I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and move its adoption.

I would like to thank Ken King from Hanmer in my riding for this petition.

“Improving Broadband in Northern Ontario.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas people and businesses in northern Ontario need reliable and affordable broadband Internet now to work, learn and connect with friends and family; and

“Whereas too many people can only access unreliable Internet”—like me—“and cellular or don’t have any connectivity at all especially in northern Ontario; and

“Whereas the current provincial Broadband and Cellular Action Plan has failed to provide northern communities with the same opportunities for economic growth, recovery and participation;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“To call on the Ford government to immediately provide a plan with dates and actions to be taken for every area of northern Ontario to have access to reliable and affordable broadband Internet.”

I can’t wait, Speaker. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Isaac to bring it to the Clerk.

« Rendre l’autoroute 144 près de la rue Marina sécuritaire.

« Alors que les résidents et résidentes de Levack, Onaping et Cartier, et les gens qui voyagent sur l’autoroute 144, sont préoccupés par la sécurité d’une section de l’autoroute 144 près de l’intersection de la rue Marina et aimeraient prévenir d’autres accidents et décès;

« Alors que trois accidents sont survenus en 2021, trois autres cet hiver, qui ont entraîné des blessures, le déversement de diesel dans l’eau et la fermeture de la route 144 pendant des heures, ce qui a retardé la circulation et bloqué les résidents et résidentes;

« Alors que le ministère des Transports a terminé l’examen de l’autoroute 144 près de la rue Marina, ont fait des améliorations et se sont engagés à réévaluer pour s’assurer que l’autoroute est sécuritaire.

« Ils demandent à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario pour que le ministère des Transports revoit immédiatement l’autoroute 144 près de la rue Marina et s’engage à la rendre sécuritaire, le plus tôt possible, et ça, au plus tard, avant le mois de décembre 2024. »

J’appuie cette pétition, je vais la signer et je demande à Sarah de l’amener à la table des greffiers.

“Stop Privatization...:

“Whereas Ontarians get health care based on their needs, not their ability to pay;

“Whereas the Ford government wants to privatize our health care system;

“Whereas privatization will bleed nurses, doctors and PSWs out of our public hospitals and will download costs to patients;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: “to immediately stop all plans to privatize Ontario’s health care system, and fix the crisis in health care by:

“—repealing Bill 124...;

“—licensing tens of thousands of internationally educated ... and other health care professionals already in Ontario;

“—incentivizing health care professionals to choose to live and work in northern Ontario.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask page Ellen to bring it to the Clerk.

“Let’s Fix the Northern Health Travel Grant....

“Whereas people in the north are not getting the same access to health care because of the high cost of travel and accommodations;

“Whereas by refusing to raise the Northern Health Travel Grant (NHTG) rates, the Ford government is putting a massive burden on northern Ontarians who are sick;

“Whereas gas prices cost more in northern Ontario;”

They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows: “to establish a committee with a mandate to fix and improve the NHTG;

“This NHTG advisory committee would bring together health care providers in the north, as well as recipients of the NHTG to make recommendations to the Minister of Health that would improve access to health care in northern Ontario through adequate reimbursement of travel costs.”

I fully support this petition. I will affix my name to it and ask my good page Skye to bring it to the Clerk.

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 27, 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.

A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas people waiting for complex spinal surgeries, including for scoliosis, are forced to wait years in debilitating pain for the care they need, risking lifelong consequences and deterioration in function;

“Whereas surgeons are willing and able to help, but the system puts up many barriers. Surgeons face the difficult choice of offering routine spinal surgeries—which guarantee compensation—over complex spinal surgeries, further lengthening the wait times for patients with complex cases;

“Whereas the lack of collaboration between the Ministry of Health adjudicators and providers has led to challenges in conducting fair and accurate assessments of complex cases;

“Whereas Ontario’s funding for complex cases for spinal surgeries, derived from the general funding bucket, deprioritizes complex spinal surgeries, over routine/simple surgeries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to:

“—address the ever-increasing wait times and make complex spinal surgeries available in a timely manner;

“—immediately improve access to surgery for complex spinal conditions by increasing and equitably funding spine care in Ontario hospitals.”

I agree with this petition. I’m going to sign it, and I’m going to give it to page Mercy.

I have a petition from the Canadian Federation of Students.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas since 1980, whilst accounting for inflation, the average domestic undergraduate tuition has increased by 215%, and the average domestic graduate tuition by 247%; and

“Whereas upon graduation, 50% of students will have a median debt of around $17,500, which takes an average of 9.5 years to repay; and

“Whereas the average undergraduate tuition for international students has increased by 192% between 2011 and 2021, and in colleges, they pay an average of $14,306 annually compared to the average domestic fee of $3,228; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario made changes to OSAP and student financial assistance in 2018-19, resulting in over a $1-billion cut in assistance to students; and

“Whereas the so-called Student Choice Initiative was defeated in the courts, students need legislation to protect their right to organize and funding for students’ groups;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, support the Canadian Federation of Students–Ontario’s call and petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to commit to”—I fully support this petition, and I will give it to Ella to bring to the Clerks’ table.

I cannot actually believe we are having this debate, that we’re having to debate this topic, especially on a day like today, February 27, when temperatures are soaring—just another balmy day of plus 12 degrees, in the middle of winter. Does this government read weather forecasts, UN warnings, newspapers, health reports or even tea leaves? The climate emergency is all around us.

Today, I come before you with a sense of urgency and deep concern regarding Bill 165, the so-called Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, a piece of legislation that threatens any environmental progress and will actually increase the price of gas for consumers. This bill seeks to undermine the authority of an independent energy watchdog and, as is routine for this government, prioritize corporate interests over the well-being of Ontarians.

To the people of Ontario: I am so sorry that you are being misled time and time again by this government.

Interjections.

Further debate?

Yes. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary comment.

Point of order, Speaker.

The member of the opposition talked about the Ontario Energy Board. While the Ontario Energy Board makes hundreds of decisions a year—and to their credit, almost all of them I’ve agreed with—this one particular decision did some raise concerns about public engagement in the decision-making process. One commissioner noted that this decision, which could have a significant impact on electricity demands, was reached without input from the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator. It is concerning that members of the commission didn’t know the impact of the decision before signing it off. Therefore, we’ve proposed to increase public engagement.

Does the member opposite agree that increasing public engagement is the right thing to do?

Point of order, Speaker.

Withdraw.

Okay, where do we begin? The Ontario Energy Board, an independent, arm’s-length regulator mandated to protect the interests of energy customers, released a landmark decision telling Enbridge Gas to stop subsidizing its plans to expand infrastructure for methane-heavy natural gas by charging buyers of new homes for connections. I agree with this decision. It should have been done and dusted after the board made that bold and brave choice—a forward-thinking choice, I might add.

Well, here is the problem: This government has an obsession with fossil fuels and heating up the planet. They just love it. This decision got them really heated, so to speak.

Enter Bill 165: Not only is it poor environmental and energy policy; it overrides the sound decision from a regulatory body. Why not just stay out of it? Do you think you know it all? Obviously.

The government’s insistence on pushing forward with methane-heavy natural gas expansion, despite its detrimental effects on global warming, is deeply troubling. What side of history does this government want to be on?

Trust me when I say that future generations will look back on these decisions with astonishment and disdain, in seeing that their government knowingly put their futures at stake.

The climate crisis is here and now. Wake up, dinosaurs.

With this bill, the government is attempting to overrule the Ontario Energy Board—

With this bill, the government—

Interjections.

With this bill, the government is attempting to overrule the Ontario Energy Board, an independent regulator mandated to safeguard the interests of energy consumers in order to appease Enbridge Gas. Here we have the Ontario government taking an unprecedented step, overruling an Ontario Energy Board decision designed to protect homeowners and ratepayers in order to benefit a fossil fuel giant. Come on.

The Minister of Energy told reporters this legislation was needed because the board’s decision was “rushed” and “irrational.” Whoa.

Do you want to talk about rushed and irrational decisions? Everything this government has done is rushed and irrational. Let me remind you. The greenbelt: rushed, irrational, reversed and revoked, not to mention now under a criminal investigation by the RCMP. The “notwithstanding” clause: rushed, irrational, reversed and revoked. Bill 124: rushed, irrational, reversed and revoked. Severing farmland: rushed—

I could go on, but I only have 10 minutes.

According to the minister, “This was a wrong decision that was made without proper consultation.” Hmm. Let’s see about that.

Thanks to the Narwhal for reporting on this and the quote I will now read:

“The Ontario Energy Board’s year-long decision-making process involved tens of thousands of pages of documents analyzed in public hearings and dozens of interviews with experts across the energy industry. It also heard from stakeholders such as the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario and the Building Owners and Managers Association. The board considered the perspective of the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator, including its policy on decarbonization and the energy transition.” That sounds like a heck of a lot of consultation to me.

Why don’t we ramp up heat pumps? The Minister of Energy actually told us that he even has one in his own home. How great is that? A leader. The minister actually believes in renewable energy for himself and yet axes that opportunity for others. Ontario has the lowest per capita rate of heat pumps, sitting at just 2% of households using a heat pump as its primary source.

Under the Canada Greener Homes Grant, Ontario residents are eligible for a rebate for a heat pump and a home energy audit. While the rebate has slowly helped Ontarians make the switch, the program is set to end in March, with no commitment from this government and no support for future incentives. Will the government continue providing the rebate and promote heat pumps, or ramp up natural gas production to continue to dirty the province’s once 94% emissions-free electricity grid? If it’s good enough for the Minister of Energy’s house, I’m sure it’s good enough for all the people of Ontario.

Why is the government so opposed to addressing the climate crisis and implementing more renewable energy sources?

A little history lesson for all of you: Back in 2018, when the Conservatives took office, what did they do? They killed the Green Energy Act and spent over $230 million to cancel 758 green energy projects in wind and solar energy. Most of these initiatives were already in the building process, and the government axed them.

The government continues to move away from the biggest economic opportunity of the century: green jobs and green energy. It is the future. Look at the rest of the world. We are missing out on a global opportunity. This government continues to drive in reverse—cancelled, reversed and revoked.

At the end of the day, you want to trust your government to create forward-thinking, smart, fair policy decisions. The people of Ontario are losing confidence in this government, because they continue to revoke, reverse and override.

Bill 165 will make energy bills more expensive for ratepayers, will work to destroy Ontario’s chances at reaching our emission targets to combat the climate emergency, and will force us to lose out and fall behind in the global green economy.

In her remarks, was the member proposing that we go back to the green energy deal that the former Liberal government proposed—the same green energy deal that saw the cost of energy three and a half times more expensive in Ontario than our U.S. counterparts; that made people in Ontario choose between heating and eating—and one of the primary reasons that the former Liberal government lost government?

We were brought in, and we stabilized electricity prices; we stabilized the grid. We’re diversifying our energy; we’re reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting our targets, versus our federal counterparts, who are not. And we’re doing this without a carbon tax, unlike the federal government.

And their staff.

It’s interesting how this government wants public engagement now. How much did you have for the greenbelt debacle? How much did you have for the “notwithstanding” clause? How much did you have for Bill 124? How much did you have for severing of the farmland? All of a sudden, now you want community engagement, you want public engagement.

Well, as I told you, there were tens of thousands of pages of documents analyzed in public hearings, dozens of interviews with experts across the energy industry—and hearing from stakeholders such as the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario and the Building Owners and Managers Association, as well as the IESO. That’s a heck of a lot more engagement than this government has ever done.

Walk the talk.

We have these regulatory bodies, which are supposed to be independent and arm’s-length, for a reason: because, unlike what some people think in this chamber, we don’t know it all. We need checks and balances. And that’s what the OEB is.

I cannot believe that this government has the audacity to meddle with the Ontario Energy Board’s decision. Who do you think you are?

Now, with the judges—you’re going to appoint your judges. Are you going to look at the FAO and all of a sudden have your buddy on there—the Auditor General, the Integrity Commissioner?

We need unbiased regulators.

How about you look at deep energy retrofits and subsidies for that—heat pumps, cooling—actual concrete action to help people and to prevent the crisis that’s upon us right now?

It is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon, on behalf of the hard-working residents of Simcoe–Grey, to join the debate on Bill 165, Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024.

In light of the debate and discussion I have heard so far, my comments today are going to focus on the question of a sustainable Ontario and the competing challenges of housing and energy costs for the residents of our beautiful province.

After listening to the debate yesterday, I’d like to start by reviewing the mandate of the Ontario Energy Board, or OEB, and the December 21, 2023, decision and order in Enbridge Gas Inc. application for 2024 rates – phase 1 that is the reason for Bill 165.

The OEB is a statutory creature of the province with a mandate to regulate Ontario’s energy sector as required under provincial legislation. It is, in fact, governed by seven separate pieces of provincial legislation, including the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, the Electricity Act, 1998, and the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010.

The fact is that the OEB is a regulator, not a consumer protection agency. The OEB has regulated the natural gas sector since 1960 and the electrical sector since 1999. As a government agency, the OEB has been delegated the authority and responsibility for setting the delivery rates that electricity and natural gas utilities can charge and to monitor the financial and operational performance of these utilities.

According to its website, the OEB’s vision is to be a trusted regulator that is recognized for enabling Ontario’s growing economy and improving the quality of life for the people of this province, who deserve safe, reliable and affordable energy. And its mission statement is to deliver public value through prudent regulation and independent adjudicative decision-making processes that contribute to Ontario’s economic, social and environmental development. Indeed, these three headings are central to the sustainability of our province—economic, environmental, and social sustainability. They are part of a continuum and cannot be considered in isolation, and any change in one will impact the others.

The OEB’s decision in the Enbridge rate application of December 21 last year was phase 1 of a multi-phase process to determine the parameters for Enbridge’s 2024 rates. Rate-setting is a complex process in which the utilities provide detail and extensive information about their maintenance plans, their projected capital costs for expansion, the cost of supply, the long-term market for their utility and forecasted changes to their sector, all of which is subject to scrutiny by interested stakeholders or intervenors, such as industry groups, consumer groups, environmental groups, municipalities, First Nations and others. In all, there were 33 organizations that applied for intervenor status, of which 20 were approved by the OEB.

Speaker, the decision itself is 145 pages. It is technical and extensive, and it refers extensively to the OEB’s guidelines for assessing and reporting on natural gas system expansion in Ontario, otherwise known as EBO 188, which sets out the factors and parameters the OEB must take into consideration in deciding such rate applications.

Section 2 of EBO 188 sets out the standard test for financial feasibility and has a number of subsections. Subsection 2.2 is of particular relevance to our discussion today and sets out the specific parameters for the common elements, including the following subsections:

“(a) a 10-year customer attachment horizon;

“(b) a customer revenue horizon of 40 years from the in-service date of the initial mains (20 years for large volume customers);...”

Speaker, the intent of these provisions is to set the assumptions for the horizon or, as referred to in the OEB decision, the amortization period for the recovery of the capital costs of the common elements or lateral infrastructure necessary to connect the customer to the utility service. In fact, the term “amortization” will be familiar to anyone in this House or in this province who has a mortgage, and it allows the customer to spread these capital costs over a set period of time rather than pay them all at once, up front. The amortization period is there to make life more affordable. Without this mechanism, many would not be able to afford to connect to an essential service to heat their homes, their water heaters and their clothes dryers.

To cut to the chase, Speaker, EBO 188 sets out the parameters for the OEB to determine the utility rates based on two critical and essential considerations: first, that a customer will use the utility for 10 years; and, second, that the capital costs of the necessary infrastructure to service the clients will have a 40-year horizon for standard clients or 20 years for large-volume customers such as industrial clients. That distinction—to shorten the amortization period for large industrial clients—makes perfect sense. Larger industrial clients will have more consumption and have the ability to pay their share of the capital costs faster. They can afford to pay faster, and the corollary to that is that the residential customers need a longer period in which to pay those costs. This practice has been in place for many, many years and, until this recent decision of the OEB, has been a guiding parameter for the OEB.

The amortization of capital costs has been central to the OEB’s process to make access to safe, reliable and affordable energy, as set out in its mandate. We, on this side of the House, think it should remain that way, pending further discussion.

That is why Minister Smith and this government are introducing Bill 165 to pause the implications of the OEB’s decision in phase 1 of Enbridge’s ongoing application, pending review of the regulations and policy, and then send it back to the OEB for reconsideration.

To be very clear, at issue in the recent OEB decision, which was a split 2-to-1 decision, which is very unusual in the context of the OEB—to not only ignore the amortization period parameter, but to eliminate it entirely and rule that all capital costs for connecting a new Enbridge customer must be paid forward up front. The OEB found that the connection cost of a new home will increase by approximately $4,400, on average, across the province, at a time when this province and this country is facing a housing shortage and the cost of home ownership is beyond the reach of so many Ontarians, young and old. That cost will be significantly more—tens of thousands, in fact—for farms and residents in rural ridings like my riding of Simcoe–Grey.

For example, a recent 311-home subdivision in eastern Ontario would see an upfront connection cost of approximately $925,000, and those costs will need to be carried by the builder for multiple years until those homes are occupied, at which point they will be passed on to the purchaser in the upfront purchase price.

A small greenhouse in eastern Ontario will have an upfront connection charge of approximately $36,000, a crippling charge in an industry that is growing in Ontario and is, in fact, one of our largest economic drivers—$45 billion annually, one in 10 jobs across this province in the agricultural sector. This is a stumbling block which will prohibit many from going into that sector.

A recent seven-year commercial strip mall plaza in southwestern Ontario has an upfront cost of approximately $49,000.

And a recent restaurant project in a commercial plaza, also in western Ontario, would have upfront connection costs of $18,000.

Speaker, these are just a few real-life examples of the scale and scope and the impacts of the OEB’s decision to eliminate the amortization period completely. They are untenable, they are unaffordable, and they will cripple the development across all sectors, be it residential, commercial, agricultural or industrial.

Subsection 2.2(b) of EBO 188 requires the OEB to consider a horizon for the amortization of the capital costs, and in its decision the OEB disregarded that completely. In her dissent, Commissioner Duff spoke to that issue and made the following comments:

“I do not support a zero-year revenue horizon for assessing the economics of small volume gas expansion customers. I do not find the evidentiary record supports this conclusion. The CIAC comparison table filed by Enbridge Gas did not even consider zero within the range of revenue horizon options. Zero is not a horizon. It is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of EBO 188 by requiring 100% of connection costs upfront as a payment, rather than a contribution in aid of construction. There was no mention of zero in EBO 188—yet a 20- to 30-year revenue horizon was considered. To me, the risk of unintended consequences to Enbridge Gas, its customers and other stakeholders increases given the magnitude of this conclusive change.”

Speaker, I agree with Commissioner Duff’s comments. Zero is not a horizon. The OEB decision chose to ignore the status quo, ignore the current and long-standing practice, and it did so despite the lack of evidence as to the impacts of such a drastic departure. As Commissioner Duff stated, the risk of unintended consequences to Enbridge, its customers and other stakeholders is massive because of—in her words—“the magnitude of this conclusive change.”

It is for this reason that the Minister of Energy has introduced Bill 165 to pause the impacts of the OEB’s decision, to maintain the current status quo, and to look at changes to the policy framework for the OEB, in consultation with stakeholder groups across the province, and then to send the issue back to the OEB for reconsideration. This is the responsible thing to do, given the magnitude of this conclusive and drastic change and the dearth of evidence before the OEB about the potential unintended consequences.

No one in this government, despite what they might say on the other side, disputes climate change, its dramatic impacts on Ontarians and the importance of meeting our commitments to reducing our carbon footprint by 2030 and beyond. We’re committed to ensuring Ontario fulfills its obligations to make our province more sustainable, more resilient and better equipped to meet the challenges of climate change.

As I said in my comments on my private member’s motion to push the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax on transportation fuels—a motion, I’m proud to say, that was supported by the official opposition. Interestingly, the minivan caucus of the Liberal Party sat on their hands and abstained from voting—perhaps they had a minivan mechanical that day.

As I stated at the outset, sustainability is a critical topic for Ontarians and for hard-working residents of Simcoe–Grey, and it comes in many forms: environmental, economic, and social.

And 2030 is a big year for Ontarians, for a number of very important reasons. It is the year by which we are to reduce our GHG emissions by 30% from 2005 levels, and it is the year by which the CMHC, in its 2023 housing update, made a stark prediction about the housing shortage in Canada and Ontario.

Starting with greenhouse gas emissions, based on the Auditor General’s report of last spring, the State of the Environment in Ontario, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 27%. We’re 90% of the way to our target with six years to go now, and I’m proud to say that we will exceed that target, when we look at our projects in terms of converting our steel producers to green steel through arc furnaces and eliminating coke furnaces—a deal that is costing this province approximately $1 billion.

And I’m very proud to say that we have one of the most diversified electrical grids in Canada, utilizing nuclear energy for approximately 60%, hydroelectric for about 24%, renewables for 9%, and natural gas and biomass for approximately 8%.

These numbers in aggregate show that we are over 90% GHG-free in Ontario, and those numbers will increase when we get our four new small modular nuclear reactors online, which will power 1.2 million homes. The first one will come online by 2028.

I’m also very proud to say that Ontarians have one of the smallest per capita GHG footprints in Canada—we’re 10.1 tonnes per individual; the national average is 17.7, so we’re 43% below that. Ontario, with approximately 38% of Canada’s population, only emits 22% of our greenhouse gases.

We are being proactive, and we are being aggressive, and we have a plan to move forward.

Recently, at COP28, Minister Guilbeault was able to sign an undertaking to increase our nuclear capacity as a nation by 300%; he could only do that because, two days earlier, our very capable Minister of the Environment and Minister of Energy signed the very same one. Ontario has 90% of Canada’s active nuclear reactors.

Speaker, the real crisis facing Ontarians and Canadians is a housing shortage, and that is why it is a priority for our government. We are committed to building 1.5 million new homes by 2030. We ran on that in the last election, and we won convincingly—so convincingly that we bulged our caucus so that it sits between the NDP and the independents.

But let’s be very, very clear. CMHC predicted, in its recent 2023 housing update, that if Canada continues along its current rate of 200,000 new housing starts per year, 100,000 of which are in this province, we will be 3.5 million homes under-housed by 2030. At the same time, we’ll be crushing our GHG emissions. That is a crisis of massive proportions. If we look at issues of homelessness and affordability and food security today, if you magnify that, on the projection by CMHC, it will be a much more dire situation in 2030.

That is why this government is focused on making housing affordable. That is why this government is trying to push down upfront costs and eliminate barriers to new homeowners moving forward. And that is why the OEB decision that brings us here today is another roadblock to housing affordability. It disrupts the status quo by eliminating the long-standing 40-year horizon to amortize the cost for new customers. It forces homebuyers to pay for these costs upfront and puts another significant financial barrier in the way of prospective purchasers.

In the recent report on barriers to housing supply in Ontario, the Fraser Institute said, “Housing affordability has eroded significantly in many parts of Ontario in recent years, prompting a more thorough review of governments’ role in facilitating or impeding the construction of needed homes. While recent policy initiatives signal positive shifts, formidable obstacles persist.” And the OEB has just dropped another major obstacle in the way of home purchasers.

Ontario is now the third-biggest economy behind the US and Canada only. We’re attracting international attention and investment as a safe, reliable and sustainable partner for global businesses. This is all part of our plan to build a sustainable province environmentally and economically. So that third branch, social sustainability and housing, faces the real crisis, and that is why it is a priority for this government.

Speaker, this government is committed to the sustainability of our province and making life more affordable for Ontarians. We are committed to protecting our environment, meeting our GHG emissions targets. I have every confidence that we will not only meet that target, but we will exceed it, and we will do that while continuing to grow our economy and make us one of the most dynamic, diverse and sustainable economies in North America and internationally. To do that, we must solve the housing shortage. We must get critically needed homes built so that our residents, our workers, our students and our future can live there and continue on the path that we are on today.

If we contrast ourselves with the now-empty seats over there and their green energy program that drove 300,000 jobs south of the border, we know—and we heard it this morning in debate from our Minister of Economic Development—that we have brought 700,000 jobs back to this province since 2018, that we have made Ontario the third-biggest economy in North America behind the US and Canada, that we are seen internationally as a safe haven for industry and commerce.

We, on this side of the House, believe that the environment and the economy can go together. That is why we are focused on growing a green economy, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

The big roadblock to getting us where we need to go is housing supply, and we’re seeing that across—when I go to town hall meetings in my riding, I hear from the social sector, from the commercial sector, from the retail sector: “We can’t attract employees here, because they have nowhere to live.” The speed bump for this great province is that we need to make sure we have housing for our residents and for our future.

This OEB decision is putting a major roadblock in the way of our prospective homebuyers. We are not usurping the jurisdiction of the OEB. We’re pausing their decision. We’re re-looking at their policies. We’re going to stakeholder engagement, and we are going to go back to them to re-examine their decision, with new policies in place to ensure that we can continue to grow while respecting the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our carbon footprint.

Would the member agree that the Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator? When you decide to get natural gas, you cannot go to the competition and see if you get the best prices. We get the best price because we have an agency that oversees Enbridge and that says, “Yes, this is reasonable,” or “No, this is not reasonable.”

Now, with this bill, we will have politicians who welcome all sorts of lobbyists into their office—

Do you think that the method where we have an oversight agency, the Ontario Energy Board, that is there to protect the public is a safer method than leaving it to the government?

Next question?

Thank you to the member opposite for your question.

It is a regulator. It’s not a consumer protection agency. It has to consider a broad spectrum. When I went through the implications and the process for rate reviews—and I can tell you, in the town of Collingwood, we sold our local electrical distributor, and both transactions had to be approved by the OEB. The test is to see what the impacts are for the local ratepayers, given the long-term needs of the area.

There’s a balancing act in the pricing process, not just about the current supply, but about updating your current infrastructure to make sure that you are ready for the needs of tomorrow. In the electrical sector, it’s like looking at the smart meters, where you can now understand where a power outage is without even leaving your office.

To invest in those up-to-date types of infrastructure—that has costs, and those costs have to be borne by the ultimate user on a responsible timeline, not up front.

It goes, again, to the long-term viability of our utility providers, which serve our residents. If you have an out-of-date utility, you’re going to have brownouts, power outages and heating losses.

Infrastructure is a critical process, and it costs millions and millions of dollars to put in the ground. The whole exercise on the pricing regulation regime is, how do you amortize those costs responsibly to make sure that the residents of Ontario have access to safe, reliable and affordable energy? “Safe energy” means you’re not having explosions in your power boxes, or gas leaks; “reliable” means it’s going to happen when you flip the switch—and “safe” means it gets there with up-to-date processes. Those costs have to be borne and amortized over an appropriate period of time; otherwise, connecting becomes unaffordable.

This government, on this side of the floor, has the clean home energy heating initiative, which is giving a grant to people to buy heat pumps, but many heat pumps require backup sources, whether it be electrical or gas.

Let’s be very clear: 70% of Ontarians heat their homes with gas. They use gas for their dryers; they use gas for their water heaters. Gas is not going to disappear. We need to maintain that infrastructure, and we need to give Ontarians a choice about how they wish to heat their homes.

Heat pumps are more expensive. I can tell you that in my family, we recently had a discussion. In my area, a heat pump is $14,000 and still requires a backup of gas. So you can buy a $5,000 heating system, or you can upgrade. Many have chosen to upgrade, as have our minister and the PA. It’s a good thing. We’re not discouraging that. We’re promoting—

When we look at what the tendency in the world is that is happening, we’re heading more in the direction of green energy. We have the energy board saying that we should not go to natural gas; that we should go more to green energy—and we need to protect the consumer, because we know it’s a dying industry. Go back 20 years, when coal—and then we went to natural gas. Well, guess what? Natural gas is the coal now. So we need to go to green energy.

What do you have against protecting the consumer? It doesn’t stop you from building houses. All you need to do is put an incentive to put heat pumps and other energy-efficient things. But no, you prefer protecting Enbridge, to the cost of consumers. Why do you do that?