How many seats do we have in Brampton?

It’s great that the member from Thunder Bay–Superior North talked a little bit about some of the contracting that goes on within this legislation, which, of course, is looking to establish a 10-day cooling-off period and also trying to help people get out of bad contracts earlier; a lot of these revolve around HVAC systems or hot water heaters that are powered by natural gas and oil.

My question to the member opposite is, will she stand up for the people of Ontario? Will she call her federal counterparts in Ottawa and ask them to scrap the carbon tax?

So let’s just be very clear here. What the member from London North Centre was talking about are two very separate items. You’re talking about a notice of security interest, which is, quite frankly, an unscrupulous way of taking advantage of vulnerable people in our society and, absolutely, we’ll agree that there’s a lot of work that needs to be done there. But when we’re talking about legitimate contracts, which is what that 10-day cooling-off period and the ability to exit out of those contracts quicker—these are two very separate things, so let’s just be very clear about that.

I do want to ask the member from St. Catharines a little bit about notices of security interest. We’ve heard about it today and she did mention some folks in her riding that have had these types of things perpetrated against them. I’m certainly of the mindset that we absolutely need to close these loopholes and we absolutely need to do something about this issue. And whether or not she thinks that we should just be going ahead and doing this, or whether we should have a full consultation with other legitimate businesses, might I add—there are legitimate businesses that take part in this as well—to make sure that they have an opportunity to recoup costs if someone doesn’t pay their bills, whether or not she thinks that the consultation is something she thinks we should be doing or whether she thinks we should just go ahead and unilaterally—

The member for Thunder Bay–Superior North brought up an interesting question, to the member for Nickel Belt, around contracts when, say, a family member passes away and how do you then execute that estate? I think it’s important that when we’re talking about the broader debate today, we also understand there are remedies currently available. It’s not just what’s in the bill that’s before us.

The member from Essex, I thought, brought up a very good point about ways that you are able to help strike that off a record. I would implore all members here in the House to maybe better educate themselves on what is available out there so we are able to help our constituents in the best way possible.

So rather than focus on things that aren’t necessarily in the bill, I would love to see debate get back towards things that are in the bill. I will ask the member opposite whether she does support the provisions that now have a 10-day cooling-off period and an easier out clause for those types of contracts moving forward.

It’s great to hear my colleague from Waterloo region take part in the debate today. I think there’s one thing we can certainly share in this conversation, and it’s definitely our disgust around the people who take advantage of the most vulnerable.

I don’t necessarily have a question, but I’m going to give you an opportunity to comment a little bit more on notices of security interest, or NOSIs. I, too, have had an opportunity to meet with Waterloo region police on multiple occasions to discuss this. They’re certainly at the forefront when it comes to investigations and enforcement here in the province, and I want to thank them for the fantastic work they’re doing on that.

I’m just not sure if the member knows; there’s about $700,000 registered currently as a notice of security interest within—I think there’s, is it maybe five or six folks who live in Waterloo region right now, and it’s certainly something that we want to shut down. We’re looking forward to the consultation that’s going to happen on this. I’m a firm believer that we’re going to get to a good place. I just wanted to hear her thoughts a little bit more around the NOSIs and how they’re affecting people in the region, because it’s atrocious.

This bill proclaims the week beginning on the third Monday of September in each year as Harvest Season Road Safety Week.

Mr. Pang moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill Pr36, An Act to revive Eastern Children of Israel Congregation.

I beg to inform the House that the adjournment debate standing in the name of the member for Orléans scheduled for today has been withdrawn. Consequently, the adjournment debate will not be held today.

Further debate?

Of course. Every single member that voted “nay” no longer serves in the House of Commons. There are, however, some yeas that are still in the House.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the comments that happened during that time. And I am sorry, Madam Speaker; I’m getting a little confused as we go a little later into the afternoon here, and I’m going to snag a little bit of water.

That was actually a motion that was put forward here, in our chamber, and those members who are no longer here sat on this side of the House. So—

So let’s talk a little bit about the members that are still here. We have our Minister of Health, the member for Sarnia–Lambton, the member for Oxford and, of course, the member for Nepean who are still here from that 2008 election, even though the Liberals got voted out of office. And if you can believe it—here’s the interesting part, Madam Speaker—across the way, the member for Nickel Belt at the time, who still serves in this chamber, as well as the current mayor of Hamilton and former leader of the NDP Party, Andrea Horwath, voted in favour. They voted in favour of the amendment to make sure that a carbon tax was not going to unfairly penalize the people of Ontario, and I would hope that the NDP offers its support to this motion, Madam Speaker.

This motion is following the spirit of that 2008 amendment by exempting the carbon tax on Ontarians already overburdened by the cost of simply trying to eat. Or, to quote the former member for Timmins from an exchange in question period at the time, “the Dion Liberals want a carbon tax that will hurt hard-working Ontarians.” That was the former member from Timmins, who sat in this chamber for many years.

We will see which version of the NDP we get today. As several of my colleagues have pointed out, they have a role to play here as well. We urge the Ontario NDP to call on their federal counterparts, who hold the balance of power in Ottawa, to demand the federal government remove the carbon tax.

Speaker, as I want to conclude my remarks, I’d like to thank the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington for bringing forward this motion. I would also like to congratulate our new Minister of the Environment, Conservation and Parks. She has spent years working to advance environmental issues while also protecting consumers, and if I can I’d like to borrow a line from the minister: We can fight for the environment—we can treat climate change seriously, we can work with industry, but we’ll not pass the cost down to the consumer.

It is in this spirit that I support this motion and I call on all other members here in the House to do the same.

Before I get into my prepared remarks here, the member from Guelph spurred me to do a little bit of research. We can’t correct anybody’s record here in the Legislature, but I just want to put this on the record for myself: A 2023 report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer says the average Ontario family is set to lose $478 based on the carbon tax. So I thought I’d just put that out there for everybody who’s watching or who might be listening, and to make sure that the member from Guelph is aware that that indeed is the case. That’s right from the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report this year, 2023.

Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon and join the debate on motion 69, the motion introduced by my friend the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington. I just want to go back to the premise of the motion, and that is, “That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Canada should take immediate steps to eliminate the carbon tax on grocery items.” This is a motion that I wholeheartedly support.

During my remarks today, I’ll focus on initiatives aimed at lowering the cost of the carbon tax on food, how skyrocketing food costs won’t come down if you add another tax to producers and consumers, and a historic look at how this House has tried to protect Ontarians from these taxes in the past.

We know the federal carbon tax is driving food costs higher than they already are, and what is shocking is that we may not actually know how much it is truly adding to grocery bills.

Thankfully, there is some good news coming out of Ottawa, if you can believe that, colleagues. A Conservative bill, Bill C-234, would remove the federal carbon tax from on-farm uses of natural gas and propane, which I’m going to talk a little bit about here, because it’s very important as to why these items need to be exempt from the carbon tax. Farmers use these fuels for processes such as grain drying or heating their barns. These uses are not currently exempt from carbon tax laws. This bill, which is now before the Senate, was supported by the entire House of Commons—colleagues, if you can guess, who didn’t support it, though? The Liberals. I know it’s hard to believe.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who we’ve talked a little bit about here today, analyzed Bill C-234, and what they found is that farmers would save—this is a staggering amount, colleagues. Having natural gas and other heating fuels exempt from the carbon tax for on-farm use would save farmers $978 million between now and 2030—almost a billion dollars back into the pockets of farmers. And we all know that hard-working farmers reinvest that money into their businesses; it’s no surprise. Anybody who has had an opportunity to travel the province and speak with farmers knows this.

In the words of Dr. Sylvain Charlebois, the senior director of the agri-food analytics lab at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Bill C-234 is just a start. The professor shared an op-ed titled, “The Hidden Cost of Carbon Taxes and How it Will Impact Food Retail in Canada.” The article begins with a very concerning point, and this is the point that I was getting to make earlier: We may not have an idea how much carbon tax increases will impact food security. That’s really what we’re talking about here today—food security and food affordability. The professor wrote, “On April 1, the carbon tax will be set at $65 per metric tonne. We are slowly marching towards a carbon tax of $170 per metric tonne, by 2030”—which is just around the corner, whether we like it or not—"which is more than double what it is today. Yet so far, not one study has looked at how the carbon tax will be impacting food affordability in Canada. Not one.” So we know that it’s going to drive up the price of essential goods like food. We know that this will impact vulnerable people the hardest, but we do not know how big the impact will be. Quite frankly, that’s a recipe for disaster. The Liberals’ approach to feeding Canadians has been all stick and no carrot.

To quote Professor Charlebois again, “According to a report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB), more than $8 billion will be collected from small business through the carbon tax by the end of fiscal 2023, and as little as $35 million will be given back as credit in the form of programs. Many small businesses, especially family businesses, are in the food industry.”

So what will happen if the federal government goes with the status quo? And to quote the professor one more time, “Food processors, artisan shops, and restaurant owners need more and better support or else, by 2030, the carbon tax will have the potential to become a ... more significant driver of food inflation than climate change itself. That’s right, the policy to penalize polluters could hurt citizens more than climate change, the very thing we are all trying to mitigate.”

So this is very concerning. The price of food has already increased dramatically over the last few years, and you don’t need to look far to see the impact of food inflation. Kim Wilhelm, the interim CEO of the Food Bank of Waterloo Region, said in a recent article that over 1,000 students used the food bank just this August. That is, roughly, a 150% increase since last year.

Another telling stat is how much they are spending on food at the food bank. Pre-pandemic, the food bank would spend about $200,000 on very specific food purchases. Now they estimate, by the end of this year, they will spend about $2 million on those same purchases. So what happens when that $2-million bill goes up by another unknown amount, Madam Speaker?

I want to go back in time a little bit to 2008. The Dark Knight had recently been released in theatres; a young Justin Trudeau still had a political future. Prior to the federal election, the McGuinty Liberals moved a motion calling on federal party leaders to commit to treating Ontario fairly. For context, this was during the time that Stéphane Dion’s Liberal Party was championing a carbon tax, back in 2008. The federal member from Thornhill moved a motion to amend that as following: “fairness in Ontario’s taxation policies so that people already overburdened by taxes in this province are not subjected to the proposed carbon tax.” That was a motion on the carbon tax that was being introduced in Ottawa. And the Liberals, of course—can you guess, colleagues? What did they do? They voted down the amendment.

Second-best.

I’d like to give a warm welcome to today’s page captain: all the way from Kitchener–Conestoga, Michael Milloy.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me for debate on this motion. I quickly want to read through the motion and then get into a little bit of my deliberations here. I’m just going to read the motion here:

“That this House condemn the ongoing and reprehensible attacks being carried out by the terrorist organization Hamas, including the slaughter, rape and kidnapping of innocent Israeli civilians, including babies, children and seniors, and recognize the inalienable right of the State of Israel to defend itself and its people against this horrific violence.”

Over the last couple of days, I’ve been thinking about what I wanted to talk about this afternoon. I’ve had a chance to visit Israel twice; it’s a beautiful country. It’s really neat to be able to see how the interplay between so many faiths can come together in one place—obviously, a lot of that coalescing around Jerusalem. I know there are some other colleagues here who have had a chance to visit Israel as well, and I know they probably had as much admiration for the country as I do.

It reminded me of something that happened about three or four years ago. I think it was about a year after we had taken government in 2018, pre-pandemic. I was meeting with a group of individuals from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, better known as CIJA. We were speaking in a boardroom with about four or five members, and we were just talking about some of the different challenges that Jewish people face here in Canada and some of the backstory, the history, and where CIJA thought things were moving as we went forward.

We were having a great, very open dialogue and discussion, and I asked them a very poignant question. I didn’t mean it in a derogatory way, but I thought it was something that—you know, we were in kind of a safe place to be able to ask this question, and the question that I asked, that I posed to this group was, “Do you think that sometimes CIJA and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center and some of the different organizations that we see here in Canada are out there too much talking about anti-Semitism? Are they really being that proverbial squeaky wheel?” The response to me was, “Mike, we don’t ever, ever, ever want anybody to forget the atrocities that happened during World War II, where over six million Jews were systematically exterminated during the Holocaust.” I thought, “Okay, well, sure, that’s a valid point. I don’t see something like that ever happening again in the future.” But here we are today, talking about this very issue, where just a short couple of weeks ago, we’ve seen a terrorist group that was formed in 1988—this isn’t all that long ago—known as Hamas, that has now perpetrated the second-largest killing of Jewish people, outside of the Holocaust.

It struck me to think, “Well, you know, maybe these guys are being a little bit over the top with what they’re doing,” but, clearly, they had a little bit of foresight to think that just because things have calmed down in the region or that people are much more educated about these types of issues, that they still couldn’t happen today. I thought that would be an interesting thing to open up today’s debate with, or at least on my end of today’s debate, because I think it really hits home what a lot of these organizations are trying to do.

When we saw what happened during World War II, starting in the late 1930s and into the early 1940s of people being rounded up and sent into areas and identified—the member for Peterborough–Kawartha was talking about the book that he read about the tattoo artist who was putting those tattoos on people to say that they were Jewish and their number is what would be displayed in the ghetto so they couldn’t leave and come back and forth freely like other citizens were able to do. It’s a bit sad.

We talk about the indiscriminate killing and rape and slaughter of innocent people in Israel. And these aren’t just Jewish people; these are people of Palestinian and Arab origin. These are Christians. They’re people who have left these other areas of strife where they’re often being held down by oppressive regimes and have moved to Israel because they want to have an opportunity at a better life for their family, their kids, their grandchildren.

I haven’t really heard that brought up in the conversation yet, and I think it’s really important to note that Israel is not just made up of people from Judaic origin. This is an area where, for thousands and thousands of years, you’ve had people of different ethnic groups, different races, different faiths coming together and being able to celebrate one another in that space.

When I had toured through Israel back in the early 2000s, I had a really great opportunity to go there with my father, obviously former Premier Harris, as an Ontario company was actually building the Cross Israel Highway, which was pretty neat. So we got to tour the country; we got to look around. It’s not a very big country, so it is fairly easy to navigate. But it was really neat to go through Jerusalem. I know the member for Essex hopefully will get a little bit of a chance to speak about some of the things that he saw while he spent three months in Israel. I was there for about a week, and it was really neat to be able to go through Jerusalem and see all the different quarters and how everybody interacted together and how there wasn’t animosity toward each other. Everybody truly was able to get along.

But when you mix in organizations like Hamas, and I’ll quote from their founding document, who are there to “obliterate Israel”—that is their sole mission. I thought the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke was quite eloquent when he spoke about that, because that is their sole mission. Their sole mission is to destroy the lives of Israelis, but I think that’s, again, what’s lost in this conversation. It’s not just the Jewish people who are being persecuted by Hamas, it’s anybody that lives within Israel.

I’m very hopeful that members of the opposition are listening to this and are hearing what we have to say on this side of the House. I’m sure many of them feel the same way, that they want to see peace, that they want to see everybody being able to raise their families, work on their farms, be able to enjoy music festivals, for example—we’ve heard about that today, Madam Speaker—without having to look over their shoulder any time they wake up in the morning or any time they go out of the house.

As Canadians, as someone who maybe doesn’t really understand what war in perpetuity could mean, I think it’s important that we educate ourselves and that we understand what is currently happening in the Middle East and the interplay, not only between the Hamas regime and Israel but some of the other actors that surround them, and how the Canadian government can play a role, how the US government can play a role and of course other governments around the world. I just want to quickly touch on a few pieces here.

The leaders of France, Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and the United States have reiterated their support for Israel. I believe actually President Biden is heading to Israel; I think it’s today or tomorrow—

Interjection.

I like to talk about, when we’re doing trade missions or overseas or taking part in conferences, how Toronto and our government here in our provincial capital is the fifth most powerful seat of government in North America. I think we have a true opportunity to lead when it comes to how we view what’s happening and the statements that we put out as parliamentarians, and to make sure that we are truly putting our best foot forward. If the Canadian government is going to be slow to act, we need to make sure and it’s incumbent on us here in Ontario that we are the ones who can lead, we’re the ones who can rally Canadians, we’re the ones who can hold Hamas to account.

As I wrap up my remarks, I just want to thank everybody for the opportunity to have this debate. I think it’s very important. When we have these special motions that come before the Legislature, I know often they can be very impassioned and sometimes they can choke you up.

I just want to leave everyone with this: We all know I have five kids—that’s no secret. One of the reasons that I got involved in politics is because I want to leave Ontario and Canada a better place for my kids to be able to raise their children, my grandchildren, and I know that the people of Israel want the same. That’s why Israel was created back in the 1950s, to allow people in the Middle East, in that region—to afford them the same kind of ability that we have here in Canada, where we have a peaceful democracy that wants the best for the people of their country.

So I hope everyone will support this motion. I hope everyone will condemn the terrorist organization known as Hamas. And I hope that in another four years we’re not up here having this same debate again.

It’s my pleasure to rise in the House today to say that our government is delivering on its promise to expand services along the Kitchener GO rail line.

There aren’t always big announcements or ribbon cuttings for this type of work. These are the sorts of projects that you have to be a bit of a transit nerd to really appreciate. So I won’t go over the whole history, like when the NDP scrapped the GO train from Guelph in 1993, but let’s take a little bit of a look back.

Under the previous Liberal government, the Kitchener line schedule from 2017 listed train trips at eight trips per day. And I am proud to say, since we took office, we have doubled those trips along the Kitchener line. Since 2018, Metrolinx has completed track upgrades on the Kitchener line, so people can get to where they need to go 15 minutes faster. In 2021, engineering crews worked on tracks through the city of Guelph. Poor track conditions and multiple crossings had reduced train speeds there to just—get this, colleagues—16 kilometres per hour. Now, trains travel the same stretch at over 40 kilometres per hour.

The total travel time between Kitchener and Toronto, thanks to these types of improvements, will soon reach just 90 minutes. This would make the line even more of an attractive option instead of taking the 401. This work is critical to getting trains going faster and to getting more trains on the track. We have gotten a lot of work done, but we will not stop there. We will keep going.

We have some great folks here from the Perimeter Institute, all the way from Waterloo region today. I’d like to welcome Rob Myers, Paul Smith, Mark Healy, Mayura Stratopoulos—that’s a good Greek name; holy smokes—Mike Klander, Kendrick Smith, Roger Melko, Mike Brown, Kelly Foyle, Marie Strickland, and Emily Petroff.

Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Madam Speaker, the member from London centre was right: I did need to break out the calculator. Actually, I forgot two zeros. It’s actually $125 billion, which I think, colleagues, if I’m not mistaken—the member from Essex, that’s what? About 60-some-odd per cent of the provincial budget?

I’ll ask him the question again. What new taxes would the NDP install to pay for these 500,000 homes?

Point of order.

So I’m going to ask again the same question: What new taxes or what taxes would you raise to be able to pay for this? Because every time, an NDP government—and I’ll say, it’s only been once, actually, in the history of Ontario—has bankrupted this province, and a Conservative government has had to come and clean up the mess.

Point of order.

It’s always great to hear the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. He is such a fantastic orator, and I would like to congratulate him on his 20 years here in the Ontario Legislature.

I do find it interesting that the member opposite from Waterloo wants to talk about potential third parties. I think some of those third parties actually donated to her campaign. I think if we checked through the listings, we might actually see some names, which might be funny.

But I think my biggest concern is—I think we all know I have five kids. I want them to be able to afford a house. That is something that is incredibly important for me and it’s one of the reasons why I got into politics. The Liberals’ Fair Hydro Plan, I didn’t think was all that fair. It was going to be put on my children and the backs of their kids.

So I would like to hear from the member. I know his kids are—gosh, I think they’re almost about my age, but maybe speak a little bit about how he thinks this is going to really benefit people of the future and the generations to come.

I’ve got here the NDP plan—well, we’ll call it a plan—on what they would like to do to build more affordable and, I believe, non-market rental homes, to the tune of 250,000 homes in the province. Using some basic math, what it costs, roughly, to build a home right now is around $500,000. For 250,000 homes, we’re talking about—what is it? A billion and a quarter, something along those lines? I’m just wondering what taxes you would raise to be able to pay for those homes.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On your behalf, I do believe I see your wife sitting up in the gallery. Lisa Arnott is here, and I think we should all give a round of applause for her putting up with the Speaker for many, many years.