role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 16, 2023

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2023-Nov-16 vol. A (PDF)

L110A - Thu 16 Nov 2023 / Jeu 16 nov 2023

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 16 November 2023 Jeudi 16 novembre 2023

Orders of the Day

Taxation

Members’ Statements

Windsor Veterans Memorial Services Committee

Climate change

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Dental care

Remembrance Day

Health care

Lung Cancer Awareness Month

Lawlor Pharmasave

Across U-hub

Fairfield-Gutzeit House

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ safety

Question Period

Government accountability

Health care

Housing

Taxation

Government contracts

Taxation

Public transit

Cost of living / Coût de la vie

Taxation

University and college funding

Taxation

Taxation

Health care

Taxation

Child care

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

Building a Strong Ontario Together Act (Budget Measures), 2023 / Loi de 2023 visant à bâtir un Ontario fort ensemble (mesures budgétaires)

Taxation

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Standing Committee on Heritage, Infrastructure and Cultural Policy

Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs

Standing Committee on the Interior

Introduction of Government Bills

Planning Statute Law Amendment Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’aménagement du territoire

Improving Real Estate Management Act, 2023 / Loi de 2023 sur l’amélioration de la gestion des biens immeubles

Motions

Consideration of Bill 141

Petitions

Road safety

Road safety

Road safety

Government appointments

Renewable energy

Renewable energy

Environmental protection

Social assistance

Social assistance

Ontario Place

Tenant protection

Orders of the Day

Taxation

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prières / Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Taxation

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 15, 2023, on the amendment to the motion regarding taxes on fuels for home heating.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Ric Bresee: I’m very pleased to rise in the House today to talk about something that is negatively affecting many Ontarians, including those in my riding of Hastings–Lennox and Addington. That, Speaker, is the carbon tax. This poorly thought-out tax grab by the federal government is doubling down on the existing pain already caused by the inflationary spirals and the interest rate hikes that are causing so much concern and so much suffering among struggling families. People should simply not have to choose between heating and eating.

Housing costs more because interest rates are up. Fuel costs have gone up because of many things around the global economy, certainly. Adding more tax to the already increased home heating fuel cost is just adding to all the cost increases. The cost-of-living increases are bad enough, but adding a tax to that is rubbing salt in the wound. Ultimately, it’s punitive. There is no option in Ontario; you have to heat your home in the winter. The idea that a carbon tax will convince you somehow to use less fuel is saying that you actually want people to poorly heat their homes. This is ludicrous.

Speaker, the last couple of years has changed something for Ontarians. There is a very simple and practical element of what should be an everyday occurrence in life across this province: that is, the enjoyable trip to the grocery store. Gone are the days when families would gather together and go to the local supermarket and actually get excited to pick out the foods that they’re going to eat over the next week or so to prepare those meals for the week. Now families have to brace themselves for making hard decisions of what to feed their families—very often, unfortunately, deciding between heating their homes and eating good, nutritious foods.

The motion we’re discussing today proposes that the Liberal federal government remove this carbon tax from those home heating fuels. The motion is limited to fuels and I will get to that, Speaker, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that most of the world views carbon taxes as completely ineffective. In fact, 75% of the nations of this world don’t have a carbon tax, including some of those that are recognized or at least have reputations as being the leading champions in the climate change effort. Countries like Australia, New Zealand and Germany don’t require their citizens to pay this wholly ineffective tax.

As families head out to pick up their groceries, they’re constantly hit with the carbon tax. It starts with putting fuel in their vehicles just to travel to the store.

Speaker, I do need to mention the geography. The area in which you live should never be a determination as to how much excessive tax you pay. For the vast majority of people in my riding, there is no local public transit. For very small rural municipalities, transit is just not a reasonable or practical option for them, so for my residents, a vehicle is not a luxury; it’s a necessity.

Mr. Stephen Blais: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Orléans.

M. Stephen Blais: Merci, monsieur le Président. Peut-être qu’on peut donner aux membres l’option pour avoir la traduction.

Je voudrais soulever une motion de procédure conformément à l’article 25(

b) du Règlement, qui stipule que le député ne peut parler que du sujet autour de la question à l’examen. On a un changement à la motion pour discuter la TVH et pas seulement la taxe de carbone.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I just need a moment to consider this matter.

The member is quite correct. The standing orders indicate that we should be debating the amendment to the main motion, and I would ask all members to ensure that their remarks conform to that standing order.

The member for Hastings–Lennox and Addington has the floor.

Mr. Ric Bresee: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I thank you for that reminder. As a whole, my comments will reflect back on both the amendment and the overall tax issue.

Again, I’m not sure exactly where I was in my comments, but when you live in small towns and rural areas, in the north or the south of this province, you must have access to a car, which means you must buy gasoline, which means that with every kilometre travelled, you’re paying that HST or that carbon tax.

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation estimates that with the current gas tax adding 14 cents per litre, skyrocketing over the next six years to the point where it will cost the average driver about $2,300 a year, almost $200 a month—that’s a huge hit for struggling families.

So far I’ve only talked about the struggles of Ontario families putting fuel in their vehicles. As they enter the grocery store, they’re also seeing the cost of food inflated because of carbon tax and, in some cases on those groceries, the HST. Before the food makes it to the store, we need to look at the farmers, the producers who are preparing our food and producing and transporting the food that we eat. They, too, are feeling the burden of these taxes.

Brendan Byrne, the chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, wrote an

article in the Hill Times. In it, he says, “Like other Ontario grain farmers, we now have access to information and technology that helps us farm more efficiently than previous generations could ever have dreamed of. Agronomic science, data, and new innovations are allowing ... farmers to grow abundant, high-quality food on ever-decreasing amounts of arable land. Some things, though, don’t change. Farmers know healthy soil is the heart of a farm business, and we do everything we can to protect it.”

The farmers are the experts on improving climate impact on their farms, and the federal carbon tax penalizes those farmers who are working hard to create greener farming. A little further in that article, Byrne states, “When innovative ways to dry grain are developed, I can guarantee farmers will be quick to adopt them. Farm fuels are a major cost, and all farmers want to manage costs. But until alternative solutions are available, taxing the fuels used for grain drying only penalizes farmers and unnecessarily increases the cost of food production.”

The grain farmers’ association of Ontario has stated, “By 2030, it is estimated that ... $2.7 billion of carbon tax will be paid by Ontario grains and oilseed farmers.

“The concept of providing an incentive for change is only acting like a penalty for farmers who have no alternatives available to them. This is money that is coming right out of the farmers’ pocket.”

Grain farmers across the country have been asking for a carbon tax exemption since the federal Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act came into effect in 2018. The act recognizes that farmers need to use some fuels to perform tasks, and the tax was removed for farmers for some gasoline and diesel. The use of propane and natural gas, however, does not have that exemption. Not surprisingly, this tax is not applied equally, fairly, equitably or even logically.

Speaker, I reached out to one of my local farmers. Max Kaiser is an egg farmer down in Southern Lennox and Addington. For those in the House who don’t know this, almost all farmers who raise animals for our food supply are also grain farmers; they have to be. They’re growing the food to feed the animals that, in turn, provide our food. It was mentioned by Brendan Byrne that the federal government has decided that fuel costs for farmers, in some cases, are exempt from this exorbitant tax.

But get this: Max has his own drying equipment and does it himself; he is therefore exempted from some of those taxes. But his friend Richard, who doesn’t own his own dryer, sends his corn over to Herb to dry. Herb has to pay carbon tax because he’s considered a commercial operator, so he passes that charge to Rich when he’s drying Rich’s corn. So Max’s corn is dried tax-free, but Rich’s isn’t because of who’s drying it.

I’ll quote Max, who says, “Who uses it and for what is not relevant. Ultimately it is all food! Why does it matter who is drying and who isn’t?” Max goes on to say that he’s buying about 55,000 litres of propane per year to dry his own corn. If he was paying a carbon tax, there would be another $3,000 out of his pocket that has to be made up by the price of the food to the consumer.

He also buys another 30,000 litres for heating his chick barns, on which there is about $2,000 worth of that tax that’s not exempt. These chicks need to be kept warm and alive so that they can, in turn, produce eggs. I don’t know about you, but I like eating eggs. As egg producers, they employ a cost-of-production pricing system, which means that those prices get reflected in the price they get paid for the eggs. This is a price that gets passed on to consumers. Egg farmers collect about 66 cents for each dollar that the consumer pays for eggs. The grain and bread sectors only collect 2% or 3% on that consumer price.

Let me quote Max again: “So carbon taxing is far more impacting grocery prices for eggs and milk, but it all affects consumer pricing.

The federal government is “lying if they say otherwise. Food and fuel are the bottom, cornerstones of the economy. And, food needs fuel too to make it happen.”

Speaker, even the Parliamentary Budget Office has reported that the carbon tax’s cost to farmers will increase by—

Mr. Stephen Blais: A point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member. I recognize the member from Orléans.

Mr. Stephen Blais: Madam Speaker, pursuant to

section 25(

b) of the standing orders, we are debating the amendment which speaks to removing the HST from home heating. It does not refer to the carbon tax, nor does it refer to the price of food.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Thank you. I will just remind the member to bring it back to the amendments that we are dealing with this morning.

Mr. Wayne Gates: How many reminders does he get?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Excuse me?

Mr. Wayne Gates: How many reminders does he get?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Please, I would ask the member from Niagara Falls to come to order.

I will ask the member to resume his debate.

Mr. Ric Bresee: Thank you very much, Speaker.

Again, I thank you for that reminder and my points will come back to the egregious compounding of the carbon tax and the HST. It is absolutely all relevant on the price of food, the price of vehicles, the price of our home heating and the cost of living for all of our residents.

Coming back, according to the Canadian Energy Centre, Ontario agricultural production costs have increased 4% because of the carbon tax, and it continues with the HST. All of these costs are being passed along to families at the grocery store.

I must come back to the statement—as families across this province are struggling with food, they should not need to continually be deciding between heating and eating.

While there are good reasons to be concerned about policy implications with a heating oil exemption, the analysis has found, according to the Canadian Climate Institute, that the effect on emissions will be negligible.

Even Enbridge estimated that the federal carbon charge will add almost $300 to the Ontario household natural gas bill. This is the home heating bill, and we know that there is HST on top of that, and this will only continue to increase year after year until 2030.

The bottom line: The federal carbon tax, including the HST component, is not a balanced tax.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that $8 billion will be collected from small businesses and only $35 million returned, and that most businesses—56%—will have no choice but to pass on those increased prices caused by the carbon tax and the HST to the consumers. We’ve all heard different estimates—but even the Bank of Canada itself says a major component of inflation right now are these taxes.

Again, I come back to the geography. The reports are very clear that while the vast majority of eastern Canadians, Maritimers, are using furnace oil to heat their homes, only 2% or 3% of Ontarians are. Most of us in this province are using the less-carbon-intensive natural gas or propane. And yet, the federal government has crassly decided to exempt the people of the Maritimes while ignoring the people of Ontario. Trust me, I don’t begrudge the discount to the people of the Maritimes. They’re suffering from bad federal policy on the economy as well.

I’m only asking to have that same exemption—the same recognition that we here in Ontario are suffering from the high costs and need the same exemptions that are being offered to eastern Canada.

This is Canada; home heating is a basic necessity. Adding to the costs of a basic necessity, on top of all the increased costs for all the other necessities, including the HST, is just adding insult to injury.

It has long been said that it’s very expensive to be poor. If you can’t afford to buy a new $7,000 or $10,000 high-efficiency furnace, then you’re paying more for the same amount of fuel with no improvement in your situation, but you are paying a higher level of tax. If you can’t afford to buy the latest, most fuel-efficient car, then you’re paying a higher level of tax. If you’re struggling with your food budget, then you tend to buy smaller portions and in turn higher prices.

If you can’t afford to buy a locally made product—we know that right here in Ontario, in all of our small communities, we grow some of the best food. We make some of the best products. But we also know that the stuff that’s shipped in by freighter from other parts of the world sometimes is cheaper, and we end up resorting to that, so we’re not feeding our own economy. This tax is encouraging us to not feed our own economy. We need to continue to utilize our local suppliers. Those products coming from other parts of the world don’t have the CO 2 emissions controls that we have here. They don’t have a carbon tax. They aren’t suffering from this.

Finally, and maybe most importantly, it’s well supported that struggling with affording heat, struggling with affording adequate shelter, struggling with affording good food and nutrition—these are basic elements of the socio-economic factors of health. This carbon tax is adding to health challenges in this province, and it’s adding to the cost of our health care system. All of this adds up to: It’s a horrible decision by the federal government.

But I do have to mention that here in Ontario we are helping. We are doing our best to improve the situation for Ontarians, to make the cost of living better. Our government, under this Premier, has been consistent. We want to support Ontarians and help them fight inflation and high interest rates. We fought this horrific carbon tax and continue to advocate to reduce or eliminate it. We lowered the cost of driving by lowering the gas tax and removing road tolls. We lowered taxation. In fact, in this province right now, if you don’t make $50,000 in income, you don’t pay any provincial income tax.

This government, most importantly, has built up our economy, added 700,000 more jobs that are good-paying high-wage jobs so that the residents of Ontario can better afford the cost of living. So yes, Speaker, this government, under the leadership of the Premier, is making life more affordable for Ontarians, and all the while the federal Liberal government under Justin Trudeau is making it more expensive.

Speaker, I’ll end with a little analogy. Many people across this province here have savings. Many homeowners are saving for a future renovation or repair to the house. We know that, at some point, the roof on a house will need to be replaced, so the homeowner begins to save money towards replacing that roof. However, life sometimes throws some different circumstances at that homeowner. They may need to change the amount that they’re putting way each month in that savings or even take a break from it so that they can afford the necessities of the day.

The carbon tax is taking far more from the people than it’s giving back. Are we actually saving money to help repair the environment? Can we afford to save for tomorrow by starving or freezing today? No, that’s not where Ontarians are at. Now is not the time for Ontarians to be putting money into the carbon tax while they struggle to make the decision between heating and eating. I urge all members to support this motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further debate?

Mr. Ross Romano: Good morning, everybody. It’s a pleasure to be here to have the opportunity to debate this fine motion and amendment to it. As many of you have heard me say, when I speak and when we look at the types of resolutions that we look at to fix the various problems that we try to fix, I always like to begin with looking at what is it that we are trying to solve and what’s the problem we’re trying to solve.

Well, obviously we’re dealing with some significant cost increases across the board. People are dealing with inflation. They’re struggling to be able to put food on the table. They’re struggling to be able to pay their rent. They’re struggling with being able to buy their groceries and heat their homes and put gas in their cars, or struggling to be able to get a bus pass. The struggles just are quite significant.

We are the government, and the reason why we are the government is because people have a lot of problems and they have elected us to fix those problems, because when the coalition of the Liberals and the NDP were in power, they caused all these problems. While they were causing all these problems, the people saw how terrible they were at effectively managing anything, so they decided to elect some people that they thought were going to be a lot better at managing things. I think the people have spoken, Madam Speaker.

Interjection.

Mr. Ross Romano: When you go from a supermajority into a much-larger-bigger-broader-word-than-supermajority, I think it really says to people like the member of Niagara—it ought to; the basic mathematics shouldn’t be lost on that individual—to see that the people are agreeing that there are better options and that those better options are the options that they’ve selected and they’re doubling down on those options.

So it’s incumbent on us as members in this House to recognize what the people of this province—all across this province in every single riding and every corner of it—what they are saying and what they’re concerned about. Right now, one of the principal concerns is affordability. It’s a basic reference. So, again, back to the question, what is the problem we need to solve? And the problem is affordability. Now, the nature of the motion that is before us and the amendment to the motion is to call upon the federal government to do something. So in this case, we’re calling upon our brothers and sisters in the—

Mr. Stephen Blais: Point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member from Sault Ste. Marie. I recognize the member from Orléans.

M. Stephen Blais: Merci, madame la Présidente. Si vous voulez prendre un moment pour avoir la traduction, s’il vous plaît, allez-y.

Je me lève sur une motion de procédure conformément à l’article 25(

b) du Règlement, qui stipule que le député ne peut parler de sujets autres que la question à l’examen.

La motion sur la table est d’éliminer la TVH sur le chauffage domestique. Ce n’est pas une question de demander au gouvernement fédéral de changer la taxe de carbone.

The motion that is the amendment states, “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.’” Please speak to the amendment to the original motion. Thank you.

I will recognize the member from Sault Ste. Marie.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I recognize the member for Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Ross Romano: Well, you know, as my good friend across the aisle here would certainly appreciate, the amendment that is brought forward to the original motion is all dealing with the issue of affordability, ultimately. So I will continue on the path and appreciate the needless reminder that’s a reminder of nothingness, quite frankly, Madam Speaker, because that’s exactly what I’m speaking to, the amendment to the motion. And so—

Interjections.

Mr. Ross Romano: The individual can try to get into procedural elements but, unfortunately, that’s just not how this particular member here is going to handle this particular speech at this time, because what we are talking about, Madam Speaker—the reason for the amendment, the reason for the motion, is to address affordability. Am I right, Madam Speaker? That’s what we’re here to deal with. We’re here to address rising costs. We’re here to address the people’s inability to handle those costs. And then we’re here to address the amendment to the motion to try to address that challenge.

And so, again, I ask, what is the problem we’re trying to solve and how will this amendment or this motion address that? I challenge myself because in order to answer that question, you have to get to the root, right? You must come to the root, and the root, ultimately, as the amendment is addressing an HST issue, the motion is addressing a carbon tax issue—which is all, again, aimed at how do we fix this affordability problem.

Well, you have to ask yourself what each one of those taxes—what they were all about. The HST, obviously, has been around for a very long time. The GST before it was around for a very long time. The carbon tax is a recent issue, and it comes about for very different reasons, so let’s focus there as a starting point.

The carbon tax: My understanding—I stand to be corrected, Madam Speaker—is, somehow, a tax that was contemplated, envisioned, would solve certain environmental problems. They would produce people’s environmental impact. It would protect the environment. Okay—in theory, I can understand how that works. But in so doing, we’re taxing businesses on just about everything we do—literally, quite frankly, everything, whether it’s your food—you know, we’re hearing people talk about what it costs to run a fan, to dry our foods off before we can put them out to market so they don’t rot or mould.

We’re talking about how much it costs me to fuel gas in my home, and I don’t even use that much. My own home—I burn a lot of wood. I just had my three sons and myself getting ready for the winter. We’re prepping our woodshed. We’re getting everything set. My wood cost has gone up $10 a cord and they’re telling me it’s because of the cost of fuel. All of these costs just keep on growing and growing and growing.

Me heating my home with wood is a little bit more environmentally friendly than using natural gas. Now, I’ve got to pay more money for that. Okay, I can understand that. But is it going to fix the problem? Is it going to fix the grander issue of protecting the environment? Those costs are just getting pushed on to me, the end user. The cost of that bologna sandwich is just going up, but the person who is paying for it is that end user. I used to bring my kids to Subway a lot after soccer practice. We used to always go to Subway; it was a thing.

Until I went to Subway recently and a sub cost me, and a diet Pepsi—it was like $18, for one. I mean, you multiply that out by the whole family and I’m thinking, that’s a really expensive lunch, right? That’s a really, really expensive lunch. Why am I paying that price? It’s because of all of these costs going up, and I’m just paying for it.

So, is the environment getting protected? Did anybody stop doing anything to hurt the environment because they had these taxes? No, they’re just paying more money to do the business that they’re doing, and they’re making me pay for it. It’s a really challenging situation that now I’m just paying for and you’re paying for and the member for Niagara is paying for and all of his constituents are paying for—but again, are his constituents seeing any changes in the world? Are they seeing the impact of the carbon tax fixing the environment?

I’d love to know if the member actually sees a change in the environment because of all the extra costs his constituents are paying, for basic items like a fried egg in the morning.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I will remind the member from Niagara Falls to come to order.

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate that.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): The member from Niagara Falls will come to order.

Mr. Ross Romano: I would love to speak about the items that the member from Niagara is asking me to speak to, but unfortunately, Mr. Blais will try to hold me out of order for not speaking to the actual motion, which is about affordability, isn’t it, Madam Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I will remind the member that we do not address other members by name.

Mr. Ross Romano: Oh, did I? My apologies to the member for—perhaps the member from Niagara can help me. I would love his assistance on this.

Interjection.

Mr. Ross Romano: Orléans; the member for Orléans.

I really, if I can, and if the member from Niagara will allow me, would love to be able to speak to the member for Orléans’s amendment to our motion at this time, which of course as we all know is about affordability. I think that it’s a challenging situation, though, Madam Speaker. It’s a very challenging situation when we sit in this House and we look at ways that we can fix things, and yet when I look at this carbon tax, I can’t fathom how it fixes the problem. Here at home, I’m challenged to see how it fixes the problem, but what I can clearly see—and I think we can all see—is how it’s costing every single one of us, the end user, more for everything.

The HST does cost everything more. We’ve been paying for the HST now for a long time. We’re all used to that. I mean, hey, I’d be happy to pay no tax. Mea culpa, I would love no tax. I don’t think anyone on this side of the House would ever argue with that. But, maybe there is some argument of, like, “the end justified the means.” We needed income to pay for things like health care. We needed money to pay for various items.

And a lot of this revenue for the government allows us to be able to afford the things that we enjoy, as people in a free and democratic society, here in this province and certainly in this country, enjoy—and, arguably, maybe some should be able to enjoy more than others. I think that there are certainly challenges in that regard.

All that being said, this particular carbon tax—it’s a tax. It’s not fixing the problem it was intended to solve. So if it’s not going to fix the problem that it was intended to, then maybe the feds should look at a different way of doing it. How else can we protect the environment? Let’s not even talk about how the lack of this—

Mr. Stephen Blais: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the member from Sault Ste. Marie. I recognize the member from Orléans.

Mr. Stephen Blais: Pursuant to standing order 25(b), which states that the member cannot speak to matters other than the question under discussion, I’d like to have you remind the member that the amendment is discussing the removal of the HST from home heating and does not reference any conversations with the federal government relating to the carbon tax.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I appreciate the member’s argument, but I will allow the member from Sault Ste. Marie to continue.

Mr. Ross Romano: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I get his concern, but he should listen to what we’re talking about, because what we are talking about is, in fact, the amendment to the motion. My words are clear. All of these remedies, if we can call them remedies—the HST as well as the carbon tax—are intended to solve a certain problem. The motion is intended to address affordability. The amendment to the motion is proposing a different way to address affordability. At the end of the day, we are talking about affordability.

Both of these measures—whether the carbon tax or whether the HST—are all coming from the feds. So we’re looking at the feds and saying, “Hey, guys, you’ve got option A and you’ve got option B. Option A, the carbon tax, is supposed to fix the environment, but it’s just costing us all more money. Option B is a way to fill our coffers, and it’s costing people more money. You should change something here.” Well, let’s be reasonable. The whole concept of this amendment is, which one should we ask for; which one do we want to bug the feds about?

Do we want to say to the feds, “Hey, guys, stop charging people more money for something that isn’t fixing the problem you’re trying to fix”—the environmental concerns—or, “Stop charging people more money for this other problem, which is just trying to pay for all of our other goods and services that we have out there”?

Madam Speaker, I’ll repeat what I said earlier. Personally, I’d rather have no tax of any kind. Don’t tax me at all. Keep your hand out of my pocket. I think most people would agree. Nobody wants government’s hands in their pockets.

But I do like the services that I have. I do enjoy having roads to drive on. Sometimes I wish they were nicer. Sometimes I really wish there were more of them. I like being able to go see my doctor. Sometimes I do wish there were more of them. Sometimes I wish there was better access to different things. But I do like what I have. I like being able to send my kids to school. Actually, I’ve got no concerns with my kids’ schooling. They’re doing really good in school. They’ve got nice teachers, a good team there, a good board, a nice facility. I’m quite happy with that side of things, to be honest with you. But I recognize that that costs money. So we’ve got to pay for that—and we are.

The carbon tax—what is it fixing? It’s not fixing the environment. Is it going to change how much pollution someone generates in any jurisdiction outside of this province or country? Is it going to change any of that? No. We know for a fact that it won’t change that at all. But members in various—and rightfully so—would say, “We’ve got to worry about our own house first. We can’t worry about everybody else. We’ve got to worry about us.” That’s a fair argument, right? It’s a very fair argument. It makes a ton of sense. You’ve got to worry about yourself first. Lead by example, right? That’s really relevant.

But is it going to do anything? It doesn’t seem to be fixing it. It just means I’m paying more money for my baloney sandwich, for my cord of wood, for everything, and it’s not fixing the problem. It’s not changing anything. So why are we doing it?

So, should we vote for the amendment? Let’s tell the federal government we don’t want to pay any more money. We want them to stop charging tax for all the stuff that we enjoy, those goods and services that we really, really appreciate and that we love as Canadians. Or should we ask the federal government to stop a tax that absolutely is not fixing the problem they want to solve?

And then when you look at—I’m going to use a personal example. Here I am, the member for Sault Ste. Marie. My local steel plant—one of only three steel manufacturers in the country, all three of which are here in the province of Ontario, two in Hamilton, one in Sault Ste.

Marie—Algoma Steel, greening its steel, reducing carbon emissions, a huge economic investment, a huge benefit, actually making a difference on the environment at a huge level by making critical investments that our government has made without resorting to a carbon tax, without jamming our hands as deep as we can into every single business and thinking that it’s going to change anything other than them then making us pay for it.

I say we get rid of the carbon tax, Madam Speaker. To me, I would say I have really, really honestly considered the member’s amendment to the motion, but personally, I’m not convinced. And as I’m speaking, I don’t know, I hope I convinced a few people here today that the amendment doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s a pleasure to rise to debate this motion. Before I get into the need to address the affordability and climate crisis that we’re facing in Ontario right now and the fact that this government has failed to address both of those, I’ve got to say it’s been interesting listening to the member from Sault Ste. Marie defending taxes. I’ve got to say, folks on the other side of the aisle oftentimes don’t defend taxes. It was interesting hearing the member defend taxes, because we know taxes pay for our health care system.

They pay for good education, universities; addressing the housing affordability crisis; addressing the climate crisis; basically, making life livable in this province.

They say taxes are what fund civilization. So I was happy to hear the member acknowledge that. I’m hoping that the government members, when things like gimmicks like licence plate stickers come up again—and being the only MPP in this entire Legislature to vote against that, because I wanted to see the $2.5 billion that was lost in the first year and the $1.5 billion we’re losing each and every year actually going to helping Ontarians access high-quality health care or education, better long-term-care services, building affordable housing.

So the next time the government brings up a gimmick like that, I’ll be reminded of the member’s elegant defence of the role taxes play in funding our government and our society.

Speaker, we are facing an affordability crisis and a climate crisis. And I would say to all members of this House of all political parties, you ignore them at your peril. We have to address both, and we can address both at the same time, but not by the actions of this government.

Think about the fall economic statement. There wasn’t a single measure to address affordability in the fall economic statement, nor were there any measures to address the climate crisis. As a matter of fact, since this government took office, they ripped up Ontario’s climate plan. They cancelled 750 renewable energy contracts, costing the province $230 million. They cancelled EV rebates, which would help people drive lower-cost cars. They ripped out charging stations to help people charge those cars at a lower cost. They changed the building code to make building retrofits—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I will remind the member that we are dealing with an amendment and to speak to the amendment before us.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate that, Speaker. I am speaking to the affordability crisis of both the original motion and the amended motion. If you would give me a little bit of time to get there, I’m getting there for a second—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I will remind the member that we’re speaking to the amendment before us. Please speak to the amendment.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Thank you, Speaker.

So we have an amendment here to take the HST off home heating, to a motion to remove the carbon price from home heating. If people really want to address the cost associated with home heating, the best thing we can do is to help people avoid both of those costs: the HST and the carbon price. How do we help people do that, Speaker? We help them save money by saving energy and by helping people reduce the need to purchase fuel to heat their homes.

Unfortunately, when the current government took office, they cancelled all of those programs to help people save money by saving energy. The Ontario Greens are saying, “Let’s bring those programs back.” I want to give you just one example: Corporate Knights hired a number of economists to do an analysis of what it would look like if we brought in a building retrofit program in the province of Ontario—or across Canada, but I will give you the numbers for the province of Ontario.

A $5-billion investment in building retrofits would leverage $83 billion of additional capital investment in the province, creating over 800,000 jobs, contributing $196 billion to Ontario’s GDP, reducing climate pollution by 14 metric tonnes, and saving energy consumers $4.8 billion each and every year. To me, that’s the most logical, sensible, fiscally responsible and economically responsible way to help people with home heating costs and be more effective than removing the HST or carbon price from home heating fuels. Why don’t we invest in that?

Why don’t we actually help people save money by saving energy—not just this year, but the next year and the next year and the years after that? That’s how we can address both the climate crisis and the affordability crisis that people are facing.

There has been a lot of talk about the cost-of-fuel inflation that we’re facing, whether it’s home heating, at the gas pumps, or whatever. If you look at what is driving it—this is according to PBO—the carbon price went up two cents last year—that’s per litre; it’s two cents per litre. Profits for the oil and gas companies, last year, went up by 18 cents a litre—

Mr. Wayne Gates: Gouging.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Gouging, yes—oil and gas gouging, grocery gouging; a lot of gouging out there.

I would say to your average consumer looking at heating their home, “What’s hitting you harder: the two cents that the carbon price raised per litre last year or the 18 cents that went to oil and gas profits last year?” If we’re going to write letters—essentially, what these motions are about is writing letters to the federal government. If we want to write a letter to the federal government, why don’t we write a letter to the federal government to bring in the exact same excess profit tax, they brought in for banks and insurance companies, to the oil and gas sector? That would raise $4.2 billion.

We could then take that $4.2 billion and follow the analysis that the Green Budget Coalition has done showing that we could actually do zero-cost energy retrofits for low-income households, including providing them with a heat pump at the exact same price, saving them far more money than either the original motion or the amended motion provides for people.

Speaker, the point is, we have solutions. As a matter of fact, the province wouldn’t even have to write a letter to the federal government on carbon pricing if we would just actually bring back the programs that would help people save money by saving energy, which, by the way, would benefit our economy and reduce climate pollution at the same time.

Speaker, the other thing that I, when I’ve heard the government discuss this—I see the energy minister here. I love debating the energy minister.

Hon. Todd Smith: You never ask me any questions, though.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I know. I need to start asking you some questions.

I’ve had to ask the housing minister a lot of questions lately, but I’ll get to the energy minister soon enough.

He talks about energy poverty, and that is a real issue, but most of the measures the government has brought forward to address that issue actually disproportionally benefit high-income households—including the original motion and the amended motion; including the $7 billion that we’re spending to subsidize electricity prices in Ontario. The FAO has done an analysis, and that disproportionately benefits high-income households at the expense of low-income households.

When you look at carbon pricing, it’s the low-income households, according to the PBO, who receive more money back through rebates than they pay in to carbon pricing. So if the government’s concern—and I think this is a valid concern—is energy poverty, we’d be much better off having income means-tested programs and/or just doing what I’m suggesting: having programs in place that would help working-class, middle-class families be able to save money by saving energy. That is the most effective way we can address the affordability crisis and the climate crisis.

I know the members opposite have talked a lot about food inflation and how carbon pricing can connect to food inflation. But if you talk to food economists, do you know what they’ll tell you the number one drivers of food inflation are? The climate crisis—they usually say weather; they say there’s drought in most of the major growing areas in the world. Of course, there’s conflict in the Ukraine; that’s contributing. There is grocery-gouging; that’s contributing.

But the primary driver is the fact that we have drought and floods in the major growing areas, which is driving up prices, because it’s a supply and demand issue. So if we truly wanted to address that affordability challenge, we would address the climate crisis, and we would do everything possible to protect local food supply chains.

That’s exactly why we need to be building homes in communities that people want to live in, on land already approved for development, so we don’t have to pave over farmland to do it—so we can protect those local supply chains, so we don’t have a handful of wealthy, well-connected speculators cash in billions at our expense. And when we build those homes—and this is where we need to change the building code—we need to ensure that they’re energy-efficient, so that way, they can save money by saving energy; they can avoid paying HST; they can avoid paying carbon pricing, because they’re using less energy.

It’s common sense. It’s basic economics. And by doing it, we benefit our economy by creating jobs; we make our businesses—especially if our commercial, industrial buildings are more efficient, we make them more competitive, more profitable, saving money, generating more prosperity; we ensure that renters and homeowners save money, because they’re saving energy. So it’s a win-win-win—oh, and by the way, we reduce carbon pollution, which is driving the climate crisis.

I want to close by saying to all members of this House—

Mr. Wayne Gates: Keep talking.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: “Keeping talking.” The member from Niagara wants me to keep talking.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I’d love for you to keep talking.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Oh, the member for Windsor wants me to keep talking, too. There we go.

Interjection.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Oh, the member from Beaches–East York wants me to keep talking. You guys all need to let me talk more in this House if you like it so much. Give me a few more minutes here and there.

I want to ask members what message we’re sending to young people. What message are we sending to young people? Because when I talk to young people, they have two major, major concerns. They have lots of concerns, but the two biggest concerns they have are, “How am I ever going to afford to own a home or even pay the rent, given the skyrocketing housing costs and the skyrocketing costs of rent?”

Then the second one is, “What’s my future going to look like because of the climate crisis?” especially after the summer we’ve been through this summer, Speaker, with smoke from forest fires causing bad air quality here throughout Ontario. As a matter of fact, the lung association was just here yesterday talking about lung cancer, and they’re saying that the number one driver historically has been smoking, but now it’s becoming air pollution, primarily driven by the climate crisis, which is then going to put pressure on our health care system, driving up costs for people.

Young people are asking about their financial future. According to Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer, the climate crisis is going to cost an extra $26.2 billion this decade alone just for public infrastructure if we don’t start reducing pollution. Over the course of this century, we’re going to have an additional $4 billion a year in transportation costs due to climate-fuelled extreme weather events; an additional $1.5 billion a year for costs associated to public buildings.

Young people are saying, “How am I going to afford a home or pay the rent? “They’re saying, “How am I going to afford these escalating costs due to the climate crisis?” Last year alone, $3.1 billion in insurable losses due to the climate crisis. So young people are saying, “How am I going to afford all of this?-

Then, they’re looking at what we’re debating right now in this House, and they’re saying, “Why don’t you take real action; real action to save me money? Build a home I can afford and make sure it’s energy-efficient. Make sure that I have a heat pump. Make sure that I have good insulation and good windows and that I can significantly reduce my home heating costs in that home.”

Speaker, let’s build homes people can afford in the communities they want to live in, that are affordable, that are close to where they work so they don’t have to have long, expensive commutes. Let’s build those homes so they’re energy-efficient, so that we can address the real affordability concerns people have, young people especially, about what it’s going to take to heat that home, and we can address the real concerns they have about the climate crisis.

We can do both. We can do it in a way that benefits our economy and creates more jobs. We can do it in a way that addresses the affordability crisis and the climate crisis. That’s the debate we should be having in this House today, not a debate about sending a letter to the federal government to maybe possibly do something that, quite frankly, is just yet another attack on taking action on the climate crisis. Let’s solve the problem of affordability and climate. That’s the debate we need to have. Thank you, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further debate?

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s an honour to rise today and speak to the motion. Madam Speaker, I know there is an amendment on the floor, and I can speak to the amendment as well, but before I do that, I want to move the following:

I move that the amendment be amended by deleting everything after “remove” and replacing it with “the carbon tax on fuels and inputs for home heating.”

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Mr. Calandra has moved that that the amendment be amended by deleting everything after “remove” and replacing it with “the carbon tax on fuels and inputs for home heating.”

Further debate?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do appreciate that.

Colleagues, you will know that the focus of today and this motion has been on the carbon tax. That is what we have been debating about. That is what is seizing the country right now, the value and the impact of the carbon tax on families; the fact that a federal Liberal government has brought forward an amendment to the carbon tax which favours one region of the country over everybody else, a decision that was plainly made for political purposes.

We saw that the member for Essex and a number of other colleagues last night were talking about why we were bringing this forward, why it was important for us to do that. It’s not only just because of the fact that the carbon tax is hurting every single person; it is because of the fact that the federal Liberal government, a minister of that government, has admitted that the decision to remove the carbon tax on fuels in Atlantic Canada was based solely on politics and no other reason.

So for that reason, provinces and communities across this country—our federal Parliament has been seized on what has happened with respect to the carbon tax and why it is not only a bad tax, but why the Liberals have now made it even worse, turning it into a national crisis.

Now, I can appreciate the member for Orléans wanting to distract from that with another motion. Let’s talk about it. We were here last night until midnight debating this motion. Not one member of the Liberal Party felt it was important to get in their place and defend the amendment that was brought forward by the member for Orléans—not one. In eight hours of debate, the Liberal caucus sat on their hands and spoke not even once on the amendment. They didn’t get up and speak on the carbon tax. They didn’t speak even once. They just sat there in agreement all night.

And now, this morning, they get up in their place—the same group; the member himself, the member for Ottawa-Orléans—to defend the sanctity of the amendment that he brought forward on the HST. But a speech to defend it? No. Did any other members of the Liberal Party feel that it was important for them to get up and talk about reducing taxes? No. Have they? No. We will continue this debate, and I guarantee you, Madam Speaker, that not one more Liberal will have the courage to rise in their place and talk about either eliminating the carbon tax or the Harmonized Sales Tax.

Let’s be very clear: I will give credit to the NDP. Having said that, they didn’t speak either last night on the carbon tax motion, but I will give credit where credit is due. They themselves could see the damage that this tax was causing on the people of Ontario, and when we brought another motion last week with respect to eliminating carbon taxes on groceries and on inputs, the NDP voted with us—with the people of Ontario, frankly—to remove that tax.

That was a big change for the NDP. It was a big change for the NDP. What they had said, the NDP, is that after all of the huffing and puffing and talking about how important a carbon tax was, that finally—and you will know, Madam Speaker: The NDP have come a long way. They’ve come a long way.

The member for Sarnia–Lambton—you’ll remember in the last Parliament we had a motion to protect—I think it was line 9?

Hon. Todd Smith: Line 5.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Line 5. The NDP has historically been against oil and gas, and they voted with the government to protect line 5. That was a historical shift with the NDP. And then, finally, last week they also then voted with us to eliminate carbon taxes.

Now, it wasn’t just here. To give credit where credit is due, the NDP in Ottawa also, after we resolved the incorrect phone number for Jagmeet—it was actually 613-JAGMEET, not 1-800; I beg you, don’t call the 1-800 number. It won’t get you where you want to go.

Hon. Doug Downey: Or it might.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Or it might.

But all of a sudden, even the federal NDP realized that this is a bad tax.

Now, we have said, on this side of the House, right from day one, that the carbon tax will cost everybody, no matter what you do. It was going to cost you constantly, right? We have said that from day one. We took the federal government to court to try and stop the carbon tax, and we heard speech after speech after speech from the opposition, “No, you’re wrong, you’re wrong, you’re wrong.”

Now we have clear evidence of it. At least the official opposition here, whether they believe it or not, at least they understand that right now we are in a situation that the carbon tax is costing people and something has to give. So, I congratulate the NDP for supporting the motion last week. I hope that they will support—and I’m optimistic. I think that they will support this motion here today, Madam Speaker.

But let’s go back to the Liberals, right? Let’s go back to the Liberals. Now, I was a member federally, you all know, before I was retired by the people. I was first elected in 2008, and part of that election in 2008 was off of the success of what was the 2006 campaign—you will recall this—to reduce the GST at the time, from 7% to 6% to 5%. What did we hear from the Liberals? I mean, the NDP are consistent; I will give them this. They like to tax, right? The Liberals love to tax. The NDP like to tax, but I will give the NDP credit that they’re consistent. The Liberals will make you believe that they both like to tax and don’t like to tax. They try to hide what it is they want.

When we went from 7% to 6% to 5%—because that’s what Conservatives do, right? We reduce taxes and give you more for that. They said that doing that would cause an absolute collapse in the economy, that it is the dumbest thing to do, that you can’t do it, and blah, blah, blah—any host of reasons why you can’t do it. But you know what happened? When we reduced taxes, all of a sudden, the economy started to grow. More people had more money, and they were spending more money. And do you know what then happened?

We actually got more tax revenue when we reduced taxes on people, and we were able to get through a global financial meltdown, put massive amounts of investments and infrastructure in place and then we balanced the budget federally. But we know that all changed, because then we have a Prime Minister who says that budgets balance themselves. We all know that they don’t balance themselves, that governments actually have to do work in order to balance budgets.

But let’s look at the record of the Liberal Party here in this place. The member from—I almost do it disservice. I would encourage all members, if you didn’t listen to the speech from the member for Essex last night, give yourself an opportunity. Go look up that speech because he really laid it out. I will do it disservice, but let’s look at the Liberals.

I encourage the member from Orléans, if he disagrees with anything that I’m saying, to rise in his place and standing-order me and tell me that I am wrong. And if he does that, I will sit down, Madam Speaker.

This is a Liberal Party, now, that wants to talk about reducing taxes but gave us the highest taxes literally in Canada. And what did you have to show for that after 15 years of Liberal government? Nothing. Nothing. The best they had to do was building a bridge upside down. That is the prowess of the Liberal Party. They got so bad that they started to build infrastructure upside down.

Now, we have a Prime Minister in this country who thinks that we should—

Interjections.

Hon. Paul Calandra: Wow, they’ve got a voice now, right? They won’t get up and talk about it in speeches, but they’ll heckle across the room, right? That is the Liberal Party of today, right? They’ve got nothing to offer—no value, no nothing. It is just about gimmicks and stupidity. That’s what it was about. They said they would increase taxes and then they increased taxes to the highest level.

This is a government, the Liberal government, that, after 15 years, built bridges upside down; didn’t build roads; didn’t build transit; didn’t build transportation; allowed our hospitals to crumble; didn’t build long-term care; laid off nurses, for the love of God; laid off teachers; ruined the education system—

Interjection: Closed schools.

Hon. Paul Calandra: They closed schools. I mean, there’s just so much, I forget the damage that they did, right? I’ve tried to forget the damage that they did. The best they have to offer is a gimmick of a motion to try and distract what the entire country is talking about right now, and that is the carbon tax.

You know why the entire country is talking about a carbon tax, Madam Speaker? Because things have gotten so unaffordable because of the policies of the Liberal government federally, supported, really, by Liberals here. We won’t talk about the NDP for now because at least they remain consistent in bad policy, right? Which is fine, because at least I give them credit. They’ve never wavered from believing in bad ideas, right? But that’s fine. They will campaign. I’m sure the NDP think that the ideas that we have are not so encouraging, but at least they remain consistent.

That group over there, we have no idea what they’re ever talking about. They’re all over the place. One day they want to cut taxes, but then they’re raising taxes. One day they’re building bridges, then they’re building them upside down. One day they want transit, then the next day—they make all these grand deals, promises, and come through with nothing. They have a leader right now who wants to build on the greenbelt but maybe doesn’t want to build on the greenbelt. Like, this is a party that has shown absolutely no understanding of how to govern. This is a party that will not get the confidence of the people back again.

God bless the leader of the Green Party. God bless the leader of the Green Party. He as well stands on principle, none of which I agree with, but nonetheless, he stands on—oh, I shouldn’t say that; we agree quite often. That’s not true.

But we stray from these things because the Liberals are so desperate to distract from their record. Look, we’re not asking for a lot, right? The member for Orléans—again, I encourage him: Please, rise in your place and tell me I’m wrong. If you do that, I’ll sit down. But he’s not going to because he knows I’m right.

What I promised this House is this: Given the ferocity of the desire to cut taxes by the Liberals, I am going to spend the next five weeks in this place, sitting in this place every night if I have to, bringing motion after motion after motion to give the Liberals the opportunity to vote in favour of cutting taxes because I want to hold them on that record. I want to hold them to the record of that.

Look, this is a party that talks about the mean and nasty oil and gas sector. Now, the member for Essex laid it out pretty well: Who are we punishing? We’re punishing Canadians, Where do you think the oil and gas comes from for the most part? From western Canada—or it should. And it should go all the way to the east coast, but it doesn’t because there are NIMBY politicians even in energy, who won’t have Canadian oil being delivered to Canadian homes. As the member for Essex said yesterday, the policy of the Liberals, this policy which reduces taxes only for our Atlantic partners, means that we are subsidizing Saudi Arabian oil.

Now, the rest of the country is more than happy to take transfers of billions and billions and billions of dollars from oil-producing provinces in this country. So when the oil and gas sector improves the economy of the entire country and those provinces then transfer billions to other provinces, everybody loves the oil and gas sector. But what is the best they have? Punish them even more, Madam Speaker. That it’s thousands of jobs doesn’t matter. Thousands of jobs—“Oh, well, we can find it somewhere else,” because according to Liberal math, the more you spend, the more you save.

We’ve heard this constantly. The first Trudeau told us that the more you spend, the more you save, and then he literally almost bankrupted the country. And then the second one comes and tells us the budget will balance itself and, lo and behold, that has not happened. But then we had a Liberal Party here for 15 years who did the exact same thing. They increased taxes to a level that forced our businesses to flee the province. We were losing thousands of jobs because of the policies of the Liberals—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): I apologize to the government House leader, but it is now time for members’ statements.

Debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Windsor Veterans Memorial Services Committee

Mr. Andrew Dowie: Remembrance Week of 2023 in Windsor–Tecumseh was truly one for the books, and I am privileged to have joined incredible ceremonies across my riding. When Windsor-Essex honours its veterans, it does it right. Each of the three Royal Canadian Legions in my riding—Branch 255 in Riverside, Colonel Paul Poisson Branch 261 in Tecumseh and Metropolitan Branch 594 in Oldcastle—hosted neighbourhood commemorations of a truly unique character.

All of the Legions, our veterans and the public come together on Remembrance Day at the Essex County War Memorial in downtown Windsor, at a beautiful ceremony organized by the Windsor Veterans Memorial Services Committee. Since 1926—so, 97 years now—the committee has set out to support our local veterans and their families. Under the leadership of Paul Lauzon, the committee works hard all year, presenting 11 memorial events across Windsor.

These recognize our fallen veterans and the battles in which our local veterans have fought: World War I, the Battle of the Atlantic, the Vietnam War, the Korean War, our peacekeeping and NATO missions, Dieppe, the Merchant Navy, Afghanistan and the Battle of Britain.

To the Windsor Veterans Memorial Services Committee and our local groups like the North Wall Riders Association, the military motorcyclists of Canada and the Southern Ontario Military Muster supporting every single time, thank you for your service to Windsor-Essex veterans and for keeping their legacy alive and strong.

Climate change

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. As you’re well aware, we face a crisis around the climate. We have wildfires in Canada that are unprecedented; we’ve seen them around the world—flooding, drought, disruption of food supply—problems that are profound and are scheduled or expected to become far deeper.

At the same time, we have a government that is ramping up the production of gas-fired electricity. It’s undermining the work that was done over a decade ago to reduce emissions from our electricity sector, and frankly, they’re setting things up for electricity to be more expensive to be produced. That’s a simple reality. We know that just recently, $4.8 million was offered to Napanee to host a gas plant. We know that these gas plants will increase air pollution, cause health problems and deepen the climate crisis.

Royal Bank of Canada and the Electricity Distributors Association of Ontario have both said that there is a cheaper, non-burning option to address this issue. That’s been ignored by this government. I call on the government to abandon its investment in expansion of gas plants, take the solutions offered by the Royal Bank and by the electricity distributors, and put money in the hands of homeowners and businesses across Ontario to cut their energy use and to cut their energy bills. The direction the government is going is disastrous.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Mr. John Jordan: Yesterday, November 15, was World Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Awareness Day.

COPD is a serious and progressive respiratory disease. It’s estimated that, by 2030, COPD will be the third leading cause of death in the world.

In 2021, this government introduced and passed

An Act to proclaim COPD Awareness Day to help raise awareness. The Ministry of Health has taken significant action on COPD care, including increasing access to smoking cessation programs for patients in both the hospital and primary care settings, including patients with COPD; increasing access to influenza and pneumococcal vaccines among COPD patients; and investing in early detection and treatment to slow the progression of this extremely serious lung disease.

One of these vital investments has been Best Care in Primary Care program, a highly effective, made-in-Ontario, team-based, patient-centred care model. Demonstrated in peer-reviewed studies, Best Care in Primary Care has saved our health system millions of dollars, alleviated pressures on capacity and improved the quality of care for Ontarians living with COPD. Best Care has already proven its effectiveness in 200 locations in southwestern Ontario and has been looking at expansion in other regions in the province.

Our government will continue to work with health providers, health teams and patients to continue to enhance initiatives like Best Care and improve the lives of those living with COPD.

I’d like to do a shout-out to Dr. Christopher Licskai, Dr. Cathy Faulds and my friend Christina Dolgowicz for all their great work to help the people with COPD in this province.

Dental care

M me France Gélinas: Ian Watson from my riding came and talked to me—he’s a cancer survivor living with the long-term side effects of radiation treatment for lymphoma, which means that he frequently needs dental procedures. Ian was notified earlier this year that he is no longer eligible for the Ontario seniors dental care plan because his 2022 income exceeded $22,200 by a few dollars. He’s not the only one.

Gail’s net income is $22,203. Therefore, she also received a letter telling her that she no longer qualifies for the dental support. She needs dental services—and at $22,000, she can’t afford this.

Unlike the seniors copayment program, which is based on yearly income after deductions, the dental plan is based on income before deductions.

Ian is asking why this provincial government applies a different

interpretation of net income for one program versus the other.

But what thousands of seniors are asking is, why is this government making it so difficult for low-income seniors to access basic dental care? Why is the eligibility income set so low?

I suppose the government has left enough patients in pain that we will have to wait for the federal government to clean up their mess.

Remembrance Day

Mr. Brian Riddell: This morning, I want to share my experience of spending Remembrance Day with members of the Preston Legion. With two Legions and three cenotaphs in my riding, it was my first opportunity, as the member of Parliament, to spend November 11 with the good people of Branch 126.

We began our Remembrance Day with a solemn march from the Legion to the cenotaph on King Street, where citizens, young and old, laid wreaths to honour our country’s veterans. What was special about the march to the cenotaph this year was, along the way, on every light pole, hung a banner featuring photographs and names of veterans. The banner program was open to all Preston residents who wanted to honour a veteran, either living or passed on. A total of 66 banners were on display, and they served as an important reminder of the sacrifices of veterans who have served and continue to serve our great country.

The banner program is a great way to pay tribute to our veterans, and I encourage all Legions in Ontario to do the same.

Finally, I ended my day with a dinner at the Preston Legion, where I had the opportunity to meet with many veterans who graciously shared their personal experiences with me. I was grateful to hear the stories, and I look forward to hearing many more.

Health care

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Ottawa residents are experiencing significant hurdles to accessing health care. Too many of them don’t have a family doctor, just like 2.2 million people across Ontario. Hospital wait times are excessive, and surgical backlogs are lengthy. In fact, some patients are waiting twice as long as the provincial average to receive life-saving surgeries. At the Ottawa Hospital, only 13% of breast cancer patients are making it to the operating room within the targeted time.

But instead of tackling these challenges, the government is funnelling public health care dollars into the pockets of private investors. This week, we learned that the government is paying a private, for-profit surgical clinic fees that are three to four times what is provided to public hospitals for the same surgeries. And all the while, operating rooms are sitting unused in public hospitals because hospitals don’t have the funding and the staff to make full use of them.

Vacancies for health care staff in Ontario are up 19% since last year, yet this government continues to treat health care workers with disrespect, appealing the court’s decision on Bill 124. Thousands of unfilled positions means thousands of patients will wait indefinitely for treatment. And sometimes that treatment never comes. In 2022 alone, 11,000 Ontarians died while on waiting lists for medical services.

This government needs to start putting the health of people ahead of profits so that everyone in Ontario can access the health care they deserve.

Lung Cancer Awareness Month

Mr. David Smith: I rise today to address a matter of upmost importance: Lung Cancer Awareness Month. Lung cancer is a disease that affects millions of lives in Canada and around the world. Lung cancer is a formidable adversary, and its impact on individuals, families and communities is profound, affecting people of all ages, backgrounds and walks of life. The statistics are stark, and the reality is sobering. Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Canada, claiming more lives than breast, colon and prostate cancer combined.

The Canadian Cancer Society estimates that in 2023, 85 Canadians on average will be diagnosed with lung and bronchus cancer every day, while 56 Canadians will die from lung and bronchus cancer. The purpose of Lung Cancer Awareness Month is not only to acknowledge the gravity of the situation, but to highlight the collective effort needed for collaboration and education in the commitment to foster a world where lung cancer is not a death sentence.

I’d like to thank our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, for investing in free lung cancer screening programs and more to help combat this disease.

Lawlor Pharmasave

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. It’s always a pleasure to be in the chamber with you. In the heart of Kingston Road Village, in beautiful Beaches–East York, sits Lawlor Pharmasave, a mainstay of the neighbourhood, with pharmacist and owner Kyro Maseh and his team working tirelessly to keep our community safe and healthy.

After administering thousands of vaccines over the past few years, Kyro was forced to make the tough decision to conclude vaccine season months early and possibly for all future seasons for publicly funded vaccines. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because this year, the Ministry of Health appointed Shopper’s Drug Mart, a private retailer, as the sole distributor of publicly funded vaccines. Imagine Kyro’s surprise when he put in orders for 200 vaccines doses to only have 20 doses delivered. They’re turning away 50 to 60 people a day.

Lawlor Pharmacy has saved countless lives through their vaccination efforts. However, with a distribution plan that resembles sabotage, they simply cannot provide this service while safely dispensing medications. My residents are at risk because this government wants to cater to their wealthy friends and major corporations instead of small businesses that provide personal care to Ontarians. This kind of governance kills.

Kyro is a phenomenal pharmacist who knows the needs of his patients. Deals like this prevent health care workers like him from saving lives. Thank you, Kyro and his entire team at Lawlor Pharmasave, for your hard work and care to keep our community healthy.

Across U-hub

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I care about the well-being of our seniors, but I also care about our youth, as they are the foundation of our future. I rise to share my gratitude for the work of Across U-hub, a beacon of empowerment for our young community. They work with new immigrant youth, helping them to integrate into Canada and overcome the cultural barriers.

Established in 2002, Across U-hub has provided over 1,800 programs, impacting almost 87,000 in participants, both kids and parents. Last Sunday, I attended their fundraising and youth award gala, an event that celebrated not just achievements but the resilience of our future leaders. The I Believe U-can Awards were presented to five recipients exemplifying the spirit of growth, building and bridging. Their perseverance, courage, determination and pursuance of their dreams have earned them the awards.

Let us continue to support initiatives that invest in our youth, ensuring a brighter and more resilient future for Ontario.

Fairfield-Gutzeit House

Mr. Ric Bresee: Speaker, I’ll ask you to picture this: a beautiful white-and-green-sided gable house. On the shores of Lake Ontario, along the historic Loyalist Parkway, nestled in the cute port village of Bath, stands the Fairfield-Guzeit house.

This home, built by United Empire Loyalists William and Benjamin Fairfield in 1796, went through many generations of both Fairfields and others before its final family owner, Mabel Fairfield Gutzeit, bought the home in 1938 with her husband, Dr. William Gutzeit.

Then, in 1968, Mabel’s estate passed the entire home and its heritage artifacts to be a museum to be shared with the community. It is currently owned by the aptly named Loyalist township, and the treasures herein are greatly appreciated.

This home has seen and carries treasures from before the War of 1812, has witnessed the birth of our nation and this province and even hosted Sir John A. Macdonald for a picnic once.

But like all things, time has had an impact on this beautiful home. Speaker, I recently had the pleasure to attend the kick-off event as Loyalist township begins to restore the home with funding from the Ontario Trillium Foundation. I’m grateful to see that heritage sites like this get the funding to keep the history of this province alive. I’m thankful to the OTF, the ministry and this government.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I beg to inform the House that the following document has been tabled: a report entitled Ontario’s Credit Rating: Fall 2023 Update from the Financial Accountability Office of Ontario.

Introduction of Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): With us in the Speaker’s gallery this morning are interns from the Parliamentary Internship Programme in Ottawa here to learn more about the legislative process in Ontario and meet their counterparts in the Ontario Legislative Internship Programme. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re delighted to have you here.

Mr. Joel Harden: It gives me great pleasure to welcome some vulnerable road user champions to the people’s House today. With us are Peggy Hawthorn and Bob Murphy, who made the three-hour commute from Wasaga Beach. Thank you very much. Peggy represents United Senior Citizens of Ontario—300,000 seniors.

With us as well is Robert Zaichkowski, who is the author of the Two Wheeled Politics blog; Jonathan Schmidt, one of our friends from Scarborough who advocates for cycling; Richard Oldfield, Rick Harrington, Ann-Marie Thompson—Speaker, do not try to keep up to these people on a bicycle; they’re incredibly fit. Thank you for your work.

Also with us this morning is the Sayed family from Scarborough; Sharon Lee; Janice Jim; Patrick Brown; Kelsey Pietrobon; the incredible Ethan Smith-Johnson from our Ottawa Centre team—thank you for being her; and Jessica Spieker and Alison Stewart from Cycle Toronto and Friends and Families for Safe Streets.

We’ve got a lot of help, and we’ve got a great debate this afternoon. Thank you so much for making the trip out here to be with us.

Ms. Patrice Barnes: I’d like to welcome Lina Di Carlo and Jeff Silverstein, who are representing the Ontario Occupational Health Nurses Association. Thank you for being in the House today.

Mr. Vincent Ke: I would like to introduce today’s page captain, Alina Wu, and her mom, Loris Wu, in the public gallery, from my riding of Don Valley North. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Robin Martin: As parliamentary assistant to the minister of Minister of Health, it is my great pleasure to introduce Rethink Breast Cancer and their founder and executive director, MJ DeCoteau, in the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Tom Rakocevic: I’m proud to welcome students and an educator from Nile Academy in my community of Humber River–Black Creek. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady: I’d like to welcome to the House one of my constituents, Sam Wilson, who is a water treatment operator at the Stelco Nanticoke plant and happens to be the apple of my daughter, Addison’s, eye. Welcome to the House, Sam.

Mr. Nolan Quinn: My real estate agent, Melyssa Hollister, is up there—she has found me two great apartments since I got elected—as well as my sister-in-law Jilda Lazer, who’s here with the Rethink Breast Cancer reception. Also, my parents, Frank and Karen Quinn, are here today. I think they’re here to see my sister-in-law more than me.

Members’ safety

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Nepean has informed me that she has a point of order she’d like to raise.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Yes, thank you very much. I would like to direct all members to the memorandum that has been placed on our desks from Tim McGough, our Sergeant-at-Arms. I want to thank the table staff, the Sergeant-at-Arms, and, of course, you, Speaker, for following through on my request that the safety of members in this chamber from harassment and intimidation in our members’ gallery—be removed by switching the seating arrangements for visitors to our gallery. I commend you for that, I thank you for that, and I think this place will be better off for that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I appreciate your kind words. Thank you very much.

It is now time for oral questions.

Question Period

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: My question is for the Premier.

Yesterday, I asked the Premier about the ongoing RCMP investigation into his government, but we didn’t get much of a response. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing did say that the government would assist the RCMP, the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the Integrity Commissioner in their multiple investigations of this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: As you know, of course, the Premier follows all of the rules as set out by this House and by the government with respect to use of phones and all other things.

At the same time, later on today we will have an opportunity to vote on the fall economic statement. It is a statement that will continue to refocus us on cutting taxes for people, ensuring that the people of the province of Ontario have more homes built for them. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will give some thought to supporting us, because there are some very valuable pieces within that legislation that will continue to move the province forward and ensure affordability for the people of the province of Ontario. I think that is what the people of this province are focused on. I think they’re a little less focused on the Premier’s cellphone use.

As you know, she and all the people of the province of Ontario can call the Premier any time they like. He has put his number out there. I encourage her to do that if she needs some advice on the voting after the—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, maybe I need to call the Premier’s personal cellphone to finally get an answer.

Yesterday, the Toronto Star quoted anonymous government staffers who said the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and his former chief of staff were not the real masterminds behind the sketchy $8.3-billion greenbelt grab. They said, “Everyone knows” they “were doing what they were told.”

To the Premier: Was it the Premier who told them what to do?

Hon. Paul Calandra: The Integrity Commissioner already spoke about that.

As I have said, we made a public policy decision which was based on building more homes for the people of the province of Ontario, full stop. That decision was not supported by the people of the province of Ontario because the process did not meet their expectations. But let there be no doubt that we will continue to move forward with building homes for the people of the province of Ontario.

This isn’t about who calls the Premier. This isn’t about the greenbelt. This is about long-standing NDP ideology against building homes—because if it was any differently, they wouldn’t have nominated a candidate in Kitchener who has literally voted against every single housing development in the community. She went as far as to say she couldn’t support thousands of affordable homes being built because it was too close to a pickleball court. That is the ideology of the NDP. That’s what this is all about, and we won’t stand for it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I really hope that the Premier will answer this time. I’m going to go back to the Premier.

This government gave preferential treatment to insider greenbelt speculators, enriching them to the tune of $8.3 billion at the public’s expense, without building a single new home. It included the Duffins Rouge farmland, which was supposed to be protected. The Conservatives’ scheme undid those protections and made their insider friends $6.6 billion richer.

The government is already three ministers down. To the Premier: How many ministers will have to take the fall before he fesses up?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Now, that is absolutely, positively incorrect. That is completely incorrect, but facts don’t usually matter for the NDP.

But let me tell you about a fact that does matter: In Kitchener, where they had an opportunity, where the councillor who they now have elected to be their candidate in Kitchener had an opportunity to vote to improve and build 1,174 new units downtown, the NDP candidate said no. When it was a 10-storey, 132-unit condo development, the NDP candidate said no. When it was a 532-residential-unit development, the NDP candidate said no; $600,000 to build affordable homes, the NDP candidate said no; 238 units for downtown, the NDP candidate said no; 211 units for downtown, the NDP candidate said no.

She said yes to pickleball, no to thousands of people living in Kitchener. That’s their star candidate and that’s why the people don’t trust them.

Health care

Ms. Marit Stiles: The members opposite are looking pretty uncomfortable these days. They’re probably wondering who this Premier is going to throw under the bus next.

The question is for the Premier. The people of Ontario see a pattern of preferential treatment for this government. The former Minister of Health, who got the ball rolling so that private companies could profit off of our public health care services, is now a lobbyist for the largest chain of private surgical centres anywhere in the country. A clinic she actually represents is now receiving more funding to provide the same services that are delivered in public hospitals, and that’s exactly what we have been warning was going to happen.

So to the Premier: Why is the province paying private, for-profit clinics as much as four times more than public hospitals for the same procedures?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I don’t know, colleagues; do you feel uncomfortable?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: I’m feeling pretty good today, Paul.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I feel pretty good. We’re building homes in the province of Ontario. We’re building new hospitals for the people of the province of Ontario. We’re building long-term care for the people of Ontario.

Now, I know that the candidate in Kitchener was against GO train expansion because—

Mr. Mike Harris: They were too noisy.

Hon. Paul Calandra: They’re too noisy and they start too early.

But I don’t know, colleagues; I feel pretty comfortable, and I’m feeling even more comfortable because we’re going to pass the fall economic statement for the people of the province of Ontario later on today, and even more comfortable that, because of this Premier, the carbon tax has fallen off the table across the country, not just in Ontario. And do you know who agrees with us? The NDP finally agree with us. It’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Start the clock. Supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: This is a government that will say absolutely anything to avoid answering the questions of the people of Ontario, a government that is under criminal investigation by the RCMP.

The former Minister of Health would have been responsible for transferring licences for publicly funded surgical services to for-profit clinics. Under her watch, funding for one private, for-profit surgical centre—Don Mills—has quadrupled since 2018, reaching $5.2 million by 2022-23. The same cataract surgery that costs $500 in a public hospital costs more than $1,200 at Don Mills.

To the Premier, and I hope he will answer this question, how is hemorrhaging public funds innovative or cost-effective health care? Tell us.

Hon. Doug Ford: Through you, Mr. Speaker, what the opposition isn’t telling people: that there were 14,000 cataract surgeries off the list of backlogs; that people can see; they can read the books to their grandchildren. That’s what they aren’t saying. They aren’t saying 49,000 hours of MRI and CT/CAT scans last year alone paid by OHIP, not their credit card. What the opposition isn’t saying: Since we’ve been in office, we’ve hired and registered over 63,000 nurses, 8,000 doctors. Last year alone, 15,000 nurses came on board. We’re spending over $50 billion renovating or building new hospitals right across this province.

But guess what, Mr. Speaker? They voted against it. They voted against more nurses, more doctors, building more medical universities, building more hospitals. That’s what they stand for.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, nurses can’t leave the public health system fast enough under this government’s watch. Some 2.2 million Ontarians don’t have a family practitioner in this province.

Here’s what’s really going on. Clearpoint is a wholly owned company of Kensington Capital Partner Ltd. That’s a private equity firm. They’re not health care experts or medical professionals; they’re a for-profit corporation. Their priority is to maximize profits for their shareholders. There profits come from over-billing patients, from charging unnecessary fees, from cutting costs by compromising quality.

Back to the Premier, why does this government keep prioritizing patient profits over—sorry, private profits over patient care?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

To reply, the member for Eglinton–Lawrence, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member for the question. I think the member had it right when she tripped over her wording there. We are prioritizing patients. We are prioritizing patient care. We are clearing the backlog brought about by COVID. We also have a lot more demand, and we are making sure that people have access to surgeries and scans and screens as quickly as possible. That’s what the people of Ontario want.

The Don Mills Surgical Unit has been funded since 1960, with licences renewed every two to five years under every political stripe of government. So the NDP renewed, the Liberals renewed and the Conservatives have renewed the licence for that centre. They have been funded the same way, on a procedure basis.

We have also added premiums to clear the backlog brought about by COVID and to get more surgeries done. We’re going to continue to make sure patients get care as quickly and efficiently as possible in whatever—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The next question.

Housing

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you to the Premier: The Premier continues to break his government’s promise to make municipalities whole for revenue losses due to Bill 23. There was no money to do this in the budget or the recent fall economic statement. The Building Faster Fund won’t come close to replacing those lost revenues and is based on shovels in the ground, something municipalities have no control over. Municipalities control approvals; developers control shovels.

The planning system is in chaos, and municipal taxpayers are facing massive tax increases. When will the Premier stop bullying municipalities and finally adopt policies that will actually get more homes built, such as ending exclusionary zoning and investing in non-market housing?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: I don’t know what the member opposite is talking about, because since this government has been in office, we have seen housing starts increase year after year after year. We’re not just seeing it at one level. We’re seeing purpose-built housing also increase to record levels. You know? Because of the policies of this Premier, this caucus, this government on both sides of the House. We’re not doing anything against our municipalities; we’re working with them. We have said that the Building Faster Fund that was brought in is about incentivizing those communities that could actually get shovels in the ground.

That is what the NDP like, right? They like permits. They like process. They like focus groups. But when it comes to actually delivering, they back off, just like Debbie Chapman in Kitchener. She won’t even give a permit, for crying out loud. If it’s up to Debbie Chapman in Kitchener, the thousands of homes—do you know why Kitchener won’t get BFF? Because people like Debbie Chapman, the NDP star candidate, won’t allow shovels in the ground. Stop nominating people like that and we’ll get more shovels in the ground. But don’t worry, we’ll get it done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mr. Jeff Burch: This Premier ignored the vast majority of recommendations from his own Housing Affordability Task Force and instead wasted over a year on municipal power grabs and attacks on the greenbelt and Ontario’s farmland. Municipalities are fed up, not only because of the cost this Premier has dumped onto local taxpayers and the preferential treatment for his speculator friends, but also because all this chaos is making it harder for municipalities to get homes built.

Will the Premier compensate municipalities for all revenue losses due to Bill 23 with funding based on housing targets they can actually control? Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

I recognize the Premier to reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Well, through you, Mr. Speaker, our task force did a great job. We’ve implemented over 21 recommendations. But guess what? They based it on 200,000 people.

Just to inform the NDP—I don’t know if they’ve seen it or not—over 800,000 people arrived in our province last year alone, the fastest-growing region in North America, bar none. But what they don’t say is how we had the most starts in 2021, 99,566, and in 2022, 96,000.

Again, Mr. Speaker, we’re pouring money into housing. The Building Faster Fund is $1.2 billion. I told my colleagues in the US who came up, the senators, congresspeople and governors, that we have to pay municipalities to build. They almost fell off their chairs when I told them that—$1.2 billion, and the smaller rural areas, another $500 million.

I can guarantee you one thing, Mr. Speaker: We’re building those 1.5 million homes as they vote against every single piece of legislation we have.

Taxation

Mr. Will Bouma: My question for the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade. The NDP and Liberal members in this House are standing by idly as the federal carbon tax continues to hurt businesses and drive up costs for households. Rather than picking up the phone and calling the Prime Minister and his right-hand man, Jagmeet Singh, to scrap the tax, they choose to turn their backs on their constituents.

Unlike them, we will always stand up for the businesses and people of the province of Ontario. That’s why, from day one, our government has opposed this terrible carbon tax. Speaker, can the minister please explain how the federal carbon tax is affecting businesses in Ontario? Thank you.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: We were here till midnight last night, and I had an opportunity to speak about this very topic. I’ll tell what you we said last night. When we travel around the world and talk to businesses, they ask you, “What the heck is this thing called a carbon tax and how much is it going to cost my business?” I can tell you, we have to fight for every single job that we bring here: $27 billion in new auto in the last three years; $3 billion in new life sciences in the last year; tens of billions in new tech in the last three years.

Can you imagine, if we did not have to sit there and explain this carbon tax, how much more business would be coming into Ontario? When they hear that number that they have to pay a tax on their fuel, on their goods, on everything they wear, on everything they consume, they realize this is becoming expensive, and that is a deterrent to doing economic development in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mr. Will Bouma: Thank you to the minister for his response. As the minister mentioned, the federal carbon tax is making everything more expensive. The Liberals and the NDP, who still support this tax, are out of touch with businesses and the hard-working people in this province. For them, the carbon tax is driving up costs across the board. It has made it harder for people to heat their homes and harder for them to put food on the table. Businesses are facing skyrocketing energy costs, thanks to the carbon tax.

We hear these concerns day after day after day, and that’s why we will not stop until this tax is scrapped. Can the minister please elaborate on how the carbon tax is affecting businesses and families across the province of Ontario?

Hon. Victor Fedeli: The Liberal government have never seen a tax that they don’t love. We are here, showing them an example. We have reduced the price of gasoline by 10 cents a litre. They have taken the opposite approach and increased the price of gasoline by 15 cents a litre—on its way to 37 cents a litre. We have shown them lower taxes equals greater jobs in Ontario and across the country. We’ve lowered the cost of doing business by $8 billion, and 700,000 men and women go to work today who didn’t go to work five years ago.

That’s exactly what happens when you lower costs, when you lower taxes, when you lower the price of gas. You get the economy moving. But we have this brick wall that we hit, as they increased the price of gas 15 cents—going to increase it to 37 cents.

We need them to drop the carbon tax.

Government contracts

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Last week, two Toronto pharmacies declared publicly that they are no longer administering vaccines due to major problems with the province’s new vaccine distributor. Do you know who that is, Speaker? Shoppers Drug Mart, the Loblaws chain of pharmacies. Those pharmacists reported receiving only 10% of their orders, having to cancel days of pre-booked appointments—a real headache.

Does the Premier see a conflict of interest in having Shoppers Drug Mart responsible for distributing vaccines to their competitors?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Eglinton–Lawrence and parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health.

Mrs. Robin Martin: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We are using the Shoppers Drug Mart vaccine distribution system because it is a system that is everywhere in Ontario, making sure we get vaccines to people across the province in a timely way. This is the same system we were using during COVID, and it was very successful in getting vaccines everywhere.

It’s always up to the pharmacy whether they want to opt in or opt out of providing those vaccines. Sometimes pharmacies also don’t order the number of vaccines that they end up needing to deliver to their population. They can adjust what their order is and get more vaccines.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

Supplementary question?

M me France Gélinas: Speaker, complaints against Shoppers Drug Mart’s distribution of vaccines are coming from every part of the province. A pharmacist in northern Ontario reached out to me and told me that last year she was alone, so she only administered a limited number of vaccines. This year, she was able to recruit three new pharmacists to come and help her. She’s got vaccine clinics booked solid for weeks on end, but no vaccines, as the distributor will only give her a percentage of what she used last year.

Speaker, public health handled vaccine distribution in Ontario for decades with no issues. They knew, they listened to the local providers. They were reliable. Does the Premier understand that handing over the distribution of vaccines to their friends at Loblaws is having drastic consequences for the health of Ontarians?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member will please take their seats.

The Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Does the opposition realize it’s a new vaccine? If I could go to the factory and get all the vaccines we could for everyone in North America, I’d do it, but it doesn’t work that way.

The largest distributors in the province and in the entire country are the 4,000 pharmacies which—Shoppers Drug Mart has the best distribution centre anywhere in the country. That’s the reason, during the pandemic, we involved the pharmacies, and we set records around the world.

We’re vaccinating over 100,000 people a day, thanks to the great partners in the pharmacies. It’s convenient care close to home. That’s what it’s all about.

Taxation

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy. We’ve spent a lot of time talking about the carbon tax since the federal Liberal government announced they would be exempting only a very small percentage of Canadians from the tax, leaving Ontario out in the cold. One of the consistent themes of this debate is that there are better ways to pursue climate targets without jeopardizing affordability for hard-working families and individuals. Unfortunately, the federal government seems unwilling to listen to the feedback from the provinces.

Speaker, through you, can the minister please share his views regarding the negative impact that the carbon tax and other reckless energy policies are having on all Ontarians?

Hon. Todd Smith: Speaker, thanks for the question. When the Ontario Liberal Party was in power here in Ontario, we saw them make so many mistakes on the energy file. Admittedly, after the fact, they announced that, “Yes, we were wrong in making so many of these choices, driving up the cost of electricity in the province and driving up the cost of fuel.” And we’re watching in real time as their federal counterparts, the federal Liberal Party under Justin Trudeau, are doing the exact same thing.

First, with the carbon tax: We warned them that it was going to drive up the cost of everything, Mr. Speaker, and the Bank of Canada now confirms that that is the fact. We’re seeing inflation rise and we’re seeing the cost of everything rise. Now, we’re worried that the next shoe to drop from the federal Liberal government is on the way. It’s called the Clean Electricity Regulations. It is going to make our electricity across not just Ontario, but across the country more expensive and less stable.

I look to give you some more details on the Clean Electricity Regulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Mr. Speaker, through you, thank you to the minister for his answer.

It is very concerning to hear from the minister about potentially more damaging energy regulations that are under consideration by the federal government. I know that my constituents in Carleton are already concerned about the negative impact that the carbon tax is having on their household budgets. The carbon tax is making their lives more unaffordable as it drives up the price of fuel, groceries and goods and services.

They are also concerned to see that the federal government is only looking out for certain provinces and leaving others out in the cold. Speaker, can the minister please elaborate on the negative impact of additional energy regulations on Ontarians?

Hon. Todd Smith: Thanks very much to the member from Carleton. Federal Minister Steven Guilbeault has shared draft regulations that are rigid, and they ignore the need for flexibility that’s being asked for by provinces and territories and our electricity system operators based on their real-world experience. Here in Ontario, our Independent Electricity System Operator, the IESO, has told my ministry that these draft regulations would slow the electrification of our economy by compromising the reliability and affordability of our electricity system here.

Like with the carbon tax, the federal government is on the verge of making a costly and short-sighted mistake because they won’t listen to their provincial counterparts and, more importantly, they won’t listen to those who operate the systems. We hope that the federal government will work with us so that we can build a 100% clean grid while supporting reliability and protecting ratepayers. Mr. Speaker, if the federal government won’t listen to those who operate our electricity systems, we’re in for more big problems in our country and in our province.

Public transit

MPP Jill Andrew: Recently, it was announced by government agency Metrolinx that staff must meet a monthly quota for fare evasion tickets. Evidence-based research points to the harm fare quotas have so long as systemic barriers remain in place that disproportionately impact people with disabilities, mental health challenges, low income, the unhoused and BIPOC folks—folks who experience more “differential treatment” from authority due to outright discrimination and “unconscious bias.”

For instance, Sam, a racialized constituent, years back was fined 240 bucks for fare evasion simply because their Presto card didn’t work—a system malfunction that’s happened to me too, Speaker. She wasn’t believed, and the question is, why?

My question to the Premier: Why is this government implementing fare evasion quotas that may additionally harm communities, certain ones more than others, especially during an affordability crisis, instead of boosting revenue by properly funding transit to improve service and ridership?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The associate minister.

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: Affordability is the number one issue at the moment across the nation. In our province, under the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, we are making life more affordable by eliminating double fares, triple fares and making it one fare. This one-fare program will save riders $1,600 every year per rider. The great news is our government is fully funding this program. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? The Liberals and NDP voted against this bill, against this one, not just once; they have voted against it twice.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

MPP Jill Andrew: These fare quotas are Metrolinx’s—frankly, this government’s—ploy to fill funding gaps that they themselves are responsible for. Instead, they’re penalizing riders while Metrolinx has a one-million-dollar man at its helm, 59 VPs and 19 C-suite executives. That’s where you find the money to help folks in St. Paul’s and across the province travel.

This is also while Metrolinx’s Eglinton Crosstown is three years delayed and billions of dollars over budget. Many communities across Ontario, including mine, have been left stranded when it comes to transit infrastructure. Fixing that should be the priority of this government, not propping up discriminatory practices on the backs of folks who feel it the most.

My question is back to the Premier, if he’d actually answer his own questions: Will you put an end to problematic fare-evasion quotas and put your focus on making sure Metrolinx finishes what they started so our communities can actually travel from point A to B?

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: Mr. Speaker, students, seniors, adults: They have asked for more affordability when it comes to transit, and that’s exactly what our government is delivering under the leadership of Premier Ford. The one-fare program applies to the GTHA, whether riders are coming from Barrie Transit, Brampton Transit, Burlington, Bradford West Gwillimbury, Durham region, Grand River, Guelph, Hamilton, Milton, Mississauga, Oakville or York region. All the transit riders, starting early 2024, will save $1,600. Our government is fully funding that, and we are on track to deliver this. The people can use this $1,600 toward their families, toward their kids and toward their futures.

We will continue to build transit across the GTHA. We will continue to build the Northlander—that the Liberals cancelled—and we will make sure we’ll bring the Northlander by 2026.

Cost of living / Coût de la vie

Mr. Stephen Blais: Good morning. My question is for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, Ontario is in the midst of an affordability crisis, and this government has had five years to act. Despite that, grocery prices are up, hydro prices are up, mortgage payments and rents are up, transit prices are up. After five years, Ontarians are asking themselves, “Are we better off?” This government has the power to act. The Premier has the power to act.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier support the elimination of the HST from home heating and get it done before Christmas?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The Premier can reply.

Hon. Doug Ford: Am I actually hearing this correctly coming from the Liberals, Mr. Speaker, who actually bankrupted this province, closed 600 schools, fired thousands of nurses, built 600 homes in long-term care—when we’re on our way to 30,000—in 15 years, had the largest sub-sovereign debt in the entire world, the highest hydro rates in the entire world?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Ottawa South, come to order.

Hon. Doug Ford: The nerve. What we’re doing: We’re doing the opposite. We’ve never raised a tax on the people of Ontario. We reduced taxes. We got rid of the licence registration tax. We got rid of the tolls on the 412 and 418. We reduced the gas tax by 10.7 cents, and we gave a tax break to the lowest-income people in Ontario: 1.1 million people.

All they know how to do is raise taxes over and over again. We’re cleaning up their mess of 15 years.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Member for Ottawa South, come to order.

Supplementary question.

M. Stephen Blais: L’Ontario est en crise d’abordabilité. Le gouvernement a eu cinq ans pour améliorer la qualité de vie des familles ontariennes, mais des familles sont laissées de côté. Les prix des épiceries sont beaucoup plus chers. Le prix de l’électricité est beaucoup plus cher. Les paiements hypothécaires : beaucoup plus chers. Les prix des transports en commun : beaucoup plus chers. Cinq ans plus tard, les Ontariens se demandent si leur situation s’est améliorée.

Le gouvernement a le pouvoir de prendre action. Le premier ministre appuie-t-il l’élimination de la TVH sur le chauffage domestique? Est-ce qu’il va offrir ce changement avant Noël pour aider les familles ontariennes?

Hon. Doug Ford: Do you know what was more expensive under their administration for 15 years? Ask the 300,000 people that lost their jobs under their administration. Then talk to the 700,000 people that can put food on their table now and that have great employment. Hundreds of thousands more people will be employed by the end of our mandate.

We’ve seen businesses invest unprecedented amounts in Ontario, more than anywhere in the North America. We’re actually leading North America in job creation and economic development. Just two months ago we created more jobs in Ontario than all 50 states combined.

That’s what they need to do. They need to get on track and make sure that they cut the carbon tax and start voting with us instead of against us—because you created the mess.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock.

I’m going to ask the member for Ottawa South to come to order and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to come to order.

Are we ready to start again? Let’s start the clock.

Taxation

Ms. Laura Smith: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The carbon tax hurts our economy and raises the price on everything, from filling up our cars to heating our homes in the winter. Putting a carbon tax that raises the price of gasoline hurts our businesses and negatively impacts our economy. It hurts our farmers, entrepreneurs, businesses, families and individuals.

A month ago, the Bank of Canada reported that the federal carbon tax was responsible for a mere 0.15% increase in inflation, but now the figures have changed. The governor of the Bank of Canada now says that the correct impact of the carbon tax is actually four times higher.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how this regressive tax creates economic hardship for all Ontarians?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the member for Oakville and parliamentary assistant.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Thank you to the member for that great question. Our government knows that Ontarians are worried about making ends meet during these difficult times. We know that now is not the time for a punitive and costly tax that makes life more unaffordable for the people of Ontario and the people across this country.

I’m of course referring to the federal carbon tax. This tax is, as the member pointed out, driving up inflation and making all areas of life more expensive. It is making it more expensive to drive to the store to get food for your family, and once you arrive it’s making the food at that store more expensive.

This is why our government continues to urge the federal government to do the right thing and eliminate this regressive carbon tax. I wish the members opposite would join us in requesting that the federal government cancel this tax now.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you to the member from Oakville—the parliamentary assistant—and the Minister of Finance for their dedicated work.

The last thing that Ontarians need is another tax. Unfortunately, the carbon tax is just that. It’s another tax that essential drives up the prices of everything. We know that the carbon tax is doing nothing more than making life more expensive for people in our province and across this country. We need all members of the Legislature to fight for Ontario’s interests and call on the federal government to treat Ontario with respect when it comes to providing an exemption for the carbon tax.

Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant please elaborate on how the federal government’s carbon pricing policy negatively impacts all Ontarians?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Oakville, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: Great question from the member opposite. The member is correct in saying this is a serious issue affecting all Ontarians and Canadians, and I agree—as you mentioned as well—that the Bank of Canada does not fully address the negative effects of this tax. Even the readjusted calculation by the Bank of Canada considered only the direct impact of the carbon tax on three specific products: gasoline, heating oil and natural gas.

The federal government is failing to recognize that the rising cost of consumer goods will quickly become unsustainable.

Our government opposed the carbon tax from the start, and we will oppose this useless tax until it is finally removed.

There are two approaches to take in this particular issue, Speaker: Either you cut taxes, like we’ve done with the gas tax, or you increase taxes like the federal government has done. We ask the members opposite to pick a side. Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. The next question.

University and college funding

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Under this government’s watch, we saw a public university go bankrupt, and now we have a new report highlighting the widespread financial fragility of the sector. The report has confirmed that this government provides the lowest per-student funding in the country for our colleges and universities. Compared to the rest of Canada, Ontario’s per-student funding is just 44% for college students and 57% for university students.

Speaker, will this government commit today to bringing Ontario’s per student funding in line with other Canadian provinces?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the member for that question. I am excited to say that, after months of hard work, the blue-ribbon panel report was released yesterday, and I want to thank the members of the panel for their diligent work and also thank Dr. Alan Harrison for his leadership.

As we review the report and begin to develop and implement solutions for the future of the sector, know that our top priority is and has always been students. But we also know the value of an education in Ontario, which is why when a student enrols in any of our colleges and universities, they know the education they will receive is strong and among the best in the world.

Over the coming weeks we will be focused on addressing the financial sustainability, institutional accountability and how we, as a collective, can support our students today and into the future. My job is to ensure that post-secondary is sustainable for years to come, so that young folks like those in the crowd today have post-secondary in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Under this government, provincial grants now account for just 30% of university operating revenues, which is failing students and putting the sector at serious risk. The University of Waterloo will end this year with a $15-million operating budget deficit. Queen’s University has announced a deficit of $63 million; Wilfred Laurier, $11 million. The University of Guelph has reported budget deficits for three consecutive years.

Deficits mean program cuts and hiring freezes, hurting students and undermining the quality of university education. When will this government increase post-secondary education operating funding to prevent more universities from falling into deficit or even bankruptcy?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: The long-term financial sustainability of our post-secondary institutions is a top priority moving forward. But as I mentioned before, the sustainability and viability of our sector is a shared responsibility. I have been clear that institutions will also need to review their spending and operating practices for any increase in funding to be considered. When our government invests over $5 billion annually of taxpayer dollars in operating funds for our colleges and universities, we need to ensure that that money is being spent wisely.

That doesn’t account for the billions in tuition, including over a billion through OSAP that students and their families spend on education every year.

As we review the report, we’ll be sure to review all recommendations holistically to ensure the path forward reflects the collective respectively.

Taxation

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: This government knows things that it won’t tell the people of Ontario. They know that the vast majority of Ontario households are better off with a carbon price. Not only will it help—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Stop the clock. The government side will come to order so that I can hear the member who rightly and duly has the floor. Order.

Restart the clock. The member for Kanata–Carleton.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: This government knows that the vast majority of Ontario households are actually better off with a price on carbon. Not only does it keep our world habitable—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I gather there’s a difference of opinion in the House on the matter that’s being raised, but the member has every right to ask the question without being drowned out by the government side. If it persists, I’ll start calling you out by name.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Kitchener–Conestoga will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Restart the clock.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: They know that the vast majority of households in Ontario are better off with a price on carbon. Not only will it keep our world habitable, but with a climate action rebate, it actually means more money in their pockets.

This government knows that 270,000 households in Ontario use heating oil and that they are eligible for the climate price exemption. This government knows that the oil and gas industries made record profits last year: 18 cents of additional profit on every litre of gas. The carbon price was two cents.

This government knows that they have the power to do something rather than just point fingers. We put forward an amendment to motion 74 to cut HST on home heating. The government rejected it. When will the Premier tell the people of Ontario the truth?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The members will please take their seats.

I’m going to ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary comment at the end of her question.

Mrs. Karen McCrimmon: I wi