Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 26, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 165, An Act to amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 respecting certain Board proceedings and related matters / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1998 sur la Commission de l’énergie de l’Ontario en ce qui concerne certaines instances dont la Commission est saisie et des questions connexes.

It’s always an honour to rise and speak in the House, and today I’m speaking on second reading of Bill 165, a bill that should really be called “keeping energy costs down for Enbridge,” because it’s certainly not keeping energy costs down for gas customers in this province.

What this bill is doing is forcing existing ratepayers, people who currently use methane fossil gas in their homes, to subsidize the hookup of new fossil gas infrastructure in our province, in order to support a company that had profits of $16.5 billion last year and whose CEO earns a nice salary of $19 million a year. I don’t think Enbridge needs a subsidy. I think the people of Ontario could use a bit of a break, but certainly not Enbridge.

What are the implications of taking the unprecedented step, for the first time in Ontario history, to overturn an OEB decision? What are implications for the people of the province? Well, Enbridge is going to save $250 million a year just up front. But what does that mean for existing gas customers in Ontario? Well, if you take this complete decision, according to Environmental Defence, Enbridge is going to save around $2 billion over the five years of this decision, which equals $600 per fossil gas customer in Ontario.

I just want the people of this province to understand what is happening here. Enbridge is getting a subsidy and it’s going to cost you—if you use fossil gas in this province—on average $600 a person. I think that’s a bad deal, at least for the people of Ontario. It’s a pretty good deal for the 19-million-dollar man and his company, Enbridge, but certainly not a good deal for the people of Ontario.

If there was no other alternative or no other option for people, or if developers had no other way of heating and cooling people’s homes, then maybe you could make an argument that such a subsidy for Enbridge costing ratepayers so much money would be justified. But it’s not. Because as the OEB decision—and I’ll remind you that the OEB decision was based on input from hundreds and hundreds of stakeholders, producing thousands and thousands of pages of documentation to justify this decision that it would actually be cheaper for people to heat and cool their homes with heat pumps. Not only is the government taking the unprecedented step of overturning this OEB decision, they’re actually doing it to disincentivize developers putting in technology that will be cheaper.

As a matter of fact, over the average life-cycle cost of a heat pump versus a gas furnace, those new home owners will have 13% lower costs. So we’re asking ratepayers to subsidize Enbridge for new home owners to have more expensive heating and cooling in their homes.

According to the OEB decision—if you actually take the time to read the decision—there will be no incremental cost increases for developers if they put in heat pumps and don’t do the initial gas hookups in the first place. So not only do we risk forcing new home owners to have a more expensive heating system, this bill will also force them to have a stranded asset.

Even this government, with its weakened climate targets, says we should be net zero by 2050. So my calculation is, it’s 2024, so 2050 is less than 30 years from now, and if we have any hope of being net zero, we cannot be heating our homes with fossil gas. So why is the government imposing a 40-year amortization schedule, which means they’re making calculations for gas furnaces way beyond 2050? By definition, they’re going to be forcing existing homeowners to have a stranded asset that will then cost them even more money to replace so we can meet our net zero targets.

This is also going to have implications for our economy. In 2022, the green energy transition, according to Bloomberg, resulted in investments around the world of $1.3 trillion, over half of that in low-cost renewable energy, primarily wind and solar because the prices have come down so much. That investment in 2023 rose to $1.8 trillion. That kind of growth is going to continue each and every year, moving forward.

I want Ontario to be a global leader in what is now a $1.8 trillion economic opportunity. According to Bloomberg still, about half of that investment is wind and solar. A growing amount of that investment is in electric vehicles—and I’ll say that finally Ontario is starting to catch up and make investments in electric vehicles—but a growing percentage of that investment is in alternative heating sources, like heat pumps. As a matter of fact, according to the International Energy Agency, heat pump installations are growing at double-digit rates around the world, no more so than in Europe, where we saw a 40% increase in heat pump installations last year.

As a matter of fact, the EU’s target is that 60 million additional heat pumps will be installed by 2030. So Ontario has an amazing opportunity to not only be a leader in electric vehicles, but to be a leader in manufacturing heat pumps. But in order to do that, we actually need a government that believes in a technology that’s going to save us money.

And I know some people have said, “These heat pumps, do they work in cold weather?” Absolutely they do, to minus 30 degrees. As a matter of fact, the countries in Europe that have installed the most heat pumps are the Scandinavian countries, which have a cold climate very similar to Canada.

Speaker, I want to close by saying: What are the implications of this decision? The government has spent the last few months opposing carbon pricing, a price on pollution, because they say there are other ways to address the climate crisis. Well, those other ways are through regulations and through investments in technology that result decarbonization. But the government is opposed to that too, because that’s exactly what this bill, Bill 165, does. It says that we are, as a province—even though the independent energy regulator says that the way to go is not in expensive gas but in lower-cost alternatives like heat pumps, instead of actually putting in place a regulatory regime that would encourage that, the government is opposed to that.

So I don’t know what the government’s for. They’re going to ramp up gas plants for electricity, increasing carbon pollution by 400%, even though we are at a time where the costs of the climate crisis are escalating. We see it each and every day, and the government seems to be opposed to any and all solutions.

I appreciate the member’s question. I believe in investing in the lowest-cost, cleanest solutions to our energy needs. I’ve been very clear: I support the rebuilding of Darlington and Bruce. We know that nuclear power is going to be part of Ontario’s energy mix for decades to come. Pickering, I believe, is a huge mistake. Of the 65 operating nuclear plants in North America, Pickering is consistently rated as the 64th poorest-performing plant. I don’t know who pours money into such a poor-performing asset, especially when the cost of wind and solar has come down so much that if we invested in low-cost renewables, it would cost us less for cleaner power.

That’s exactly why, of the $1.8 trillion being invested in the clean energy transition right now, over half—

But let’s stick to this particular bill. It’s just outrageous to think that existing gas customers are going to pay $600 more to subsidize a $16-billion company with a $19-million CEO. I remember when the government used to complain about the six-million-dollar man at Hydro One. Well, let’s talk about the 19-million-dollar man at Enbridge that they’re subsidizing.

On top of that, these new home owners are going to have a heating system that costs them 13% more. That’s what it says in the OEB decision.

It is now time for questions and answers.

I want to thank the member from Guelph for his comments today on Bill 165, raising costs for gas customers across the province. I just want to go through some of the figures and make sure I got the figures right. I do appreciate them.

You said that right now, with this bill, the government’s actually proposing that anybody who’s buying Enbridge gas, who’s an Enbridge Gas customer, is going to be subsidizing the expansion of their lines by $600. That’s the cost to each individual customer. Then you said that the people who are the new customers for Enbridge are going to be paying 13% more over the life of a gas furnace than they would have if they had a heat pump. Those are the numbers.

Is this the only example that you know of where this government is squandering our tax dollars in order to support a private, for-profit corporation? I’ll give just one example from my own riding: Ontario Place. This government is giving Therme 650 million tax dollars. Do you have other examples?

Just a quick question: I know that in the north, we do our heating with wood stoves, and sometimes I see people selling their wood in sled loads. A sled load is like—it’s $150, $200 for a sled load. Depending on the weather, that lasts probably three days to maybe a week at most, at best. How will this bill help those people?

I want to thank my colleague for his presentation this morning. I appreciate his clarity on his position on the carbon tax. I think it’s clear that the Green Party leader supports carbon taxes and an increased carbon tax. Of course, on the PC side, we’re the only party that’s actually fighting to scrap the carbon tax.

I also have his position on nuclear power. On a recent decision we made around refurbishing Pickering nuclear, not only ensuring saving our grid but also saving jobs, he says, “It makes no sense for the government to pour billions into keeping it operational when lower-cost, cleaner solutions are available....

“The Ford government is making Ontario’s grid dirtier and more expensive by prioritizing ... the costly, poor-performing Pickering plant.”

In the member’s mind, we should all be on heat pumps to heat our homes. I’m just wondering: How would this member—if he won’t stand up for nuclear, how are we going to power the grid to make this happen?

I’m pleased to rise today and speak to this important piece of legislation, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024. The proposed bill, if enacted, would amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to put in place mechanisms that facilitate broader stakeholder input as well as the manner in which a generic hearing process may be directed by the minister. The proposed bill would also set out a mechanism to address aspects of a specific natural gas order of the Ontario Energy Board related to revenue horizons. The proposed bill would also address certain other matters relating to the granting of leave-to-construct approvals, including the exemption from the requirement to obtain leave to construct for certain energy projects.

The bill might seem very technical, and it does sound technical. There’s a lot of things in here that our government is working on to fix, but ultimately, all of these technical phrases, adjustments and terms lead to one thing: the fact that our government is working hard to keep energy costs down by amending the Ontario Energy Board Act. As we all know, one of the reasons we got elected in 2018 is because of the skyrocketing cost of hydro, especially after the fire sale of those hydro shares by the previous Liberal government. So we are coming here to fix a mess that was left by the previous government, supported by the current official opposition, in fact. Ontarians have put their faith and trust in us to fix this mess and to get Ontario back on track, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation is doing.

We have received numerous supportive quotes for this work that we are doing. The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus has said, “Modernizing these outdated regulations would reduce delays and costs for economic development initiatives including new industries seeking to locate in Ontario and create jobs (or existing companies seeking to expand), transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments, connections for low-carbon fuel blending (e.g., renewable natural gas, hydrogen) as well as residential and business customer connections.”

The Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus has said, “Western Ontario has seen significant growth in the past decade with pressures to build out the gas pipeline network. Many municipalities in our region have lost major investment opportunities because of the delays in getting natural gas to development sites. Any person or company planning to construct hydrocarbon transmission facilities within Ontario, must apply to the OEB for authorization, if the projected cost to build the pipeline is over $2 million, a threshold that was set in 1998....

“Increasing the cost threshold to $10M would closer align Ontario with other Canadian jurisdictions (e.g., in BC, these thresholds are $15M for electricity and $20M for natural gas)....

“Due to increased regulatory and cost pressures, as well as inflation, virtually all gas pipeline projects are now greater than $2M rendering the threshold meaningless. Roughly 0.5 km pipe in urban settings now often exceed the $2M threshold.”

They’ve also said, “Modernizing these outdated regulations would reduce delays and costs for economic development initiatives including new industries seeking to locate in Ontario and create jobs ... transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments, connections for low-carbon fuel blending ... as well as residential and business customer connections.

The South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corp. has said, “As Ontario continues to face a shortage of industrial land, the south-central Ontario region, made up of Brant, Elgin-Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford counties”—and I just want to mention that the member for Brantford–Brant is sitting right in front of me, so this applies to his region. They have said, “As Ontario continues to face a shortage of industrial land, the south-central Ontario region ... is challenged with balancing competing pressures for prioritization of agricultural land, industrial land and residential land. Attracting new business investment continues to be an economic development priority, as municipalities in SCOR aim to further develop industry sectors, expand the municipal tax base and increase job opportunities in the region.”

They are asking the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to work alongside the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Ontario Energy Board to modify current regulations that delay the expansion of utility services.

For example, section 90(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, states the need for a leave-to-construct application if the project is projected to cost more than the amount prescribed by the regulations, which is currently set at $2 million. Thus, any project that surpasses this threshold is required to undergo a lengthy regulatory process of 15 to 18 months before even starting construction. With inflation, many planned business investments require natural gas expansions that exceed this threshold, acting as a barrier to investment in the province and, more specifically, rural Ontario.

Madam Speaker, the list of supportive quotes goes on and on and on. We have supportive quotes from the township of East Hawkesbury. We have supportive quotes from the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership. We have supportive quotes from the city of Welland. We have supportive quotes from the Niagara Industrial Association. We have supportive quotes from Invest WindsorEssex.

We also have stakeholder quotes. For example, the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers say, “The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers commend the recent decision by the Ontario government to increase the leave-to-construct threshold from $2 million to $10 million. This will enable faster builds with quicker connections that will result in increased food production capacity and continue to fortify domestic food security imperatives. Natural gas is an essential crop input, as the heat and carbon dioxide are captured to optimize and enhance greenhouse vegetable production. Legislation such as this will continue to drive investment in Ontario’s agricultural sector, growing food, jobs and economic prosperity.”

Speaking of greenhouses, I cannot forget to mention SunTech Greenhouses, a large greenhouse in my riding of Carleton, close to the area of Manotick. I just want to say, people talk about the tomatoes in Leamington, but I want to brag about the tomatoes in Manotick, because SunTech tomatoes are the best. I am willing to do a food-tasting competition with Leamington tomatoes. I’ll bring in tomatoes from SunTech Greenhouses. They can bring in—I think it’s the member for Essex can bring in tomatoes from Leamington. We will do a tasting test, because I guarantee you that the tomatoes in Manotick will, hands down, beat the tomatoes in Leamington.

Oh, yes. Actually, the BLTs are really good. I will go to the greenhouse—their greenhouse is located 10 minutes from where I live, and I will go buy my tomatoes from there.

Interjection.

Getting back on topic, Madam Speaker, I did want to give a shout-out to SunTech Greenhouses, but there are other stakeholders as well who are very supportive of this legislation. We have the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, ResCon, who have said, “The OEB decision has left a void by inhibiting the delivery of new natural gas infrastructure to support new housing needs, not offering up alternative solutions. The OEB has assumed that power supply will be available to new subdivisions, which is not the case, ultimately limiting where and whether builders could construct new homes, hindering the delivery of new housing.” That is said in support of this regulation.

We also have the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Again, in my riding of Carleton, several, numerous farms—in fact, agriculture is one of the biggest industries in my riding of Carleton. It’s so important, in fact, that this past Saturday, I actually hosted my annual farmers’ appreciation breakfast, which I do every year. I had over 250 farmers show up to enjoy a breakfast and get together with friends. It was a fantastic and wonderful time. My only recommendation to everyone is that if you do a farmers’ appreciation breakfast, make sure you do it in the winter, because if you do it in the summer, they’re going to be out in the fields and they won’t be able to attend. That’s why I do my farmers’ appreciation breakfast in the wintertime, because they’re not going to be out in the fields. It’s always a fantastic event. I get to catch up with so many farmers. I get to catch up with people in the community, and they get to catch up with each other. It’s just a great, great time. Many of them, Madam Speaker—in fact, I would say over 90% of them—are members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and they have the OFA sign on their front lawn.

Supportive quotes from organizations like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture are so important. I think that speaks to the legitimacy of this piece of legislation. It speaks to the fact that this government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, is a government that is listening to the people of Ontario, that is taking in feedback and that is getting it done for the people of Ontario, including our hard-working farmers.

Here is what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has to say: “The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is supportive of the decisive action taken by the Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, to address the Ontario Energy Board’s decision, which threatens to increase costs for new homes relying on natural gas for heating and jeopardizes housing affordability and future access to this energy source. The decision also challenges Ontario’s efforts and current policy to bring reliable and affordable natural gas to Ontarians across the province, which has been an investment priority for agriculture and rural communities over the last decade.

“The OEB decision has the potential to stifle the growth of the industrial sector, leading to escalated costs for manufacturing, agriculture and consumer goods. The OFA acknowledges the concerns raised by the Ontario Energy Board regarding Enbridge Gas’s long-term plan and recognizes the importance of balancing energy transition with practical solutions. However, priority needs to be set on flexible future infrastructure that supports a growing province, while minimizing unnecessary financial burdens on residents, businesses and the agricultural community.”

We also have supportive quotes from Power Advisory, supportive quotes from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association—I think that one is really important, especially given the need to build more housing in Ontario, which, once again, goes to show that the work that we are doing is not just impacting energy costs, it’s not just keeping energy costs down; what it’s doing is creating a domino effect, where it’s positively impacting other areas. By keeping energy costs down, not only are we helping our agricultural sector, we’re also helping our industrial sector and we’re helping our home-building sector as well.

Here is a quote from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. They say, “The Ontario Home Builders’ Association applauds the Ford government for introducing legislation to revoke the Ontario Energy Board’s December 21, 2023, decision. Securing energy choices for Ontario’s communities is vital to support economic development, energy access and reliability while we take a measured step toward energy transition. In an unprecedented housing and affordability crisis, now is not the time for the OEB to place additional costs on builders or homebuyers.

“Furthermore, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association supports the Ontario government”—that’s us—“to look at every tool it has at its disposal to help get more housing approved and built.” I’m going to repeat that, because that is really important: “The Ontario Home Builders’ Association supports the Ontario government to look at every took it has at its disposal to help get more housing approved and built.”

We also have supportive quotes from the Ontario Energy Board, a former COO of the Ontario Energy Board and former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission. We also have supportive quotes from Enbridge Gas. Enbridge Gas says, “Enbridge Gas abides by an existing Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regulation that protects existing natural gas customers from the cost of expanding the natural gas system and ensures costs are appropriately borne by the customers who will benefit from the new infrastructure.” This is really important because natural gas needs to be expanded across the province.

Do you know, Madam Speaker, I live maybe 11 minutes away from the Ottawa International Airport, when there’s no traffic; with traffic, I would say 15, maybe 20 minutes, maximum. But I live about 11, 12 minutes away from the international airport in Ottawa. I don’t have natural gas; I’m on propane—

Let’s do some BLTs.

I’ll bring the pasta.

We’re going to go to questions.

Thank you for the presentation. I would just like to say, she started by saying they were having to fix the mess that was left behind, but we’ve had seven bills that this government has had to rescind, so I think that they’re quite capable of making their own mess, and a considerable mess.

I’d like to know how increasing the cost to people who are already Enbridge customers by $600 is keeping costs down for the people of Ontario.

Yes. I live 11 minutes away from the international airport, and I don’t have natural gas. My propane bills have increased exponentially since I moved into my house in 2019—doubled, at least. I can only imagine what a family of four or five is going through when they are paying their propane bills. It is unbelievable how devastating the federal carbon tax has been for people who rely on propane.

That’s why this bill is so important. That’s why it is so important to get natural gas out to communities, to rural communities, to new developing communities. It’s fundamental, because if we want to talk about making life affordable in Ontario, we need to make it easier to build and invest in this critical infrastructure that will allow Ontarians to live an affordable life and to not be subject to these incredibly devastating cost increases due to the carbon tax. I see it myself. I see it myself on my own bills: $800 just to fill up two propane tanks. It’s unbelievable. I can only imagine what Ontario families are going through. That’s why we want to see an expansion of natural gas.

I’ve actually been very lucky to have worked with Enbridge Gas and with the Minister of Energy to bring natural gas to a section of Metcalfe in my riding of Carleton, which made it more affordable for one of the local businesses there, Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm, which is a pillar not just in the riding of Carleton but across the city of Ottawa. They’re a large farm. They also are an event venue. They’re constantly booked for weddings. They’re one of those places where if you want to book a wedding there, you have to book it at least a year or a year and a half, sometimes even two years in advance. They’re also selling maple syrup, some of the best maple syrup. In fact, Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm was named one of the top 10 sugar bushes in Canada a few years ago.

That business was struggling until they were able to get natural gas. That’s something I assisted them with. Enbridge as well got involved, and I want to thank Enbridge for finally bringing natural gas to that area because that, in and of itself, was a huge relief for that particular business because, now, it made it affordable for them to continue operating. If they hadn’t received natural gas, I don’t even know if they would be in business right now because the costs are so exponentially high. And we’re seeing that all across the province. Businesses who don’t have access to natural gas are suffering due to the carbon tax. At least with natural gas, even though the carbon tax is still there, the cost is a little bit less and it’s a little bit more affordable, given the infrastructure and the way it works. So that’s why it’s so important.

We have municipal quotes that are supportive of natural gas. I mean, the municipalities who support natural gas—we have the municipality of Manitouwadge, the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, the township of Huron-Kinloss, the municipality of Red Lake, the municipality of Oliver Paipoonge, the township of Ramara, the South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corp., the township of Uxbridge, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. The list goes on and on and on.

Ultimately, what I want to say: This bill is so critical. It is so important, and it does exactly what the title of it says. It says, “Keeping Energy Costs Down”—because that is something that the people of Ontario wanted. It was one of our campaign promises. It’s what we were voted in on. I’m pleased to be part of a government that is doing exactly that, that is keeping energy costs down, keeping our promises to the people of Ontario, and we are getting it done. That’s why I will be voting in favour of this legislation.

Really?

I’m trying to wrap my brain around why anyone would stand in opposition to this piece of legislation. We’ve heard from small communities, we’ve heard from farmers, we’ve heard from home builders, we’ve heard from municipalities that this is a great move to help keep costs down in a world where costs are going out of control.

From what I’ve been hearing from the opposition and the independents, it feels like they’re going to be voting against this common-sense, smart piece of legislation for the people of Ontario. Now, I’m no lawyer, but I know the member from Carleton is, and I was wondering if perhaps she could give some insight as to how or why anyone would stand against this piece of legislation.

I appreciate the member from Carleton’s presentation. Maybe I’ll help her answer the previous question: The OEB decision that Bill 165 would overturn would save existing ratepayers $2 billion, or $600 per household.

I want to ask the member how the member will explain to her constituents that your government has introduced a bill that will increase climate pollution at a time when we’re facing a climate emergency and increase their gas bills by $600.

Thank you to the member from Carleton. A similar question to my other colleague’s: This bill takes existing costs not being paid by the consumer after the OEB decision and places them on the backs of consumers. So it takes costs that are not being paid now by consumers and puts it on the backs of consumers into the future. How is that possibly making life more affordable for folks when you’re taking costs that they are not paying now and placing them directly on the backs of those consumers?

Next question?

We are going to move to further debate. I recognize the member for University–Rosedale.

I want to congratulate the member for Carleton for her strength and advocacy for her constituents, particularly for people like Earl Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm and, of course, our friend Bob and his wife, and the little miracles in Manotick, over there at SunTech.

But I recall many, many years under the Ontario Liberal government that we would be here talking about whether the Liberals wanted people to heat or eat, because they didn’t have an option because of the affordability crisis. We’re in another affordability crisis. How is that impacting your constituents, those in the city of Ottawa and across Ontario? You talked a little bit about northern Ontario and rural Ontario, but how does it affect everyone who is dealing right now with an affordability crisis?

My question to the member is, has she heard from local communities in her area—or, for that matter, across the province—about raising the leave-to-construct threshold?