I have a petition, and I want to congratulate the MPP Joel Harden for the excellent work that you’ve done on this very, very important bill and this petition.

“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 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” only facing “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;” and

“—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.”

I fully support this and I will add my signature to the thousands that have been collected by the MPP Joel Harden for Ottawa Centre.

I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government assisted in the preservation of 123 acres of ecologically significant lands at Upper Cedar Creek in Harrow and Hillman Sand Hills near Hillman Marsh in Essex county; and

“Whereas the Ontario government is a leader in conservation within Canada; and

“Whereas Ontario’s world-class system of protected areas, which includes 340 provincial parks and 296 conservation reserves, covers almost 11% of Ontario and grows every year;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Ontario government continue to consult with the public, stakeholders and Indigenous communities as we continue to expand Ontario’s vast network of protected lands and secure our natural heritage for future generations.”

I support this petition. I will affix my signature thereto, and I’ll give it to this responsible page Shahan, who will bring it to the Clerks’ table.

This petition is titled “Save Ontario Place,” and it reads:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario Place has been a cherished public space for over 50 years, providing joy, 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 there are concerns” that “Therme Group Canada’s vice-president ... was previously” the Premier’s “deputy chief of staff;

“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 affix my signature to it.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ford government cancelled rent control on units built after November 2018; and

“Whereas the cost to rent a home has never been higher; and

“Whereas people are being forced to leave their communities because decent, affordable homes are increasingly out of reach; and

“Whereas the Rent Control for All Tenants Act, 2022, will ensure tenants are not gouged on rent each year;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to protect tenants from predatory rent increases and pass NDP Rent Control for All Tenants Act today to ensure renters can live in safe and affordable homes.”

I couldn’t agree with this petition more and will affix my signature to it.

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 16, 2023, on the amendment to the motion regarding taxes on fuels for home heating.

Point of order.

I recognize the government House leader.

Further debate?

I think I have just a short period of time to speak. I’m not entirely certain how much time, but I’ll continue on, Madam Speaker.

First, let me just congratulate all members. I think members will know that today was another historic day in the life of this Parliament: A budget motion, a motion of confidence in the government—that’s what a budget bill is—and we received 100% support of all members of this House. One hundred per cent support, colleagues. Now, that has happened twice, to the best of my knowledge, in the entire length of time that Ontario has been in existence and, both times, it has been this Progressive Conservative government that has received the unanimous support of all members, colleagues. So that is a very, very good day, so I want to just thank all members and all parties for their unanimous vote of support in the government and the policies of the government. They will, of course, frame how we move forward.

I wanted to just talk a little bit about this. We’re now focused back on the carbon tax on this motion. It is also a good day because we will be talking about taxes and cutting taxes over and over and over and over and over again until this House adjourns on the 14th, and I am looking forward to that.

One thing I do want to start with: We talked about it in a previous motion and I’ll get back to it—it was disappointing to hear that the NDP—I thought they actually wanted to get rid of the carbon tax because they believed in putting more money back in the pockets, but what they want to replace it with is a cap-and-trade system. Now, colleagues, apparently the cap-and-trade system doesn’t cost you anything, right? The billions and billions of dollars that the cap-and-trade collects, according to the NDP, it doesn’t cost you anything, right? So they’re complaining that they want to get rid of the carbon tax but replace it with cap-and-trade. Now, cap-and-trade costs billions upon billions upon billions upon billions of dollars, and who has to pay those billions upon billions of dollars? Well, guess what? All of you have to pay.

Here I thought that the NDP had somehow seen the light, had a conversion on the road to Damascus and were seeing and understanding that when you cut costs for people, that it means more money in their pocket, but I was wrong. I was duped. I feel slighted. I thought that the NDP actually cared about people, but I now know that it was all a ruse because they actually want to replace one big tax with another big tax and just call it something else. Now, that is a trick that they have learned from the Liberals, right? That is 100% a trick that they have learned from the Liberals. We’re going to be talking about this a lot, and I can’t wait to talk about this further.

I’m hopeful that we will pass this motion brought forward by the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. I know the last time we brought a carbon tax motion forward, the Liberals voted against it. I know on this, they have not had the courage to get up and speak about it even once. But we’ll have until midnight tonight and, hopefully, they’ll rouse up the courage to speak it to it and actually vote in favour of eliminating the carbon tax.

I can tell my friends in the NDP that we aren’t going to eliminate one tax to put an even bigger tax on top of it and just call it something else and say, “Well, we’ve done our job.” I’m glad that the opposition House leader has really come clean and explained what the position of the NDP is; that removing the carbon tax is only supported by the NDP if it is replaced by an even bigger tax that hurts even more people across even more parts of the—it’s hard to believe that you would think that the carbon tax can’t hurt anymore than it does, but now the NDP want to layer something else on top of it.

Now, the Liberal member for Beaches–East York was talking about dinosaurs, right? She’s talking about dinosaurs in her dissertation. That is where the Liberals are at, right? It’s not about technology. It’s not about putting money back in the pockets of the people of the province of Ontario. It’s about collecting money, hurting people, ensuring that they do, in co-operation with the NDP, what they do best. That’s what it’s always been about. We believe and we’ll always believe that when you give people the tools to succeed, they will take you up on it. The opposition coalition believes one thing: that the people shouldn’t have the tools to succeed; that the more you take from them, they will rely more on government. That is the philosophy of both these opposition parties, and it is a philosophy that we will attack each and every day.

I want to thank the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for bringing forward this motion. I’m proud to be part of a government that, under Premier Ford’s strong leadership, has spoken out against this carbon tax from the start. Members will know that he’s been joined by the Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. They’ve all called on Prime Minister Trudeau to remove the carbon tax from all home heating fuels. And added to that, the parliamentary budget officer shows that the carbon tax will cost the average household up to $710 this year, even after rebates.

The federal government should do the right thing and remove the carbon tax on all home heating fuels. A recent Leger poll shows 57% of Canadians want the federal government to remove the carbon tax from everyone’s home heating bills. And the majority of Canadians don’t think that the federal government should be taxing people—yes, taxing people—for heating their homes. The numbers from every region show Canadians know it’s unfair to give some people a break on their home heating bills, but not everyone. The federal government needs to listen to the people and take the carbon tax off all home heating bills.

From time to time, Speaker, myself, along with my Durham-based colleagues, we host round tables with our chambers of commerce and business improvement areas. What we hear regularly at these round tables is that starting and growing a business is hard work. As you know, Speaker, all businesses play a vital role in our province’s economy, and in particular in local communities like the town of Whitby. Whether they’re farmers producing food, like up in Ashburn, manufacturers leveraging our skilled workforce, or shops on Brock Street, anchoring main streets, Ontario’s job creators all agree that this punitive tax hits hardest just when they’re getting back on their feet.

While the opposition Liberals and the NDP have no problem at all with a regressive carbon tax, it’s not fair or right, Speaker, that our local businesses are being punished—and yes, they are being punished. If the opposition truly cared about the businesses in their ridings, they would join us in calling on Ottawa to scrap the tax. Without a doubt, the carbon tax is driving up costs and making life more expensive for the people of this great province. In fact, a recent study by the Canadian Federation Of Independent Business found that more than 56% of businesses would need to increase their prices immediately due to direct pressures from the carbon tax. That means it’s not just on the carbon tax. It’s a tax on the truck drivers who bring in the food. It’s a tax on farmers who grow our crops. It’s a tax on the local businesses—like in Whitby—that are trying to succeed. It’s not fair for the people of this province to continue with this punitive carbon tax. That’s why we continue to fight against the carbon tax, even as the Liberals and the NDP opposition members continue to vote to make life more expensive for Ontario families.

This regressive tax adds an unofficial barrier to the affordability of essential items, Speaker. It forces small businesses like those in Whitby and in other parts of the region of Durham to increase prices, making them less competitive, and it places an unfair burden on other producers. Ontario companies are struggling every day to stay competitive and viable in a global market due to high inflation. In this time of economic uncertainty and affordability concerns, let’s not tax Ontarians more. Unlike the opposition Liberals and the NDP, our government believes in putting money back into the pockets of people by removing this harmful tax.

I’m proud, Speaker, that our government is once again taking action to support hard-working Ontario families and businesses by extending our gas tax cut. If passed, the 2023 fall economic statement will extend the gas tax cut to June 30, 2024, saving households an average of $260.

Speaker, since the implementation of the carbon tax, the people of Ontario have been paying more and more every single day for food, for services, but particularly for transportation. They’ve been forced to pay much more to fuel their cars. The carbon tax is making life more expensive for millions of people in Ontario, including my community in the region of Durham. While our government showed much-needed leadership and reduced the gasoline tax, the federal government did not. Instead, they increased fuel and gasoline costs by 14 cents, forcing individuals and families to pay more at the pumps because of this regressive tax. Doing so hurts our drivers and negatively impacts our economy.

At the end of the day, the federal carbon tax is draining the pockets of hard-working drivers in the region of Durham. It hurts workers who want to drive to the office and get back home to spend time with their families. It’s unfair for truckers who transport critical goods across our province. That’s why I’m proud that our government opposed this harmful carbon tax.

Unfortunately, the Liberals and the NDP have no problem supporting this tax, all while saying no to any of the measures our government is bringing to provide financial relief to Ontarians. Let’s not forget that they said no to our government’s fantastic removal of the tolls on Highway 412 and Highway 418 in the region of Durham. Unlike the Liberals and NDP and their carbon tax, our government is making life more affordable.

Speaker, our government understands that lowering taxes actually increases revenue, creates jobs and boosts the economy. Unfortunately, the independent Liberals and opposition NDP are working against affordability. They continue to support the carbon tax and vote against measures our government has implemented to help businesses start and grow. When we speak to companies all across the globe, they’re excited by what Ontario has to offer. It’s our educated workforce, it’s our low business costs, and, yes, it’s our innovative ecosystem—all of this and so much more.

But one concern they all bring up, because they don’t understand this, is this federal carbon tax. We look at our neighbours in the United States, $460 billion in two-way trade, and they ask us, “What the heck is this carbon tax that you have?” They want to think twice about investing and expanding in Ontario. Simply put, this carbon tax has stifled our growth across our economy. Every business, in every sector, has seen their costs go up because of this terrible carbon tax. Speaker, our message to the federal government is very simple: Get rid of this tax and do it now.

I want to move to northern Ontario for a moment because we have members in our caucus from northern Ontario. The carbon tax there is making everything more expensive, and the reality is, because of northern geography, the cost of transporting goods is already much higher than it would be in any other part of the province. Speaker, you’ll know that the north is a vast land where many individuals have to travel by car, and in many cases, larger vehicles are needed for safety due to the many back roads and unpredictable weather conditions. There’s snow up there already.

The carbon tax is negatively impacting people in these communities as they are hit hardest at the gas pumps and, yes, in the grocery store. There’s no place in this province where that cost has had a greater burden. Think for a moment about how much more money those schools have to pay to play each other. Gas is already more expensive up in northern Ontario. That 14 cents a litre is a big hit.

Let’s talk about energy, mining and forestry. As one of the largest producers or users, Ontario is exposed in three of its primary drivers for our economy. Yes, it’s time to scrap this tax.

Speaker, I’ve only got 23 seconds. We are fighting the federal carbon tax that the opposition Liberals and NDP continue to support. Our government will continue to put more money back into people’s pockets.

It’s time to scrap the carbon tax. Scrap it today. Do it now.

I want to first take a moment to thank my family. I want to thank the residents of Chatham-Kent–Leamington and Pelee Island for their trust and for affording me the privilege of speaking here and working on their behalf every day. I also want to thank my colleague the gentleman member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for bringing forward an important motion which calls on the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax on fuels and inputs on home heating for everyone.

This motion is relevant. It’s responsible. It is prudent. Just like its sponsor, it’s grounded in integrity. The recent exemption offered by the federal government to benefit only those using home heating oil raises this issue to the top of mind for all Canadians, particularly since this benefit will never reach the majority of Ontario’s homes, including families and individuals across my riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington and beautiful Pelee Island. Recently, I brought forward a motion calling on the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax from grocery items in an attempt to put more money back in the pockets of individuals and families across Ontario. This motion seeks to accomplish the very same goal.

Speaker, the delivery of nearly every consumer good in this beautiful province—especially the fresh and processed food we eat—is being affected by the worst tax this country has ever seen, a tax that’s harmful to hard-working Canadian families, individuals, farmers and businesses, providing no value other than taking money from families. This is this carbon tax.

The carbon tax is obviously a price levied on emission from fossil fuels such as natural gas, coal, oil and gasoline. The current carbon tax rate, as we’ve heard, is $65 per tonne of emissions, with a $15 increase each year until 2030, when Canadians will have to pay $170 per tonne. But the math is tricky, and most of us are lay people and not trained in economics and finance, so it’s hard to translate what this actually means, this $65 per tonne, but we know that the money that’s taken from our pockets and from our family’s budget, how that impacts our lives.

The carbon tax was introduced by the federal government back in 2019 with a lofty goal to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions. Yet four year later, where we are in present day, the carbon tax has made absolutely no progress on this front, all of this against the backdrop—our reality—that Canada contributes less than 1.5% of global carbon emissions—less than 1.5%. Yet in a punitive way, a destructive way to business, family and farms, it takes money from us while doing no good in return. The carbon tax makes everything we rely on more expensive. It’s costing the people of this province on every single thing we do, every single thing we have to buy.

The carbon tax is both unaffordable and ineffective. The federal Liberal government admitted as much when they removed the carbon tax, selectively and strategically, from home heating oil, a move that largely benefits residents only in Atlantic Canada. The federal Minister for Rural Economic Development fully admitted this move came after sustained pressure from Maritime Liberal MPs to support affordability and putting money back into Atlantic Canadians’ pockets. So why don’t all Canadians deserve the very same treatment? There are 76 federal Liberal members who represent Ontario—45% of their caucus—who all voted against a pause on the carbon tax for all home heating fuels. Yet if 23 Liberal Atlantic members can advocate for tax relief for their constituents, why can’t the federal Liberal members from Ontario do the same thing?

The clear majority of Ontarians believe the carbon tax should be removed from home heating—all home heating—so why isn’t the federal government listening to us? If the federal government can eliminate the carbon tax selectively and strategically on home heating oil immediately, why won’t they extend it to all home heating fuels? There’s only about 3% of Canadian homes that actually rely on home heating oil, almost all of them concentrated—where else?—in Liberal-held ridings of Atlantic Canada. Some 65% of the homes in Ontario use a cleaner, more efficient and sustainably sourced natural gas or propane to heat their homes, but making them ineligible for this carbon tax exemption. In the midst of a true affordability crisis, when families are struggling to pay their bills, the federal government is only committed to giving tax breaks to their safe seats in Atlantic Canada and not to our hard-working families here in Ontario or beyond.

Speaker, this motion is truly about affordability. We simply can’t afford the extra costs, and our members from across the aisle will admit and agree to the same thing. Canada’s inflation rate has risen about 3.8% year over year, increasing the cost of food to over 10%, and Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. The increase in global conflict and unrest has tested our fragile supply chains while increasing the prices on goods such as oil, gas and all the transportation networks and systems that we rely on to move our food, our inputs and our goods from one place to the other.

Our government is committed to combatting an affordability crisis. We’ve introduced a number of initiatives aimed at making life truly more affordable for all of Ontario. The LIFT, or Low-income Individuals and Families Tax Credit, provides tax relief to low-income families—common sense. Prudent, responsible—just like the member’s motion. The Ontario Childcare Access and Relief from Expenses—or the CARE—Tax Credit supports families with child care expenses. The Seniors’ Home Safety Tax Credit makes homes safer and more accessible so our seniors—those who built this great country and our great province—can live and stay safely in their homes longer. Most recently, our government cut the gas tax by 10 cents a litre—full stop. We removed the provincial HST from purpose-built rental housing in order to build a wider range of more affordable rental homes and units across the province, without prejudice, without favouritism.

Our government is committed to making life truly more affordable for all Ontarians, but we need the federal government and the members from across the aisle on our side. Most recently, Premier Ford, along with the Premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, wrote an open letter to the federal government asking to extend carbon tax exemption and remove the carbon tax on all home heating inputs. I’m very proud to be part of a government that’s truly committed to working for all workers, removing the carbon tax from home heating—all home heating fuels—would provide much-needed relief to families’ budgets now and throughout the year.

The carbon tax will cost Ontario—everyone who uses natural gas—an additional $300 this winter alone. This is a statistic from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation; it’s modest, and it’s conservative. The Prime Minister has consistently stated that Canadians will be better off due to rebates from the carbon tax. However, the Parliamentary Budget Office itself shows the carbon tax will actually cost the average Canadian household an extra $710 per year, even after all these so-called rebates. So at a time when all of us are already looking to cut costs and conserve and rein in spending, the carbon tax is truly ill natured.

The federal government cited itself the reason for the exemption on home heating oil was because it’s four times more expensive than natural gas. However, natural gas prices have increased by 50% in the past five years and are continuing on that same trajectory, which doesn’t make sense, not to mention that natural gas is, in fact, cleaner and, again, sustainably sourced from sources right here in Ontario. So heating is expensive for all Canadians, and heating fuels should receive the same carbon tax exemption.

Speaker, heating our homes is not a luxury; it’s a necessity. I’ve heard it continually and as recently as last week when we were home in our ridings from constituents across Chatham-Kent–Leamington about the negative effects of this specific carbon tax on their home heating bills and what they’re anticipating for a cold winter ahead. Most of my constituents and those across southwestern Ontario rely on natural gas to heat their homes, a fuel proven to be more cleaner and more efficient than oil, but they continue to be punished and to pay more for their home heating because they don’t have that exemption to the carbon tax.

If our federal government will eliminate the tax on home heating oils, why are producers not afforded the same exemptions? I’m talking about food producers: the food producers we have across Ontario, and particularly in my riding. We can fight for the environment at the same time by treating climate change seriously and working with one another, working with industry for innovation, efficiencies and economies of scale to pass down cleaner, more efficient solutions, and lower costs to all consumers.

Worse off, and probably worst of all, the recent exemption seeks to pit Canadians against one another, at a time when we’re already vulnerable and when there is strife across the world and at home. The federal government should not be isolating regions based on their voter support, but bringing people together in times of need. This latest move truly divides Canadians, region against region, one against the other—families, friends and relatives from across Canada.

The carbon tax is not a climate plan. My friend and member from Essex said it very articulately yesterday when he said that this is a revenue-generating tool and we truly do not know where these revenues and these profits go from the punishing tax on all Canadians.

Overall, emissions are up about 14% from 1990. The carbon tax is not an effective climate plan. It’s accomplishing one thing: making life more unaffordable. It’s not an option for any of us to heat our homes over the winter, and implementing a carbon tax on essential fuels disproportionately burdens lower-income households and forces families to make tough decisions and cut costs on even our most basic goods. Our government is committed to making life more affordable for all of us. To do so, it’s crucial the federal government listens to all of us and works towards cutting costs by eliminating this carbon tax.

I’m very disappointed that our federal Liberal counterparts are voting against a motion which would have extended the carbon tax exemption for all Canadians and all sources of home heating fuels. Their refusal to do so and their refusal to support Canadians and our friends and families across Ontario proves they’re committed to strategically preserving political seats in Atlantic Canada at the cost of families across Canada.

We have to be united in our approach. Placing the burden on taxpayers is unfair. It’s ineffective. It’s not helping our economy. It’s not helping our environment. I truly hope my colleagues from across the floor will call on their federal counterparts in the federal NDP Party, and our independent Liberals will call on their relatives in Ottawa to ensure that we have a sustainable, equitable outcome, by removing this burdensome tax for all home heating fuels.

Speaker, I thank you for your time.

Further debate?

This has been, actually, a fascinating debate, with the amendments and the amendments to amendments. I think it’s my first go-round to see so many intricacies with this particular motion.

I want to thank, certainly, the member from Lanark for this motion, because my riding back home, Windsor–Tecumseh, is built on automobile use, not just because we produce the vehicles—and the discouragement of the production of those vehicles would have an economic impact on our community—but also, I have an extensive riding that includes far more geography of an agricultural nature than of an urbanized one, so travelling is incredibly important. Just the way history has gone, the density is not there to sustain alternatives to driving. We may get there some day, but we are definitely not there yet.

So the carbon tax assumes that there is an alternative for the necessities of life. Now, we’ve had previous debate on purpose-built rentals. Having a roof over your head, to me, is a necessity of life; also, getting to work, getting to be able to provide for yourself. Heating your home is also a necessity of life, especially in the wintertime. You do not have options today that are viable, that exist.

I just had to replace my vehicle a few months ago. You know what? I’m in a privileged position because I have been a civil service member for nearly 20 years. I get compensated well for the tasks I do within the government. And now, being here as the MPP, I would say the same. It put me in a position where I could actually change my habits by doing something many could not afford to do: I bought a used electric car when I had to replace my black Equinox from 2011.

With that, I had that option because I had the means to do it. Not everyone in our community has the means to do that. I could not afford a new electric vehicle, even today. I could not; there is no question about it. I could afford a used one. While this means that I could—it’s a fantastic vehicle for urban driving. For me to be able to get to say, London, Ontario, is not in the cards. I’m going to run out of battery life by the time I get to the ONroute over in West Lorne. As a consequence, it really limits my opportunity to add to that impact, including my ability to actually get here in the most environmentally sensible way.

That’s why I rely on VIA Rail exclusively. I’ve never flown. I have driven a couple of times, but mostly I take the train, as my predecessor, Percy Hatfield, always did. In fact, I was often on that route between Toronto and Windsor—well, not often, but it seems like every time I was on that train, MPP Hatfield was there, and I always had a great opportunity to engage with him on those trips.

So in preparing for today and the decision as to whether to exempt the consumption tax or not—and the carbon tax is a consumption tax, as is the HST. All these mechanisms are intended to discourage behaviour, discourage consumption, so the more that you consume, the more you pay. On a theoretical basis, I think a lot of economists say this is actually the right way to go, and I think that point has been raised. But it’s on a presumption that there are alternatives available to you, and we certainly don’t have that across Ontario. Maybe there are communities that do have a variety of options. But I would say, my community of Windsor and Tecumseh, we’re not there when it comes to providing alternatives for some of these costs. How do we get out of it? There is work that can be done when you have the means to do so.

Earlier today, we had the debate over the HST versus the carbon tax. I came across an article from CBC Ottawa which lamented the double-dipping of the HST charge on the amount of carbon tax charged. This was from CBC Ottawa back in 2019. This is something that I would say grinds a lot of people’s gears, that government taxes tax. It truly does contribute to the affordability crisis that we’ve got. Actually, the motion that the House leader put forward today probably was the best of all worlds when it came to that, particularly for home heating.

In my riding, we have a development called Little River Acres. I remember visiting there multiple times. Actually, in last year’s election, it was probably one of my favourite places to go to because the people of that community are just strong-willed, practical and very community-oriented. The housing, though, was built probably about 40-something years ago. There is no natural gas service; it’s all electric heat. It means that there’s a great deal of turnover in those properties, because the cost to heat their homes is well in excess of what the neighbourhood surrounding it has to pay on their natural gas charges. Now, a carbon tax will maybe even the odds for those homes when it gets to its ultimate price, but at this point in time, the electric heating of a house is a pretty daunting task. So people, even though they love the neighbourhood, sometimes they just truly can’t afford to live there.

Getting back to the CBC article from 2019, they actually had a receipt from this home in Ottawa, and they were charged $14.44 of HST on their bill, and $42.40 of HST—sorry, the first one, the $14.44, was carbon tax and the HST was $42.40. Now, that was back when the price on carbon was a lot less. It was $20 per tonne; it is currently at $65 per tonne. So the equivalent—now, the math is not going to work perfectly, because of the tax charged on the tax, but if you take it on a strict proportional basis, the carbon was $14.44 in 2019 and is now $46.80—-on a strictly proportional basis, when you take the price per tonne on carbon from 2019 to 2023. At the ultimate cost, when the federal program is fully implemented at $170 per tonne, the carbon tax would be $122.74, and that’s not even counting the impact of the HST. So, from $14.44 in 2019, to that day in the future when it becomes $122.74, that’s over $100 more per month on heating your home.

Now, fortunately, in southwestern Ontario, we have a great climate; in Windsor-Essex, I have a great climate. I used to do winter control at the city of Windsor, and I was called in probably three times a year, because we just don’t get a lot of snow these days. I don’t know if there was ever a time when we got snow. I do vaguely remember snowmobiles back in the day; I don’t know if they remain viable today. But still, I mean, that may accent the reason why we need to be aggressive with our carbon emissions. Because at a certain point, people down our way had snowmobiles, and now it’s not cold enough to do so.

There’s impact to the environment. That’s why it’s important to make investments like the ones with Stelco and Algoma. That’s the equivalent of taking millions of vehicles off the road. There are heavy, heavy emitters out in the province of Ontario that really can make an impactful difference on our carbon emissions. And, you know, the federal government partnered with the province on changing those processes to be electric, which I applaud them for. Actually, I think it’s one of a number of great examples of collaboration between the province and the federal government.

But getting back to CBC article, though, from 2019, I thought it was very interesting to see what the federal government had told the public at that point. It says, “The federal government does not expect to see any increase in HST revenue, as consumers learn to change their purchase habits.

“‘Most consumers would have spent the related funds on other GST/HST taxable goods and services.’” That’s from the federal department of finance.

They also note, “Business won’t suffer either, because they’ll generally be able to recover the money with tax credits.”

I’m not sure that our experience, four years later, is something that is what was described by the federal government in 2019, because I look at my own habits—and, yes, I purchased an electric vehicle. That changed my habits. I probably would not have bought my 2019 Nissan Leaf in 2019, but I did in 2023. And really, it wasn’t so much of a cost-based decision, because it cost me more. There’s no amortization that improves my situation with an EV. The install costs for the charger plus the purchase cost was probably about $1,500, but it’s something that I can do because I have the capacity to do. But so many Ontarians do not have that, and affordability is the number one issue that I have in my riding. When I go knock on doors in Fontainebleau or just east of downtown, people are just crying for help about our situation.

This is part of being a balanced government: You can’t be ideological in every single circumstance; you need to listen when people are saying you’ve got it wrong. I think this government has actually done that a few times. When it’s gotten it wrong, it has course-corrected. And I think this is an opportunity for the federal government to also realize that it’s coming too fast given the lack of development of alternatives to the current needs for consumption for home heating.

I do have Enbridge, formerly Union Gas, and Union Gas is a strong part of the community of Chatham-Kent, employs a lot of people in Chatham-Kent. So when the last government announced—did not announce, but it was leaked—that they were considering phasing out natural gas, my heart sunk for the people of Chatham-Kent, because that is such a major, major employer. If we’re getting away from the use of natural gas, if that’s the intention, then it is going to have a dramatic impact on rural communities like Chatham-Kent. It’s certainly having an impact on mine.

Just about this time last year, I started to get the calls to my office about, “Why does my gas bill keep on going up?” They’re calling on the province to intervene, force the OEB to cap the charge on natural gas. The honest truth is that it’s going up because of the carbon tax. This is something that not within our ability to address; although it was mentioned that if we had our own cap-and-trade program that would equally affect natural gas, we would be rid of it.

At the end of the day, if we do believe that making sure someone has got a roof over their head and is not going to have to live in a spot where there’s no access to heat because they can’t pay their bill, that’s not a public good; the public good is finding things in a pragmatic and balanced way. And that means considering the impacts of your decisions on the people affected by them.

Now, getting back to the motion at hand, the motion is: “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.”

We’ve heard—I don’t need to rehash what the federal Minister Hutchings had said, that it was direct result of political will by the Atlantic caucus in the federal government. In my seat in Windsor–Tecumseh, I’ve got a Liberal member as well, and do you know what? I really should pick up the phone with him and ask him why, if we have so many more caucus members in the federal government than Atlantic, did the numbers not work where having a less-polluting form of home heating, why is that not a consideration for some relief? Because the federal government made a few statements, and I’m going to bring them up in just a moment, but they really spoke to the importance of putting money back in people’s pockets.

Minister Hutchings said, “I can tell you the ... Atlantic caucus was vocal with what they’ve heard from their constituents. And perhaps they need to elect more Liberals on the Prairies so that we can have that conversation as well.

“Trust me, Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic caucus, came with these options.

“They presented them to the Prime Minister, they presented them to cabinet. They said this is what we think will work in rural Canada.”

The Prime Minister did give an answer to that: “If you live in a rural community, you don’t have the same options that people who live in cities do. We get that. So this is more money in your pocket to recognize those realities, even as we continue to fight climate change....”

Actually, the Prime Minister is not wrong on this. I started in mentioning the geography of my riding of Windsor–Tecumseh. We have a significant rural footprint, and we don’t have the density. We don’t have the alternatives in place in our community that you may enjoy in a larger one. To get down that road of having those alternatives, we do need a couple of further changes of federal policy beyond this one, which I support, because we do not have the alternatives today.

But, interest rates: This is stopping multi-residential units from being built in my community—many multi-residential units. These are more affordable housing options, the ones that are coming online, because the costs to develop are not attainable for the people looking for homes. And so, we need to really get our head around this, that we cannot achieve that societal change unless those alternatives are there, and making things more expensive that are life essentials is not getting us there. It’s just leading to discouragement and loss of hope. That’s why this motion is a great motion, because it’s reflective of the reality of today. But this is the contributor to people not being able to pay their bills and having a real worry about, what does the future hold for me?

Now, getting back to the consumption taxes: Look, we should use the tax system to encourage the behaviours that we wish to see—to me, that’s actually a very Conservative philosophy—and use the tax system to discourage those behaviours that we do not want to see. Taxing things that are good—ways that someone develops themselves, someone takes care of their families, that’s not the stuff we want to discourage. We do want to discourage environmental contamination and pollution. We do want to discourage needless environmental damage, and there are ways to do that. The government has demonstrated some. They may not be recognized as such, but they are legitimate and they are real.

Large emitters still have a great role to play. One of our recent red tape reduction bills brought forward the opportunity for carbon storage and opportunities to incorporate some ideas from industry. In fact, I was in Sarnia a couple months ago, and one of the people at Imperial Oil mentioned that we’re on the cusp of technology that is actually going to make everything recyclable. It gave me so much hope for the future, that we are on our way to a better planet for all.

But it’s still going to take some time to get there. Until that day happens, we cannot continue to tax the heck out of life essentials like home heating, like driving. We need to make sure that we can afford to take care of our families.

I want to start by thanking all the members for staying to midnight last night and participating in this debate.

Interjection.

Thank you, Speaker, again. It’s a pleasure for me to rise once again on this motion. There’s been a lot of distraction on it, but given the number of people that have been willing to come up—on this side of the House, at any rate—and speak to this motion really speaks to the issue that is common amongst all our ridings, and that is affordability. People are really hurting. The cost of living has increased, in a lot of cases, beyond their means.

So when we looked at some tools, as many tools as we can, to fix this issue to address this issue of affordability, what is, in a sense, the low-lying fruit? What is the opportunity cost? What can we give up? Well, let’s give up a tax that has no purpose, that has no value, a tax that is hurting people, and that’s the carbon tax. We’re going to chip away at it. This motion is about chipping away by taking this tax off of all home heating fuels. I’ll read it again because there may be some confusion, given all the amendments: “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.”

Why is that? Why do we want this to be removed? Currently, 14% of the Canadian population is grappling with unsafe temperatures in their homes, a stark reality that underscores the pressing issue of housing affordability. Shockingly, one in 10 Canadians has missed paying a heating bill in the last 12 months, shedding light on the financial strain many individuals and families are experiencing.

To put it bluntly, Speaker, we currently live in very uncertain times, and for many Canadians, quite difficult ones at that. According to Statistics Canada, the nation’s inflation rate rose to 8.1% last year alone, marking the fastest annual increase in the cost of living in decades, reaching a 39-year high.

Additionally, a major factor of inflation was food, which rose by around 10.3%. A recent report by Dalhousie University predicts that food prices will increase by another 7% in 2023. This distressing situation is exacerbated by the fact that one and a half million people in the country are relying on food banks to meet their basic nutritional needs. A staggering seven million Canadians have been compelled to cut down on their diets, falling below recommended levels, simply because the cost of food has become unmanageable. The root cause, as argued, lies in the cumulative impact of eight years of the Prime Minister’s inflationary deficits and the imposition of carbon taxes.

A critical issue that has emerged is the alarming belief held by nine out of 10 young Canadians that they may never be able to afford a home, a stark contrast to the situation eight years ago. This reality paints a picture of a housing market that has become increasingly inaccessible to the younger generation.

Moreover, one and a half million Canadians are now relying on food banks, with one in five individuals forced to skip meals due to the prohibitive cost of food. Again, that is an example of affordability issues in all our ridings, and that’s why we have to do everything we can to reduce the cost of living in Ontario.

I’m going to jump to a couple of comments that were made earlier. I was really surprised by the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane when he actually said that this government doesn’t care about the environment. Really? No government has done more for the environment than this government. Take a look at the facts.

Interjection.

Quickly, we provide both the tools and incentives to empower Ontarians. Hydroelectric, improving our electrical grid, providing the resources for EV—many examples of how this government has addressed the environmental issues, creating an environment for a safe and clean Ontario.

Speaker, at this time, given all the speakers that have gone before me and all the great demonstrations of how this motion will improve the lives of people in Ontario, which is why we are all here, I move that the question now be put.

Including you. You were here late last night.

Further debate?

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

All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion that the question be now put, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

A recorded vote being required, it will be deferred to the next instance of deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

Report continues in volume B.