-trade, cancelling any type of program to reduce carbon, was going to make the province fall into the federal carbon tax. They knew that going in, people.

Let’s make that clear: The Ford government cancelled cap-and-trade so that Ontarians would have to pay the carbon tax, so that they could complain about the federal government. Basically, that’s what it is. They’re helping Mr. Poilievre—who I don’t understand. I don’t understand this whole dynamic, because Mr. Poilievre doesn’t like the investment bank, because the Liberals created it. So the Progressive Conservatives go, “Oh, give it to us.”

And do you know what? Ontarians who can’t afford their heat and can’t afford their mortgage payments—and in my part of the world, can’t afford to drive to work—do you know what they all really want right now? What they all really need is a new provincial-sponsored bank. That’s what they want. That’s really what they want. That’s their top priority.

Interjection.

Let’s make this pretty simple and clear: We are in favour of this motion directing the federal government to take HST off heating. We’ve been in favour of this for a long time—2011? This has been a long-standing policy for us, especially in places in northern Ontario—all of Ontario, but this province is so big and so varied, many people don’t realize the challenges that people face. I don’t come from Toronto. I didn’t realize that there—coming from northern Ontario we think everything down here is just great, until you get here. And there’s huge challenges in Toronto—huge—but one of our biggest challenges in northern Ontario is no public transportation because of our distances per capita. We realize that.

But we’re a vital part of this province. You know they’re always taking about the critical minerals strategy and mining and stuff. Do you know where most of that comes from? It comes from northern Ontario, the future of this province. I think a lot of people will agree a big part of the future of this province comes from northern Ontario. But the people who live there face unique challenges, and one of them is the cost of living, which is higher. The day-to-day cost of living is higher, and the farther north you go the higher it gets. My colleague from Kiiwetinoong, when he gets the opportunity to speak on this, will detail the costs of living —I live in central Ontario, actually. For people who live in northern Ontario, the costs are astronomical.

So, we’re in favour of this motion. We hope that the government puts forward policies that they actually can enact to help people—that they actually show that the things that they talk about, the green steel, all the announcements they make regarding electrification. Let’s show us that they’re going to prove that they’re actually going to reduce the amount of carbon, and then we can use that proof to get off the carbon tax program. Wouldn’t that be—right? If you don’t like the federal carbon tax and you do want to do something to recognize climate change and do your part to control climate change, come up with a better program—come up with a better program.

There should be lots of horsepower on that side to come up with a better program. There should be lots of horsepower on that side to show that you can reduce your carbon output. There should be lots. But to date, the government’s focus has been on taking the federal government to court and losing and costing money and challenging the federal government on their right to put on a backstop program if the province doesn’t put one in. That was a loser right from the start. That was a loser right from the start. But that wasn’t, Speaker—I’m going to close on their first salvo, so after they cancelled the program that they had instead of fixing it, knowing full well that they were going to now force Ontarians to pay the carbon tax—and this will go down in infamy—their solution to pollution was stickers on gas pumps.

I’ll come in the House now.

I will be sharing my time with the member from Beaches–East York today.

I want to thank the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane. I couldn’t disagree with most of what he had to say. And it really is about making life more affordable for people here in Ontario. It is about doing what’s within our own powers to do to influence affordability here. And there is a lot that we can do. And having a government that would just prefer to write letters—to write letters—instead of actually taking the power of government to be able to make a positive difference in people’s lives—and that’s what I think politics should be about.

Politics should be about working together to make people’s lives better. Is it always going to be perfect? No, it’s not. There will be days when it’s challenging and we disagree and we want different than the path that we’re on. But we talk about it. We actually come up with solutions by actually talking to each other and saying, “There is a way forward here. We can do what’s right for the people of Ontario and we can address climate change at the same time.” And we get attacked from both angles because we try and do both.

It’s important that we address climate change, but it is important that we actually make Ontario economically healthy for the vast majority of people. This is within our power here in the province. We do not have to look to the federal government to do something. There are things that we, right here in Ontario, can do.

I agree on cap-and-trade. It was a program that the Liberal Party did implement many years ago that was cancelled by this government. And if you look at it, the other provinces that are not subject to the carbon tax here, as we are in Ontario, it’s because they have implemented similar kinds of programs. So the fact that we didn’t have a carbon-reduction program here in Ontario—it ended up being cancelled—that’s what makes us susceptible to this carbon pricing.

There are many ways of reducing our uses of carbon in this country, in this province, but there are many ways to reduce emissions. And I agree, I think we should be putting far more effort in conservation. I think we should be putting far more efforts in energy retrofits. Okay? That’s where we need to go. Conservation is the way forward. Use less. And there’s a way that we can do it and we can get the people of Ontario on board to do exactly that: by helping them pay for energy retrofits. We know it makes a difference. We’ve seen programs. We have the data, we have the evidence, and we have the statistics that actually show that energy conservation is probably the most economical way to actually reduce emissions. Right then and there, we know. But we have nothing.

Some of the energy conservation programs that had been put into place by previous governments, when this government got elected, they cancelled them. They cancelled the rebates for electric vehicles. They cancelled charging stations. They cancelled renewable energy, when now, today, renewable energy from solar and from wind is actually cheaper. And if we had carried on and we had implemented those programs—if we had kept them—we would have been far further ahead.

We know that, right now, when it comes to affordability, people in Ontario are hurting, and I think people right across the country are hurting. Inflation hurts. We were lucky, actually, as a country, to come through COVID in a relatively good position compared to some of our G7 counterparts, who have suffered far greater inflation than Canada has. Canada still has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 countries. We have done good work. And now, just like the rest of the globe is dealing with inflation, people here in Ontario are dealing with inflation.

It’s so important that we have these kinds of discussions to determine what is the right way forward. Are we always going to agree? I’d say no, we’re not. But I think that working together with the federal government, instead of trying to wedge the federal government—if you went to the federal government and said, “Let’s work together on this and let’s make it better for the people of Ontario. You cut your part of the HST and I’ll cut my part of the HST, and we’ll make this happen, give people a break,” I think the federal government would be willing to have that conversation.

Will it be an easy conversation? No, it won’t. But is it a conversation worth having? Yes, it is. And so it’s not always about—I agree, I hate the sloganeering. I hate the sloganeering. I hate what politics has become, because it should be better.

Interjection.

Mrs. McCrimmon has moved a motion to amend the motion by adding at the end “for Ontario.”

The member for Kanata–Carleton still has the floor.

I’m sure we all would like to be eating lunch, but we are now here dealing with a very important issue.

I’ll start by giving you a bit of a quiz. Stegosaurus, triceratops, raptors, Conservative government: What would these all have in common? If your answer was “dinosaurs,” you are absolutely correct, and you will get a prize from me later.

You may get a prize if you actually get on board with the rest of the world and accept the fact that we are in a climate emergency and it needs to be dealt with. We are leaders, and we are here to lead, supposedly. But what I’ve seen for the past few weeks is, extraordinarily, games being played. I’m used to this; I was at city hall with some of the members here, and there was the shiny bauble—always the shiny bauble over here: distract, deflect. And I believe that the House leader even accused us of having, what was it, a desperate move to distract. These are the words of the House leader, that we over here, on this powerful side of the House, are just using this as a desperate move to distract.

Well, what is before us and has been before us in Ontario is an RCMP investigation, a criminal investigation, but are we talking about that? Are we talking about preserving our greenbelt? No, we are talking about a million other things just to distract the public. For the House leader to say that—they’re masters at distracting and deflecting and not doing our job to protect Ontarians, which is what this idea from the marvellous member from Orléans had to bring forward. That’s what Ontarians want to see.

We are in a climate emergency, and what are we doing about it? We’re fiddling while Rome is burning. We have seen—and we’ve been warned by the Financial Accountability Officer, by the Auditor General, by a million experts with a ton of reports sitting on the shelves collecting dust. We commission them, we ask for them, and they get delivered with powerful, important facts for us to read and learn and heed the advice of, and what do we do? We let them sit on a shelf instead of actually doing strong climate action.

If this government actually had an environmental plan, a climate action plan, we wouldn’t be here; we would actually be out doing the work. The work would be done to protect Ontarians instead of just arguing back and forth here, like a Ping-Pong game.

But no, this government’s solution to solving the climate emergency is electric vehicles. Okay, that’s helpful, but you haven’t secured the supply chain and you haven’t engaged Indigenous communities. And you have a report, the climate change impact assessment report, that got released in the dark of the night, stealthily, and that sits on a shelf somewhere, and a park that was already a park and just had a name on it. That’s the answer. That is the answer for Ontario’s climate emergency. That is how we’re going to keep Ontarians safe.

A while ago, I brought forth a private member’s bill that I thought was pretty benign for climate action, and many, many of the members over there supported it—said they did, and I believe them—on flooding awareness and emergency preparedness, and what happened? Even the environmental minister at the time was on board, but then at the last minute the rug got pulled out from underneath, because climate action does not matter to this government. That is going to leave us woefully behind.

If they’re worried about money now, we have been warned about the high cost of inaction. You’ve seen that already with this government. They’re so worried about this pollution pricing, but yet they don’t think twice about blowing money in court, fighting things they can’t win and that are ridiculous—again, dinosaur mentality. They don’t think about cancelled projects, all the renewable energy projects. Why are we not focusing in on renewables and conservation? It’s not rocket science. Come on. Education, as well—conservation, which you would know creates green jobs, creates sustainable jobs.

I have encouraged you in the past to grow a spine and to get behind strong, brave and bold measures. I’ve offered you transplants from my spine, but you have not taken me up on that. You just continue to be in the dark, heads in the sand, dinosaur mentality, and you’re not leading.

We could be doing strong retrofits, deep energy retrofits of our buildings and our houses. We could be investing in subsidies and giving out incentives for heat pumps. The entertaining member from Timiskaming mentioned insulation and energy audits of your homes. This is the way to save Ontarians money, if you really cared—because you know what? We can’t tackle affordability on a non-livable planet, right?

The member from Guelph mentioned this morning that we can deal and we should be dealing with the climate emergency at the same time as the affordability crisis. They are part and parcel together, connected. They are not separate. They are not in silos. And if you think that—I can’t even say it; the word “dinosaur” just keeps coming to me repeatedly.

You don’t have a plan. You have reports, this climate change impact assessment sitting on a shelf. We have heard nothing about it. What was inside it? Was it that damning, that alarming that you can’t reveal? Why not share it? Why commission it? Why say it’s one of your key planks for your climate action when it’s collecting dust, as we said?

The other thing the House leader mentioned was “the radical environment minister in Ottawa.” You know, if that’s his definition of radical—I mean, I don’t think—

Super radical.

I believe I have about a minute so I’ll try to be as quick as I can. Do I have the whole 20 minutes or I cut out one minute? Okay—

You really want to go there?

Order.

The member for Beaches–East York has the floor.

Super radical—I don’t think that environment minister is undergoing a RCMP criminal investigation. I would think that’s pretty radical.

Interjections.

Interjection.

Interjection.

I’m running out of time, but I do have an amendment. Before I forget, I do want to—I’ve had enough, actually, of the dinosaur mentality and I just really hope that in 2026 people wake up and look for real leadership, because we don’t have that right now with our government. So I have an amendment: I would like to amend the amendment by adding at the end “’s families.” So “’s families” is the amendment, okay? And I’m going to send that with page Martel, who is getting a great education today.

I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

Thank you, Speaker. I’ll wait until the one-hour lead.

Miss Surma moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 151, An Act to amend various statutes regarding infrastructure / Projet de loi 151, Loi modifiant diverses lois relatives aux infrastructures.

I move, pursuant to standing order 77(a), the order for second reading of Bill 141, An Act respecting life leases, be discharged and the bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. This bill, the Improving Real Estate Management Act, 2023, if passed, represents the next step in our plan to establish a framework, in part, to allow Ontario to act holistically and create efficiency in the management, decision-making and execution of realty activities. This will ensure alignment with government objectives, like building more housing units, including affordable housing and long-term care.

The time being 1 p.m., pursuant to standing order 10(b), I am now required to deem the debate on this motion adjourned and begin afternoon routine.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Report deemed adopted.

Pursuant to standing order 66(d), an order for concurrence for each of the resolutions reported from the Standing Committee on Social Policy will be placed on the orders and notices paper.

Report deemed received.

Pursuant to standing order 66(d), an order for concurrence for each of the resolutions reported from the Standing Committee on Justice Policy will be placed on the orders and notices paper.

Report deemed received.

Pursuant to standing order 66(d), an order for concurrence for each of the resolutions reported from the Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy will be placed on the orders and notices paper.

Report deemed received.

Pursuant to standing order 66(d), an order for concurrence for each of the resolutions reported from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs will be placed on the orders and notices paper.

Report deemed received.

Pursuant to standing order 66(d), an order for concurrence for each of the resolutions reported from the Standing Committee on the Interior will be placed on the orders and notices paper.

Report deemed received.

Mr. Calandra moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 150, An Act to enact the Official Plan Adjustments Act, 2023 and to amend the Planning Act with respect to remedies / Projet de loi 150, Loi édictant la Loi de 2023 sur les modifications apportées aux plans officiels et modifiant la Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire en ce qui concerne les recours.

First reading agreed to.

First reading agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

I’m very proud to introduce a petition this afternoon brought forward by many neighbours, including Richard Oldfield from Bowmanville, who I was just having lunch with, as an active transportation advocate. It reads:

“I Support the Moving Ontarians Safely Act.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas we’re seeing an alarming rise in road accidents involving drivers who injure or kill a pedestrian, road worker,” first responder “or cyclist;

“Whereas currently, vulnerable road users in Ontario are not specifically protected by law. In fact, Ontario’s Highway Traffic Act allows drivers who seriously injure or kill a vulnerable road user to avoid meaningful consequences, often facing only minimal fines;

“Whereas this leaves the friends and families of victims unsatisfied with the lack of consequences and the government’s responses to traffic accidents that result in death or injury to their loved ones;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“—reduce the number of traffic fatalities and injuries to vulnerable road users;

“—create meaningful consequences that ensure responsibility and accountability for drivers who share the road with pedestrians, cyclists, road construction workers, emergency responders and other vulnerable road users;

“—allow friends and family of vulnerable road users whose death or serious injury was caused by an offending driver to have their victim impact statement heard in person in court by the driver responsible; and

“—pass Bill 40, the Moving Ontarians Safely Act.”

Speaker, I am proud to sign this petition and send it with page Jessy to the Clerks’ table.