At this time of year, especially during hunting season, conservation officers play an incredibly important role in the protection and management of Ontario’s natural resources, to ensure that residents and visitors to Ontario can safely enjoy the province’s natural resources for generations to come.

Conservation officers connect with over 200,000 natural resource users from over 50 locations across the province annually.

We heard from our partners that we need more boots on the ground. In response, we’ve fulfilled our promise to create 25 new conservation officer positions, and that brings the total number of conservation officer positions to over 200 here in the province of Ontario.

During that posting, the ministry received and reviewed nearly 4,000 applications for these highly sought-after positions.

Conservation officers are the front line, safeguarding our natural heritage. This important work has been ongoing in Ontario for 130 years and will continue. We will continue to support it, and they will continue to protect our important natural resources.

I think that we were clear that we would not be supporting it on second reading. Having said that, there were a number of significant legislations that were brought in by the former Minister of Transportation with respect to road safety across the province of Ontario, and we’ll continue to build on that.

I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 45(b)(iv), the time for debate on opposition day motion number 5 on subsidizing the cost of heat pumps and other energy-saving retrofits be apportioned as follows: 56 minutes to each of the recognized parties and eight minutes to the independent members as a group.

We are, of course, aware that OPSEU and the employer are working on a classification review. I’m actually quite confused by the idea that the NDP would support government interference in that process. I also understand that the director of our enforcement branch is part of the committee designed to review this classification. They will make sure that the work, the skills, the importance of the conservation officers are specifically addressed during this review. This government responded by creating new positions to support these officers, and we will continue to value the work of our conservation officers and the continued effort to support them in any way we can.

I’m hearing a lot of lip service from the government side. In the meantime, morale continues to decline because experienced conservation officers are leaving the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry to take jobs where their pay actually matches their training and experience.

Conservation officers are paid up to $31,000 less than OPP officers, despite being held to the same standards of training; they have the same levels of risk and the responsibility to carry sidearms. With a stroke of the pen, the government could provide the reclassification of these workers that these workers have long deserved.

Will this government recognize that the training and duties of conservation officers far exceed their compensation and commit to reclassification?

The ayes are 88; the nays are 8.

Supplementary? The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North.

There are three members who wish to raise points of order.

Agreed? I heard a no.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1148 to 1153.

On November 15, 2023, Mr. Jordan moved private member’s notice of motion number 70.

On November 15, 2023, Mr. Blais moved an amendment to the motion.

On November 16, 2023, Mr. Calandra moved an amendment to the amendment to the motion.

On November 16, 2023, Mr. Jordan moved that the question be now put.

We are now going to vote on Mr. Jordan’s motion that the question be now put. To explain, if this motion carries, I would then immediately put the question on Mr. Jordan’s original motion. This means that should the motion carry, both Mr. Blais’s amendment and Mr. Calandra’s amendment to the amendment would not proceed. If this closure motion does not carry, then the main motion, the amendment and the amendment to the amendment would remain on the order paper—just to make everything perfectly clear.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

I am now required to put the question on the main motion.

Mr. Jordan has moved private member’s notice of motion number 70, relating to carbon tax on fuels and inputs for home heating. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is another five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1158 to 1203.

On November 15, 2023, Mr. Jordan moved private member’s notice of motion number 70 relating to carbon tax on fuels and inputs for home heating.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Motion agreed to.

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 40, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to provide for consequences to those who cause injury or death to certain road users / Projet de loi 40, Loi modifiant le Code de la route pour prévoir les conséquences qu’encourent les personnes qui causent des blessures à certains usagers de la route ou leur décès.

The division bells rang from 1207 to 1212.

On November 16, 2023, MPP Harden moved second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act to provide for consequences to those who cause injury or death to certain road users.

All those in favour, please rise and remain standing until recognized by the Clerk.

Second reading negatived.

The House recessed from 1216 to 1300.

Afternoon meeting reported in volume B.

I’d like to correct my record. I said to the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Health that the report was out five days ago; it was actually out 18 days ago.

Thank you to the member from Brantford–Brant for this very important question.

Speaker, a U of T study shows that creating one new mine creates an over-$300-million increase in Ontario’s GDP and creates approximately 2,000 jobs. That’s why we want more mines. But the carbon tax is threatening these opportunities to grow our economy.

The NDP and the Liberals support this disastrous tax. They support hiking up fuel costs for the exploration companies in my riding that are working out in the bush, searching for new mines. They support hurting small businesses in Timmins by making it more expensive to get the drills turning and ship the core samples to the labs around Ontario. They support making it more expensive for large mining companies to reinvest their opportunities and extend mining opportunities in their own ridings.

Speaker, we need the opposition to join us in telling their friends in Ottawa to axe this tax.

I’ve said it many times: There’s no electric vehicle revolution without mining.

I was encouraged this past year when the feds followed our lead by creating their own critical minerals strategy to support the homegrown electric vehicle supply chain. But they can’t have it both ways. You can’t put a tax that will raise the costs of our minerals at a time when we are competing globally. Yet, they’re imposing a tax that ensures that every part and process required to make electric vehicles is more expensive, especially our critical minerals. You heard it right, Speaker; the members opposite support the federal carbon tax that burdens the people and industries required to build EVs. It’s shameful that they support a tax that makes life more unaffordable for families and makes job-creating industries less competitive.

It’s time to axe this tax.

My question is for the Minister of Mines. Mining is an essential part of the supply chain that we are building for electric vehicles and is a source of significant economic opportunity. For many northern communities, mining provides stable and good-paying jobs and brings prosperity to regional economies. Unfortunately, the opposition has voted against every action our government has taken to support the mining sector.

Speaker, what’s even worse is that the independent Liberals and the opposition NDP support the federally imposed carbon tax, which harms this critical sector. While our government is taking urgent action, other members in this House are supporting a regressive tax which will hold back progress in expanding the mining sector.

Can the minister please explain the impact of the carbon tax on Ontario’s mining sector?

According to the Mining Association of Canada, the minimum federal carbon tax is set to increase by $15 per tonne per year until it reaches $170 per tonne in 2030.

At a time when our government has attracted investments that position Ontario to become the global leader in manufacturing every component of clean, zero-emission electric vehicles, the impact of the carbon tax will cause significant consequences.

It is unacceptable that the independent Liberals and the opposition NDP continue to support the federal carbon tax.

Can the minister please explain the impact of the carbon tax on major job creators for our economy, like the mining sector?