Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Once again, I recognize the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston to lead off the debate.

I have to ask myself, what are we really doing here with this motion this morning? Two weeks ago, we were debating a Conservative motion on carbon taxes on groceries and my colleague the MPP for Timiskaming–Cochrane told a story about three envelopes, about governments on their way out leaving three envelopes for those who would replace them—I can’t do justice to the story; I thought he was brilliant. I’ve replayed the video, I think the man has a future in standup and shouldn’t be blocked—but, frankly, I’ll note that the first envelope was a recommendation that if the government was facing a sea of troubles that it blame the previous government. I was around for Dwight Duncan and company, and I got to hear all about how—this was seven years on—the previous Conservative government had made things impossible for the Liberals in 2010. We’re getting kind of long in the tooth with the Tories here now—five, six years—blaming the previous government. It’s wearing thin. They’re going, as my colleague said, to the second envelope of advice when you’re facing a sea of troubles, and that’s to go after another level of government—blame that level of government.

It seems to be that we’re at that second envelope today. Here’s a government besieged by police investigations, findings that it’s undermined municipal government action on housing, newspaper articles showing that their minister’s zoning orders—supposedly used to speed things up for housing and for jobs—do no such thing, facing further investigations by the Auditor General on the very smelly Ontario Place deal. This is a government very desperate to divert attention, to as they say, change the channel, and that appears to be why we have this motion before us today.

Now let’s be very clear: The cost of home heating, the cost of living is a profoundly serious matter. People are being squeezed, people are being hurt. And so, since it is so serious, one would think that this government would be using its powers to actually address the issue rather than asking another level of government to act.

People in Ontario wish that someone would take action to protect them from being gouged, from being squeezed—somebody with political power and authority who could actually use that power and authority to make a difference in their lives. But that’s not what we’re getting here. Here we have a government with the power to bring in laws to protect people, with a treasury that can spend money to help them, with officials that can use existing laws to protect people against gouging, for instance, in groceries, in services, in auto shops etc. Actually, this government could protect people from being charged for medical services. They have all these powers, and we’re not getting a discussion about that today. We’re getting a discussion about another level of government: “Please, sir, do something for us.” That is not a serious approach. Really, it is not a serious approach to the difficulties that people in Ontario are facing. It is not.

This government has a lot of power to do things that will actually help people, to actually make a difference in their lives, and yet we’re spending time on a resolution to ask another government to do something. Did Ontario suddenly go broke overnight? Finance critic, have you heard the news that they suddenly don’t have any money to help people with anymore? Did legal counsel go on strike so they can’t write new laws to protect people or new regulations? Did ministers declare they were no longer going to direct civil servants, so that there’s no government machinery to help people here in Ontario, someone else has to do it? How lame can you get? Apparently, very, very lame.

The late-night comedian Stephen Colbert refers to something like this as a “Pop-Tart full of sadness.” It’s insubstantial, it has some sugar crystals on the crust, so it’s shiny, but at the heart of it, it’s just this whine, this wistful call for help from another level of government. Ontario, within this federation, with the biggest population and the biggest economy, is saying, “We can’t help people. We need the federal government to help people.”

Well, frankly, we are big players. We can make things happen. We can shape this country. We can shape its future.

We could, here in Ontario right now, help people with the rising cost of housing by bringing in real rent control. We could help people with energy by investing heavily in cutting people’s energy use and their energy bills. We could help them with food by protecting farmland rather than paving it over, making sure we have a steady supply. And frankly, we could protect people from overcharging in medical care, but that’s another matter—a lot of things.

This is a government that, in the past, has taken action against affordability around energy. In 2018, Ford cancelled the Green Ontario program, a program to help people cut their energy use and their energy bills. That meant an end to the program helping Ontarians with home upgrades like energy-efficient windows, smart thermostats, heat pumps and installations. In 2018—what’s that, six years ago? Six years of efforts to reduce energy use and make life more affordable—they cancelled that. They cancelled that, and there’s no word today about any restoration. Then, in 2019, because they hadn’t finished bombing heavily enough—they had to bounce the rubble, as they say—they went after the program of energy efficiencies that were delivered by local distribution companies, energy utilities, further cutting back people’s ability to cut their energy bills. So this government has had the opportunity to give people assistance to cut their bills, but it has, in fact, cut the help that would allow them to reduce their energy bills and their energy costs.

We need to talk about how to cut people’s energy bills. What can we do here in Ontario in this Legislature? And what we’re getting is a motion to request another level of government to act.

How do members of this government defend cutting those money-saving programs that help people? I heard the arguments that were made by the member, and he’s right: people are hurting. So how do you defend the fact that you cut the programs that help them? How do you do that? Why did they do that, and why are they now saying that they’re going to do something about affordability?

In my opinion, if you can do something and you refuse to do it and you put forward a motion that really is rhetorical, is for show, it’s because your government is so besieged with problems it has created—a government where I’m sure senior civil servants and politicians are meeting with their lawyers now in preparation for their interview with the mounted police, in a situation where former civil servants and former ministers are meeting with their lawyers, going through their records, going through their calendars, their day-timers, their texts to see if there is anything that can get them in trouble or, if there is something that is there that can get them in trouble, trying to figure out a story, like, “Officer, I’m sorry, I don’t have the records; my dog ate my iPhone. Sorry about that.”

Instead of sending out a “please, sir” note to the federal government, Ontario could actually help people cut their electricity bills by investing in their homes and businesses to cut demand. You could do that. You’ve got the money. You’ve got the legal authority. You’ve got the machinery. You need to do it.

Ontario is looking at potential big increases in electrical demand. To meet that demand, there are a variety of options before us. What this government wants to do is go on a spending spree to build and expand gas plants in Ontario. That is very expensive. That is very expensive on the face of it, but also, we’re in a world where we have wildfires in ways that we’ve never seen before, flooding we haven’t seen before, heat waves that we’ve never seen before. Because of that, we may well have to shut down these new gas plants a decade ahead of their normal lifespan. That will cost many billions as well.

At the same time, there are cheaper options. I’ll go to the Royal Bank of Canada, which has recently come out with a report talking about this investment, this rush to invest in gas plants. What the Royal Bank says is, “What can the province do to bide its time and avoid making an early call on costly natural gas generation?” I’m not the only one who calls this costly.

“One way is to use policy levers to delay demand. Energy conservation can buy the province time to build large-scale, cleaner power sources....

“Deferring hefty financial commitments will keep electricity affordable and gives Ontario time to redefine itself as a low-carbon manufacturing hub that attracts companies involved in electric car supply chains, green metal production, and clean tech.

“The good news,” from Royal Bank: “Technology exists that Ontario can use to navigate the looming demand rush and delay committing” fully “to natural gas-powered generation. Changing consumer attitudes and behaviours to promote flexible demand and energy efficiency will also be key to unlocking significant savings and alleviating grid pressures.” I underline: “significant savings.”

“By 2040, Ontario could meet nearly 20% of its expected demand ... via economically viable conservation. Doing so could save Ontario ratepayers ... $500 billion” a year. Not just one time—half a billion a year. That’s real money. In today’s dollars, half a billion actually counts.

So this government could save money. It could help millions of homeowners cut their energy use and cut their bills rather than dramatically ramping up gas-powered generation. It wouldn’t have to ask the federal government for anything. It could use the power it has in its hands today to help Ontarians. And yet that’s not what’s before us. That is not what is before us.

This government, this feral government, is focused on the even sweatier problem of media coverage: day after day of articles, social media posts, question period broadcasts with MPP Stiles putting lead questions to a silent and muzzled Premier about what really happened in Vegas, at the wedding, at the stag and doe, at the meeting with the developer who wanted a rewrite of urban boundaries. What really happened in those places? So the government is seized with a question: How do we move the cameras away from us? How do we focus them on something else and not on our, let us say, bad ways? Let us say just “bad ways.”

So a cry goes out within the government caucus: “Can’t we talk about something else? Something we aren’t really doing anything about, but something people care about?” Within the government caucus: “Home heating, the impossible cost of living? Now, there’s a great thing: We don’t actually have to do anything. We’ll ask another level of government to act, but we’ll divert attention”—because this is an emotionally powerful issue. People are being hurt. People are being squeezed. This government is not actually helping them, but it can sound like it’s doing something. And that is what we’re dealing with today.

It’s quite extraordinary watching the Premier when he is asked questions about his bad ways. There was recently an interview he did with a number of reporters, and Mike Crawley from CBC actually recorded questions and responses. I don’t know if anyone here will notice, but the attempt at diversion is pretty substantial. I’ll give you a few samples.

Richard Southern, City News: “How on earth did so many MZOs go to people who were present at that wedding, sir?” The Premier: “The interest rates are killing us. The Bank of Canada froze the interest rates both times now and I appreciate that, but that’s not good enough. They have to start lowering interest rates that make it more attainable for people to buy homes.”

Well, interest rates are a problem, but I don’t think he’s exactly answering the question. He’s moving again—as they say, he’s “pivoting”—to divert people’s attention.

Jeff Gray, Globe and Mail: “Why was your staff running around so concerned about those lands which are owned by a man identified as your friend, or co-owned by, Shakir Rehmatullah?” The Premier: “I had a great meeting, by the way, with Mayor Chow. What a wonderful person she is.”

I can’t argue that. I think Mayor Chow is a wonderful person, but it’s not exactly a response to the question. Would you agree? More of a diversion, a pivot—ah, man, it’s just too much. Anyway, his responses time after time after time were exactly this. They were a diversion. They were a shopping basket full of distractions.

So let’s get back to this motion. I’m sure the premise of the motion—and it was set out in the speech by the member—was, how do we help people with affordability? Well, if you want to do that, if you want to do something right now, change the rent control laws. Because I have to tell you—the member referred to people at food banks. I have a number of food banks in my riding. The one at Cosburn and Pape is in an area with many apartment buildings. The lineups at that food bank have grown dramatically, and you don’t have to ask too many people to figure out what’s going on: They can’t afford their rents. The rents are being cranked up constantly.

I had a visit to an apartment building recently and talked to a tenant there who had been a postal worker. He had to retire early because of health problems and was thus on a reduced pension, and he and his wife were just sort of able to make things balance. They had been in the unit about 20 years, so compared to the neighbours on his floor, he was paying a substantially lower rent. Notwithstanding that, his wife died and so the two-pension-income household became a one-pension-income household. For the last few years, the landlord has continuously been applying for and getting above-guideline rent increases. He had this to say to me: “When I finish paying rent, I’ve got $200 a month for everything else: food, clothing, transportation, phone, whatever I can get.” This man is up to here, up to his neck in financial difficulty, and his landlord is pushing that financial difficulty ever higher.

This government could actually change the legislation, either abolish the above-guideline increases or change them so that they can’t be used as a tool to drive people out. This government could make sure that when one person leaves the unit, the next person coming in isn’t charged double or 50% more or triple. You could actually control the rents on units, and that would have a huge impact on people’s ability to pay for the necessities of life. But I’m not seeing any of that from this government—none of that from this government.

Speaker, my time is shorter than I want. I’ll just say very quickly—and I’ll steal from my colleague from Waterloo. She gave a brief history of how we came to be where we are today. We had a cap-and-trade system in Ontario in 2018 when this government came in calling it a carbon tax. They said they were going to fight the federal carbon tax and abandon the cap-and-trade system, which, by the way, had a lower cost than the carbon tax.

In any event, I had the opportunity to attend the press conference when the then Solicitor General was speaking about the matter going to the Supreme Court. What was fascinating to me was watching as she tried to respond to reporters’ questions, who were saying, “How are you going to win this? Where’s the legal legs? Do you think you can win this?” There was more bobbing and weaving than you see in a heavyweight title fight; it was really impressive. I could tell that the Solicitor General had actually had professional legal advice on this and been told, “This is a dog of a case. If you want to put on a show that you’re doing something, sure, but don’t expect to win this,” which, in the end, was the case.

Now, you have to understand that this government does run its own carbon tax—on the big emitters. It’s exactly what Doug Ford called a carbon tax. So I’ll use his words: Doug Ford is running a carbon tax system, and that is projected to collect billions of dollars from big industry between now and 2030. I know this sounds really wild. Maybe it’s just completely beyond the pale.

You will actually have billions of dollars that you could put into people’s homes and businesses to cut their energy use and cut their energy bills. You don’t have to go to big daddy in Ottawa. You could actually use your own power, authority and treasury to help people directly now. And the question that one has to ask is, why aren’t you doing that? As I suggested earlier, the answer is, we’re dealing with a project of distraction and diversion away from this government’s scandals, from its corruption and its difficulties with the police.

When my kid came to me when he was small and said, “Daddy, can I have something to eat?”—and I’d say, “Well, yes. There are bananas on the counter. There are some apples in the fridge. I’ve got bread, peanut butter. But you know what? Go to the neighbours and ask them if they can give you a sandwich. I’m not really going to give up my bananas or apples or bread or peanut butter to you. You’re just my kid. Go to the neighbour. See if they’ll feed you.” That’s what we’ve got here. We’ve got a government saying, “We aren’t going to use our own power, authority and funds. We’re going to tell you, ‘Go and ask someone else.’” Well, I don’t think that’s defensible. I don’t think it’s defensible at all.

This resolution should be addressing the serious problems of affordability and home heating. This government should be doing that, but it’s not. It’s diverting. It’s distracting. It’s trying to move focus.

Speaker, if this government used the power and finances that it has, it could actually help people.

Interjection.

Further debate?

Order.

I’ll ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary comment.

It’s a pleasure to be here with you all this morning to debate this motion to once again ask the government of Ontario to write a letter to the Prime Minister. At this point, the Premier is becoming quite proficient at writing letters, and I’m not sure if it’s because it’s his preferred form of communication or if, like the former President of the United States, he just likes signing his name in giant Sharpie pen. I think that’s yet to be determined.

What we do know for sure is that climate change is real. Climate change is an existential threat to our society. It’s an existential threat to our communities. Whether it is Ottawa, whether it is Brampton, whether it’s Barry’s Bay and Renfrew and Arnprior, climate change is and will continue to have a real impact on how all of us, all of our kids and all of our grandkids will live their lives.

In Ottawa, in the last five or six years, we have seen two once-in-a-century floods, in 2017 and again in 2019. I remember, because I was down there over the Easter weekend both years and for the next six or eight weeks, filling sandbags to help residents save their homes. I was there when the Premier of the day came to east Ottawa, came to Cumberland to see the damage and the impact of the flooding for herself. I was there the next summer, when the Premier returned to meet the baby who was born during the flooding, outside of the view of cameras and the media, just because she wanted to see how the community had recovered. And I was there two years later when the Canadian Forces came, when reservists from across Ontario came to give up their jobs as lawyers, architects and students to fill sandbags, to support the residents of east Ottawa, to protect the water filtration facility in the city of Ottawa and otherwise help residents deal with the flooding situation that was ongoing.

Two once-in-a-century floods over the span of three years, Madam Speaker: It’s undeniable that climate change is having a true and real impact on our communities, and it’s beyond time that all governments do something about it.

In addition to these flooding events in Ottawa and eastern Ontario more broadly, we have seen devastating windstorms; windstorms that have ripped through communities; windstorms that have ripped through many rural and agricultural communities—in east Ottawa, in Navan and in Sarsfield and Carlsbad Springs, where the derecho ripped through these small, vibrant farming communities, causing enormous damage to barns and to silos. These farmers were left in the lurch by this government. There were no supports offered to these farmers to help repair this damage.

The disaster relief assistance program wasn’t activated in Ottawa. It was, for some reason, activated in Uxbridge for the same storm, but it wasn’t activated anywhere in the city of Ottawa. Moreover, despite the fact that the Premier came to Orléans and went to a fire station to thank the firefighters for their work during the recovery of this storm and committed to being there for the city of Ottawa, my understanding is not a single dollar has flowed from the government of Ontario to Hydro Ottawa, which incurred tens of millions of dollars of expenses in cleaning up downed lines and supporting residents who were without power for weeks on end, and it’s my understanding that not a single provincial dollar has flowed to the city of Ottawa to support their tens of millions of dollars in expenses.

As a result, both hydro and the city are facing difficult financial decisions, and this, of course, is going to end up meaning that the residents of Ottawa are going to pay higher property taxes because of the failure of this provincial government to support the city. So in an affordability crisis, as a result of inaction from this government, every resident in the city of Ottawa is going to end up paying higher property taxes as a result.

So it’s clear that climate change is real. I even think I heard the member from Brampton over there agree that it was real. It’s clear that the government needs to do something about it. It’s also clear that, to date, at least in the city of Ottawa, they haven’t really been there to support residents or the city or the hydro company in their efforts to deal with the costs of these disasters and help reduce the burden on families.

But at the same time as we’re dealing with this existential threat as a result of climate change, we are, as a society, as a community, going through what is, I think, widely understood to be a comprehensive affordability crisis. Families are having trouble paying the bills. They’re having trouble paying rent. They’re having trouble making their mortgage payments. They’re having trouble putting food on the table for their families. More and more families are using the food bank. Not just in our biggest cities, but in most communities across the province, food bank usage is up. That means parents are having to make the difficult decision every morning on whether their kids get breakfast before they go to school.

I heard of one family where there were three or four or five kids in the household, and it was clear—the teacher relayed this to me. It was clear that the family was needing to make a decision as to which children got to bring lunch to school. The oldest boy in the family was going to school without a lunch so that his younger brothers and sisters could go to school with a lunch. Those are the kinds of decisions that families are being forced to make as a result of the affordability crisis that we’re in.

And the government has had an opportunity to respond. They introduced an economic update to the province’s finances a week and a half ago, and there was virtually nothing in there to support middle-class families—in an economic crisis, when the costs of living are up, almost virtually zero support for middle-class families.

Families are sitting back and asking themselves, “After five years, are we better off?”

When you look at it, after five years the cost of groceries in Ontario is up. After five years the cost of hydro is up. After five years the cost of basically all living expenses is up.

At the same time as the costs of living your life in Ontario are up, this government’s actions have led to supports for the middle class going down, supports for our cities going down, supports for public transit going down.

In fact, Madam Speaker, this week the city of Ottawa, our hometown, because of the lack of support from this province, is making drastic cuts to public transit service in Ottawa. The city budgeted for an enhancement of public transit supports from this government. It was baked into their budget last year, largely based on the rhetoric of the Premier and others in the government that they would be there for cities. Don’t worry; they would be there for cities, and public transit is their most important priority.

The cheque was never written to the city of Ottawa. The money never came. As a result, city council is debating reducing public transit service in the city of Ottawa by the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Of course, if public transit usage goes down and support for public transit goes down, it’s very likely that greenhouse gas emissions will go up and it will have an even worse impact on the challenge we’re all trying to combat, which is the impact of climate change.

The government talks a good game about their desire to combat climate change and their investments to do so. In real terms, in terms of support for families, they really haven’t delivered the goods. They’ve asked other governments to deliver the goods, but they themselves have not delivered the goods.

That’s why at this time I’d like to introduce an amendment to the motion.

I move that this motion be amended by removing everything after the word “should” and inserting “in conjunction with the government of Ontario, remove the harmonized sales tax on fuels and inputs for home heating.”

I think there’s a chihuahua barking somewhere. I don’t know if you can do anything about that. In any event, Speaker—

Interjections.

I think, Speaker, I’ve made my point.

Mr. Blais has moved that this motion be amended by removing everything after “should” and inserting “in conjunction with the government of Ontario, remove the harmonized sales tax on fuels and inputs for home heating.”

The member for Orléans may continue.

We know that HST is a tax that we see in real life, in real time, all the time. If you heat your home with electricity, when you get your hydro bill you see the HST right there. You know exactly how much HST you’re going to pay when you pay your bill. When your natural gas bill comes, you see exactly how much HST you’re going to pay on natural gas. If you heat your home with propane, you see exactly how much HST you’re going to pay on propane. I suppose there are some who use outdoor wood furnaces still or a wood stove in the home; I’m hoping that if you’re buying cords of wood from someone in town that you’re seeing how much HST you’re paying on the wood you’re buying.

By the government of Ontario removing HST from the sources of home heating fuel and working with the government of Canada to have that portion of HST removed from home heating fuel as well, this will lead to a direct and visible and countable savings for families. Every month when they pay their gas bill or their electricity bill or for propane delivery, they’re going to know exactly how much money they and their family are saving on HST to heat their homes as a direct result of actions of this Legislature and this government—not simply writing a letter, hoping that another government takes action, but taking action themselves to provide real relief for families.

It’s time, given the environmental and climate crisis that we’re in, given the affordability crisis that we’re in, that everyone but especially this government take off its ideological blinders and open itself to the entire view of the situation. Every dollar will count, Madam Speaker. If we can save families $15, $20, $25, $30 a month on HST for their home heating, that could be the difference between putting Johnny or Jane in soccer next spring. That could be the difference between ensuring Johnny or Jane has breakfast before going to school in the morning. That might be the difference so that that boy I was talking about before doesn’t have to go without a lunch to ensure that his younger brother and sisters go to school with one, that that family will have money to buy him a sandwich or a Lunchable to take to school for lunch.

This is the kind of small, incremental savings that the government has direct responsibility for. They can provide this direct impact to families, and they can do it relatively quickly. We can debate this motion today, which we’re doing. We can pass it. There’s a fall economic statement. There’s a bill there. That bill is going to go to committee. This could be a quick amendment at committee—I’m sure it would have unanimous support from all parties—to take the HST off of home heating. I don’t think that any political party in Ontario could possibly oppose taking the HST off of home heating during an economic crisis, during an affordability crisis. As the snow is falling, as temperatures are dropping, there’s no one in their right mind who could possibly refuse the idea of taking sales tax off of the costs of heating your home in the winter.

These are actions that the government can take. They can take them today. They can take them tomorrow. We could have this thing wrapped up by the middle of next week, providing real relief for families before the holidays, before Christmas, more money in their pocket for them to support their families. We’ll see if the government and if the New Democrats decide to support this common-sense approach to providing real relief for families.

Now, as it relates to the carbon tax more specifically, what’s clear is that recent actions from the government of Canada have created a division within our country—a division that provides the appearance that one area of the country is receiving a benefit that is not being received by all other parts of the country, and this is creating a wedge and a division. Of course, I support the elimination of that wedge and division and would happily support the removal of the carbon tax from all sources of home heating, and I’ve relayed that concern and that position to my member of Parliament.

But the point of my amendment, and the point of all of us getting elected here is not so that we can simply ask other elected officials to do work. We didn’t ask to get elected so that we can ask other people to take action to help our constituents. We asked our constituents to vote for us so that we could take action, so that we could propose ideas, so that we could get things done within our purview to deliver benefit to them and to their families. The HST is a way in which the government of Ontario can take real and direct and concrete action on the sources of heat and the energy bills that Ontarians are facing. Especially as we approach winter and the holidays, it is my sincere hope that all parties in this House will take off their ideological blinders and do the right thing and help families save money on their utility bills as we head into winter and the holiday season.

Just like Ford.

Division.

Nonsense.

I want to thank the members earlier, and I do want to begin by thanking my colleague Mr. Jordan from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston for his motion, which is so appropriate for the world we’re living in today and the cost-of-living issues we’re dealing with today. Every day you hear about things on the news, so I want to thank him for bringing it forward.

But I also want to thank my colleague for sitting here in this House and joining our team here and what a tremendous contribution he’s already making here in the province of Ontario and his community. I want to say, as the parliamentary assistant to long-term care, how important his contribution has been, because his experience in the health care field has been tremendously helpful to me, personally, quite frankly, in our quest to bring improvements to long-term care in our communities. I want to thank my friend Mr. Jordan for his work in that regard.

I must say, I had the pleasure of sitting through the address by the member for the NDP, the energy critic and environment critic and many other things, and of course the member for Ottawa-Orléans. The member for Danforth made a reference to bananas, and, my God, how appropriate to that—when I have to listen to members on the opposite side and the way that they try to bring together what they think is logic, I think of bananas. And we all know what BANANAs is a connotation for.

But I really want to talk about the motion today and the absolute hypocrisy of the federal Liberals and the Prime Minister of Canada to bring forth a bill, a regulatory change, that would remove the carbon tax from a portion of the people of Canada on oil for home heating.

So the Prime Minister is spiralling down the toilet very quickly, in the electoral sense. Spiralling down—

Interjections.

So here we are talking about the Prime Minister, who is absolutely tanking, and he’s asking himself, “Is there a way that I can survive this crisis in the Liberal Party?”—which is dividing his own party, by the way, as well. He is just self-destructing. You should read Rex Murphy’s column on the carbon tax and Trudeau. He’s self-destructing on the issue of the carbon tax because he is so conflicted about what his actions are going to be.

Now he’s deciding: “You know what we’re going to do? Where do we hold a significant majority of the seats? Atlantic Canada. We’re going to remove the carbon tax from home heating fuel in Atlantic Canada for three years, but we’re not going to do it across the rest of country.” How duplicitous can you be to actually say, “We’re going to look after these people, but we’re going to make the other ones pay”? That is as un-Canadian as you can possibly be, but that’s Justin Trudeau for you.

It’s hard to look at that and say, “How can somebody have even come up with this other than for crass political reasons?” Crass political reasons to divide the country in that way—and it is so frustrating for the rest of the Premiers.

I’ve got to tell you that—it’s probably our last winter, but we actually heat with oil in our home. I’m going to have to make a choice because my oil tank is expiring. I’ve got to make a choice, so I expect this is the last because I’m not going to put in another, wait for my oil furnace to get old and have to change it, and then maybe the insurance company won’t even insure us because we’re doing oil and oil is on the way out. Oil is on the way out, so why are you now penalizing those people in Ontario—

Interjection.

The other thing that is so hypocritical on the part of the federal government: Oil is the highest emitter of any heating fuel.

So here’s this person who believes—his whole political life since he became Prime Minister is about this carbon tax and how, being Justin Trudeau, “I’m going to save the world by bringing in this carbon tax”—which has been so penalizing to the people of Canada—“but now I’m quite prepared to remove that carbon tax for a portion of the population if it works to my political advantage.” So he believes in the carbon tax—as the opposition wants, this is the existential issue of our times—but, “If I need something to save seats in Atlantic Canada, I will remove the carbon tax.” Could he not have thought of something else, like maybe we will build some more new roads? “Oh, no, can’t do that. We’re going to remove the carbon tax on home heating and pit you against the rest of the country.”

Then we talk about the cost of living. How does the carbon tax impact our cost of living? Every way, every day. Recently, we’re having this conversation about restaurants and how they’re struggling. Restaurants are struggling all across the country, and certainly there’s more restaurants in Ontario than anywhere else. There’s more people in Ontario than anywhere else in the country. They say restaurants are struggling, and then you will have the survey that says it’s food cost. Well, hello, what do you think is driving up the cost of food? The carbon tax is driving up the cost of food, and we had that discussion not so long ago.

But it’s not just the cost of food that the carbon tax is driving up; it’s driving up the cost of everything else. When people say, “We’re not going to restaurants anymore. We can’t afford to eat at restaurants”—yes, the price of meals at a restaurant have gone up, like everything else. “We can’t afford to eat at a restaurant.” Why can’t they afford to eat at a restaurant? Because they can’t pay their heating bills. They’re now worried that they can’t pay their mortgage. They can’t pay all of the other cost-of-living issues that have gone up so much. They’re worried about everything, so they’re not going to the restaurant. It’s not just because the restaurant prices have gone up. They’re not going to the restaurant, period, because they can’t afford their bills, period.

All you have to do is look at the news out there about how people are so afraid of whether they will be able to meet their monthly obligations in the cost of living. And what is driving up the cost of living? The carbon tax is a huge component, and the parliamentary budget—

I hesitate to interrupt the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, but I’m compelled to by the standing orders. It’s now 10:15 and time to commence members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

I am honoured to rise today to speak about two significant festivals that hold immense cultural and spiritual importance for millions around the world: Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas. I would like to wish the people of Ontario who celebrated a very happy Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas.

Diwali, also known as the Festival of Lights, is celebrated by people of various cultures and religions. The festival spreads across many borders. It symbolizes the victory of light over darkness and good over evil. Homes are lit up with diyas and colourful rangolis. Diwali is also a time for reflection.

Bandi Chhor Divas is also celebrated on the same day and it is a significant day for the Sikh community. It commemorates the day the sixth guru of Sikhs, Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji, and 52 kings were released from imprisonment. On Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji’s return to Amritsar, the Golden Temple was lit up with lights, marking the festival’s association with lights.

Both Diwali and Bandi Chhor Divas underscore the themes of freedom, light and the triumph of good over evil. May the lights of Diwali and the spirit of Bandi Chhor Divas fill our lives with joy and guide us toward a future filled with hope and harmony.

Last Friday, I sat in the gym of Lady Evelyn public school with my friends Wanda and Robin from the local Legion. As we remembered the sacrifices of veterans, the children sang, “Let there be peace on earth / And let it begin with me.”

Those are powerful words, but in Gaza right now peace seems impossible: babies in intensive care clinging to life, mass graves being dug at Al-Shifa hospital. Meanwhile, some are taking this moment to call for more violence. But then I think about Vivian Silver, a Canadian Israeli peace activist who we lost on October 7. Vivian spent every day of her life working for peace. She helped sick Palestinians go to Israeli hospitals. Her whole life she demanded a political solution to decades of suffering and military occupation.

Like her, we must also persevere. We have to organize for peace. Even if some people call us haters, we should demand a ceasefire, for the release of all hostages and for the investigation of all war crimes. History will not be kind to those in this moment who acted in vengeance. History will remember people like Vivian Silver, like the Palestinian families I have met at home who, in their grief, have spoken out about family members they have lost and who have built a peace movement that must continue in this country.

Let there be peace on earth, Speaker, and let us all have the courage to fight for it.

I would like to start by thanking everyone who participated in the many Remembrance Day ceremonies across Glengarry–Prescott–Russell in the last few weeks. Thanks to the organization for organizing these ceremonies. Thanks to the Legions, the cadets and all the people involved in organizing these Remembrance Day events year after year. Let’s make sure that we do our best to gather every year for many generations to come to remember the sacrifices of these men and women who fought for our liberty.

Sur une autre note, j’aimerais aussi féliciter les organisateurs, commerçants et visiteurs qui ont contribué au succès de l’événement Expo Hawkesbury qui se déroulait le week-end du 11 et 12 novembre dernier, la fin de semaine passée—la première en son genre depuis plusieurs années au complexe sportif Robert Hartley à Hawkesbury. J’aimerais dire un merci spécial à la chambre de commerce de Hawkesbury.

Ça a été une super occasion de rencontrer les gens de la région et de créer des liens avec différents représentants d’entreprises. De pouvoir échanger de belles conversations et de réitérer les priorités des citoyens de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell est quelque chose d’important pour moi, en tant que leur membre de Parlement provincial. Nous savons tous que c’est primordial pour notre gouvernement, et nous continuons à être à l’écoute des Ontariens de toutes les régions de la province.

Thank you very much, Speaker. I’m aware of the amendment. We won’t be supporting it, and that’s my debate on that amendment. Thank you very much. I appreciate you interrupting me to remind me of that.

So let’s get back to what I’m talking about: the cost of living and what is driving that up. What is driving that up? It is significantly being driven up by the carbon tax, and it is not that complicated. All you have to do is ask yourself, what’s the carbon tax accomplishing? They can live in their dream worlds all they want, but the carbon tax has been a bitter disappointment, a total failure from its implementation, because it has robbed people of their hard-earned pay and the money that they earned to provide for their families. It has taken that money out of their pockets and allowed the government to play its cute little games with their money—most of them political.

But has it done anything to reduce our carbon footprint? Has it done anything to reduce our emissions? We’re a failure. As my friend said, we’re 58th out of 63 countries in the success of reducing our CO₂ emissions, and we’re just a small portion of the world. In the meantime, we give China and India a free pass on emissions. But little old Canada with our 40 million people, somehow, if we just tax our people to death with the carbon tax, we’re going to solve all the problems. We’re not going to solve the problem, but we’re creating a tremendously difficult problem for families in this country and in this province by impacting them every day with the carbon tax.

Of course, the federal government, they have this rebate program. So every so often you get a rebate, but that doesn’t do you any good when you pay the carbon tax every single time you go to a cash register and every single time you pay the heating bills.

I had a conversation with Sean Fitzgerald from McCarthy Fuels in Killaloe last week about how it’s impacting them. McCarthy saw the reality. They were a fuel oil distributor, and now they’ve branched into propane. Well, now when I drive by their yard, most of the time if I drive, I see one oil truck if I’m driving by on the weekend—one oil truck and five propane trucks sitting in their depot, because that’s where we’re going. We’re doing everything we can to convert to sources of heating that are cleaner.

And propane is the cleanest of the three; if you look at home heating oil, fuel oil, natural gas and propane, propane is the cleanest, but it’s also the one most prominent in rural Ontario because we have an awful lot of places that natural gas hasn’t gotten to. It’s tremendously convenient, natural gas. You don’t have tanks to fill up—all of those kinds of things. You don’t have the truck delivering it; it’s coming by pipe. But we don’t have it everywhere in rural Ontario. And they are just flabbergasted. Sean was just flabbergasted at the unfairness of this and that we’re not going to extend this to other forms of home heating. Of course, the vast majority across the province use natural gas, but here in the Ottawa Valley and my county of Renfrew county, many, many, many people are on propane. So they do the things to be as conscious as possible about the impact of CO₂, but they’re penalized by this federal decision to simply remove the carbon tax from home heating fuels.

We’re doing the things to help people with the cost of living. One of the biggest things that I’ve seen my colleague, the Minister of Economic Development—we’ve reduced business taxes in this province, taxes and burdens and fees, by $8 billion a year. Now, if those were still in place, that $8 billion would be passed on to the consumer. So when we reduce the cost of business by $8 billion, we’re ultimately reducing the cost to the consumer, because business must pass those costs on or they won’t be in business. It’s as simple as that. That’s just one thing that we’re doing for the people of Ontario. We’ve reduced the gas tax. We removed hundreds of thousands—maybe millions—from the provincial tax roll completely, and they pay no provincial tax. We took away the cost of licence plate stickers. We’re doing the kinds of things, Speaker—because I know I’m going to get cut off here—that reduce the cost of living and help families across Ontario. The government of Canada is doing the thing that does nothing to reduce the costs here in Ontario. All it does is divide—

Thank you very much. Members’ statements?

This June, I took the initiative to propose a motion requesting the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the issue of notices of security interest, a.k.a. NOSIs, and report its findings to the House by the end of this year. I am pleased that this motion garnered support and was passed by the House.

Recently, I was delighted to see that the ministry is conducting a public consultation on the issues to address the harmful and inappropriate use of NOSIs. The issue of NOSIs has been extensively covered by the media, shedding light on the challenges faced by unsuspecting homeowners.

Regrettably, homeowners in Markham–Unionville are no exception to these difficulties.

A NOSI serves as a registration on the land registry system. It notifies third parties of a lender or a lessor’s vested interest in a fixture on the land. While NOSIs play a crucial role in the business landscape, they can, unfortunately, lead to disputes. Some unscrupulous businesses have exploited NOSIs as leverage when consumers attempt to sell their homes or seek to refinance their properties. These tactics can place an unfair burden on consumers. Consumers are forced to pay excessive amounts or engage in costly and time-consuming legal battles to have the NOSI discharged.

This ministry’s engagement with the public and stakeholders underscores the government’s unwavering commitment to creating a fair and just marketplace for consumers and businesses. I truly appreciate—

I’d like to discuss a problem that all of us see daily. In fact, when we walk out of the Legislature, we cannot walk more than 100 metres in any direction without seeing an unhoused person. Some are in tents; some are not. Some have covers on; some don’t. In the park that is right across the street, there is a tent. This is right under our nose.

There are an estimated 10,000 homeless people in Toronto alone. Now multiply that in every city, every region across this province.

Does this Conservative government not see that we have a major problem? Municipalities see it. That’s why they’re declaring states of emergency on homelessness. But there’s only so much they can do. This is a province-wide issue, and the province must to do something as well.

Winter is here, and the shelter system is going to be overloaded; we know it because it happens every year. Where are the homeless people supposed to go? Where are they supposed to sleep—in the subways, in ATM vestibules, in front of small businesses, in parks and playgrounds?

I’m urging this government: Take this issue seriously. Everyone is impacted by it. Declare a state of emergency on homelessness.