Today, this morning, we are talking about Bill 162. And Bill 162 has several schedules to it, and the primary purpose, from my point of view of Bill 162, is to address, in part, the issue of affordability.

As I was just saying a moment ago, there are several governments—municipal governments, the federal government—that are raising costs on the people of Ontario. For example, the federal government has raised costs on the people of Ontario by imposing a crushing carbon tax, which escalates on a regular basis higher, higher and higher—automatically.

Many municipal governments, for example, have imposed property tax increases—increases which are locked into your home, making home ownership more expensive. This is happening across the province of Ontario. But as I said earlier, only one government—only one government—is actually getting rid of fees and lowering taxes and that is the Progressive Conservative government of the province of Ontario.

Now, let’s give a few examples of how we are lowering taxes, lowering fees and making life a little bit more affordable for people. We have introduced and then extended the 10-cent per litre reduction on the price of gasoline. That makes life more affordable when you drive to work. It makes life more affordable when you drive to school. It makes life more affordable when you drive to hockey practice, and we think that’s important. Maybe other MPPs in this House don’t think that’s important.

We removed the fee on licence plate stickers. That saves the average family $240 per year. That’s $240 per year you can put toward your savings. Maybe you wanted to buy something special for yourself or your children or maybe even contribute to their RESP. We think that $240 per year makes life a little bit better.

We removed some tolls on highways, making driving less expensive. Now, it’s more affordable to drive where you want to go. Perhaps you’re taking a day trip or a modest vacation; now, it’s a little bit more affordable for you.

We think that those are concrete and important steps toward making life more affordable for everybody. Many times, it makes the simple pleasures of life more affordable. I think we have taken a position in the PC caucus which is quite good and makes life a little better for everybody.

What else is addressed in this Bill 162 is the crushing carbon tax imposed by the federal Liberal government. In the PC caucus, we believe the carbon tax is very bad. In fact, we think it’s so bad we fought it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. That’s how bad we think it is. We got no support from any opposition party in our opposition to the carbon tax. When we fought the carbon tax all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, the opposition did not help.

Do you know what the Supreme Court of Canada said? The Supreme Court of Canada said that despite our submissions, the federal Liberal government, constitutionally speaking, had the authority to impose a carbon tax on Ontario. That’s what the Supreme Court of Canada said: The federal Liberal government had the right to impose that tax on Ontario.

We know the Liberals were very, very happy with that Supreme Court of Canada decision, because as we know, Liberals love taxes. Liberals think taxes cure all evils. In fact, we’ve heard it said, even in the assembly in the province of Ontario—this assembly here—we’ve heard it said by the Liberals; they think that the carbon tax makes the world more “habitable.” “Habitable” was the word that got used. A carbon tax makes the planet Earth more habitable—that was the argument put forward by the Liberals.

Madam Speaker, I thoroughly disagree with the Liberals. The carbon tax does not make the planet more habitable and never will. Now, let me tell you what does make the world more habitable. I’m going to reach back into the mists of time, way back to my ancient ancestors who were somewhere in Europe, hunting and gathering for their daily existence.

One day, one of my ancient ancestors woke up, and he said, “Today is the day. Today is the day when things change. I am not going to hunt and gather anymore. Today, I’m going to delve into the earth, dig into the dirt, and I am going to find precious things inside the Earth. Then, I’m going to take them out, and I’m going to use those precious things, and I’m going to make fascinating and important things out of them.” That ancient ancestor of mine was the first miner in my family.

Do you know what that ancestor did? I don’t know what his name was, I don’t know where he did it, but he took something out of the earth. Maybe it was copper. Then, he fashioned it into a bowl, and he gave it to his wife, and she used it to cook the meals for the family. Then, he took more copper; he fashioned it into a knife. He gave it to his son, and that son used the knife to cut wheat or to cut berries or to cut food for the family. Maybe he had more copper. He gave it to his daughter, and she used it to fashion beautiful instruments, ornaments to make things more beautiful. Those things were then fashioned and shared with others, and the whole tribe became more convenient. Everything for the tribe got better, and advances were even quadrupled after that.

My ancestor could have left that copper in the ground, but he didn’t. He took it out of the ground. He made things with it, shared it with his family, his tribe, his nation, and things got better. That is how the Earth got more habitable.

The Earth got more habitable because people took things, they mined things out of the ground, and they used human ingenuity to make life better. That’s how I say life gets better. That’s how I say the world gets more habitable, but the Liberals disagree, and I think the NDP disagree, too.

I think their opinion, among the NDP and the Liberal caucus, is that carbon taxes make life more habitable. I think that’s their theory. In fact, they’ve repeated it several times, haven’t they? They’ve done it over and over again.

Not more than 10 minutes ago, when I was speaking about freezing fees, they were saying, “How does that make life better?” It makes life better because it makes life more affordable. That’s why it makes life better.

You can ridicule the freezing of fees, but my constituents appreciate it. My constituents appreciate it when they walk into a ServiceOntario office, and the fee is the same as it was last year and the year before and the year before and they’re not being constantly nickel-and-dimed and gouged. They appreciate that, and I do too, because that’s what makes life more affordable.

The carbon tax does not make life more affordable.

Let me give you a few examples of how the carbon tax, imposed by the federal Liberal government and absolutely adored by the members of the Liberal caucus, makes life less affordable, makes things worse for people.

I’ve asked my constituents to give me examples of their heating bill, something which is absolutely necessary in everyday life—heating your home, which makes life more habitable.

The bill that I received from Meghan in my riding, a bill of $250.55, had a carbon tax of $71.86—28% carbon tax.

Here’s the bill I received from Peter, a $251 bill—$73 of carbon tax. That’s 29% carbon tax.

Here’s a bill that I received from Eric, a $277 bill—$81 of carbon tax. That’s 29% carbon tax on a heating bill.

The bill that I received from Audrey, a $203 bill—$57 of carbon tax. That’s 28% carbon tax, just to heat your home.

I ask the question, who can afford to live that way? Who can afford to heat your home when 28% and 29% of what you pay to heat your home is carbon tax? That’s not going to make life better. That’s not going to make life more affordable. That doesn’t make the Earth habitable.

I sincerely hope that the members of the Liberal caucus are listening intently to everything that I say, because I want every single one of them over there, who are listening very intently to every single word I say, to understand how bad the federal Liberal carbon tax is—having a bad effect on the families in the riding of Essex. That’s what I want them to understand.

We tested this in a vote recently, approximately two weeks ago. We tested it, and it was a vote on the carbon tax; more specifically, it was a vote to remove the carbon tax. And what happened during that vote? Every PC caucus member voted to kill the carbon tax, because that’s what we want. We want to scrap the carbon tax. That’s what we want. We make it plain and obvious. We stand up in our place and we do it.

I noticed that there was a brand new member in the House, the member from Kitchener Centre. She had barely been in the House three days—three days; a brand new member—and even that member was sufficiently educated on the issue that she stood up in her place and she let her vote be counted. Now, I don’t agree with how she voted, but I concede that she stood up in her place and she voted. She took a stand, as many members of this House did.

But what didn’t happen was—the Liberals didn’t take a stand. The Liberals bravely abstained. I use phrase “bravely abstained” facetiously. How can you not have opinions on the carbon tax? When your constituents send you here to speak on their behalf and vote on their behalf and even a brand new member votes in her place, how can you not vote? One would have thought that the Liberals would have an opinion on this topic.

That brings me to the portion of Bill 162 which is schedule 5. Schedule 5 proposes that any time a provincial government seeks to try imposing a new carbon tax, they shall be subject to schedule 5. And schedule 5 says that they have to take the issue to the voters. There’s a phrase for that; it’s called direct democracy. I think a little bit of democracy—maybe even direct democracy—is a good thing. This is a very common thing all around the world: direct democracy. I would like to know if there is anybody in this House opposed to some form of democracy.

Now I want to refer to some very thoughtful and insightful comments made by a newspaper writer. You’ll notice that I rarely quote newspaper writers in this assembly. Some people like to do that. I don’t. But I have a really great newspaper in my riding. That really great newspaper is call the Essex Free Press. Some people read other newspapers, maybe they don’t read the newspaper, but I read the Essex Free Press. It’s a great newspaper.

I don’t know who people take advice from. There are some people I think in the NDP caucus who take advice from a newspaper or an article or a journal called the Narwhal. I have never read the Narwhal. I don’t think I ever read anything written by an Arctic sea animal. I don’t think an Arctic sea animal is the kind of journal that I would read. But you know, I like to read a newspaper by somebody who lives in my riding, maybe a talented person who lives the kind of lifestyle I live, a hard-working person, down-to-earth, a person who cares about her community. She is able to speak to me and I’m able to speak to her eye to eye. We know each other. This person’s name is Sylene Argent.

I had a great conversation with Sylene Argent. Let me tell you what Sylene Argent wrote in the Essex Free Press. This is what she said, and this is very important: “I don’t want to rely on rebates. I don’t want to depend on the government for a subsidy here and there, when we can do a better job at looking at how we can reduce costs to make living essentials affordable, while also considering the environment.” That’s what Sylene Argent wrote.

I found that very interesting because I thought there was a lot of common sense in there. She is talking about how we can reduce costs, making living essentials more affordable. I say we can lower the tax on gas, and we did that, by 10 cents a litre. I say we can get rid of the fee on licence plate stickers, and we did that. I say we can get rid of tolls on highways, and we’ve done that, too. These are all ways to reduce costs and to make life more affordable on the essentials. Sylene Argent says so, and I agree with her.

Sylene says that we must also consider the environment, and I agree with her on that too.

Let me tell you about one of the most important environmental initiatives in the history of the province of Ontario. This government is helping to convert steelmaking furnaces in the province of Ontario. They’re going to be converted to electric arc furnaces. What that means is, once that’s completed, those electric arc furnaces are going to help produce steel in the province of Ontario. At the same time, it is the equivalent of removing two million automobiles off the roads of this province.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I’m not old enough to remember Premier Mike Harris. I’m not old enough to remember Premier Bob Rae. But of all the Premiers in the history of the province of Ontario, the one Premier who has taken the most important step to improve the environment of the province of Ontario, by removing the equivalent of two million automobiles off the roads, is the Premier we have today, Premier Doug Ford. That is correct. He is the one who has taken the single most important positive environmental step in the entire history of the province of Ontario.

I’d like to say to Sylene and to the other common-sense people in the riding of Essex, the people I represent, especially the people in the small towns—small towns like McGregor, River Canard, Cottam, St. Joachim and Woodslee—I read your newspaper, and your newspaper is for you, and this PC government has heard you. We’re going to keep costs down and try to make life more affordable for everyone, and it’s these steps that we’re taking in Bill 162 that are going to help us achieve that type of goal—a goal which will make life a little bit more habitable for you and for your family and for your children. I’d like to thank the people in those small communities, and I’d like to thank Sylene Argent of the Essex Free Press for her thoughtful words.