The member is right; the Ontario Energy Board did the review, they looked at the facts, and they said to Enbridge, “You cannot bill the four million customers that you have in Ontario for development fees for new homes. This is not the way things should go.”

I can tell you that in my riding the natural gas pipe goes to the end of my street. None of us are connected to natural gas—and we won’t be, because Enbridge is saying, “Oh, if you want us to come down, you will have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars.”

How could it be that an agency—they are the only providers that make $16 billion a year—needs to go into the pocket of all four million of their customers in order to stay in business?

I’m sorry; I’m just going to interrupt the member. According to the rules, you can’t refer to the Premier by his name—so the title of the riding, please.

Interjections.

Thank you to the member from Sudbury for his debate on Bill 165, titled Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. It’s the title that concerns me right off the bat—typical of this Conservative government—because, really, it’s keeping the costs down for who? It’s keeping the costs down for Enbridge, which the government is protecting over the ratepayers. We hear day in and day out how expensive life is for people being able to heat their homes, and now this government is literally going to allow Enbridge to put a bigger cost on our heating bills to protect Enbridge profits.

Can the member give his comments on why he thinks the government is so angry?

Interjections.

As always, it’s an honour to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

Speaker, I’m torn on this piece of legislation—

Interjection: We’d love your vote, Mike.

Interjections.

If you look at this legislation and you try to analyze and you try to look through the weeds—I’ve listened to both sides. We have three sides, and sometimes there’s a fourth side. Somehow you try to come up the middle with a view and an opinion that will best serve your constituents, and that’s what I’m trying to do here—to bring their views to the floor of the Legislature as best as I can.

Some see this as the right call, that this will actually accelerate the process, as far as exposing us more to the use of fossil fuels. Some see this as an opportunity to making the decision and following through with what the OEB has recommended, and that it will take us away from fossil fuels. We see others are concerned that this means that there will be delays in certain housing projects and the construction of infrastructure—and I will bring some of those examples that I have here from some of the municipal leaders that I have in my riding.

What this is, definitely, is a government overreach. The government is going beyond what an independent agency has determined, as far as what’s best for Ontarians.

I take this and I look at it from a northern perspective, as well, because in northern Ontario we don’t always have the same luxuries that are available in other areas, particularly when it comes to energy costs. If you look at what was left by the previous government in northern Ontario in regard to the hydro costs, that was painful, and it’s still painful. Now, the present government that came in, that claims that they’ve done some adjustments to it—other than changing some of the curtains and changing the paint on the wall, northern Ontarians are still experiencing some increases to their hydro bills, to the tune of about 12% to 15%.

You just have to ask Roslyn Taylor—and I’ve often talked to the minister about Roslyn Taylor on Manitoulin Island. This government still hasn’t dealt with the delivery of charges for hydro rates, and those are still going up. Most of her charges, the delivery charges, outweigh what she pays for hydro. Would she benefit from being hooked up on natural gas? Absolutely, she would. She would welcome that opportunity.

Here’s another example: A lot of people across northern Ontario, when they’re looking at their energy costs and reducing it, would love to connect to gas, but they would also like to connect to heat pumps. I had a chat with the minister this morning about heat pumps and the availability of them, and I’m glad he has a heat pump. Many of the Conservative members who stood up have talked about having their own heat pumps. But the reality is, those same opportunities are not available to people in northern Ontario. Why? Because some of the programs that provide those heat pumps require an audit to come into your community or in your home to make that audit. Guess what? They do not come to northern Ontario, in many of our communities, so people are forced to put that up front. If you can afford putting that upfront cost, then you have the ability of participating in changing things—but most of them don’t.

The other thing is that there are many projects that are going on in my riding right now. One of them is potentially a new hotel that’s going to be built in Blind River. The price of the availability of energy is definitely a big factor in the project going ahead in their community.

The Beaumont grain dryer that was just constructed in Desbarats, which has brought a new storage facility for grain: A lot of the farmers across the North Shore have changed a lot of their production. They’re going more to grain storage, which required that storage. The company that did come and build in that area built it with the intention of getting off the propane that they’re on now and going onto the cheaper natural gas. Will they be able to make that transition now?

There’s also Nairn Centre, which is looking at some major housing development, and also the township of Thessalon. I will start with reading into the record some of the comments that have been sent to this government on behalf of the township of Nairn Centre. They say, “On behalf of the council and residents of the township of Nairn Centre and Hyman to express our deep concern regarding the recent decision to require all new gas consumers to pay the cost of connecting their homes or businesses to natural gas upfront rather than spreading it over a 40-year period. While we understand the need for sustainable energy practices and the importance of ensuring fair distribution costs, we believe this decision disproportionately affects our residents, particularly those in the process of building new homes and business and who already are dealing with inflation costs. Requiring upfront payment for a gas connection imposes sustained financial burden on new consumers, potentially deterring them from accessing this essential energy source and impacting the growth and development of our community.”

And from the community of Thessalon:

“Access to affordable energy to support this growth for homes and businesses is crucial. Energy infrastructure is vital to manufacturing, agriculture and consumer goods industries in Ontario. The impact of this decision, which conveys a strong bias against natural gas, will stifle economic growth and put housing and energy affordability at risk. These are issues that matter to most Ontarians and our municipality.

“We are supportive of a measured approach to Ontario’s energy transition. Leveraging pipeline infrastructure to deliver lower-carbon fuels such as renewable natural gas and hydrogen, alongside low-carbon hybrid heating technology such as heating pumps and carbon capture and sequestration, will help Ontario achieve its climate goals, and we want to be part of this solution.

“We recognize that there is simply not enough electricity available to replace the energy provided by natural gas and meet the increased demand for electrification. Government comments indicated that natural gas will continue to play an integral role in meeting the energy needs of this province. We need to work together to evolve Ontario’s energy system, one that leverages pipes and wires.”

I bring their comments to the floor because they are community representatives that are looking at large major projects in their community, and these are the concerns that they have. Do they want to participate and be part of the answer as far as doing a transition? Absolutely; let’s not dispute that fact. I think everybody in this room believes that we are in a process where we’re going to transition away from fossil fuels, and we need to start that now. But from the decision that is being done now by the OEB from 40 to zero or five to zero, there’s got to be somewhere in the middle where we could meet to do that transition so that everybody benefits from this and municipal projects that are in the process of moving forward aren’t put in danger of falling apart.

My gut is also responsible for those that are coming behind me, for my children and my grandchildren. We need to do something now. We need to do something today. We can’t pass the buck down the road, and I’m looking forward to watching at committee where the suggestions are going to be as to what is going to be coming.

The government claims that part of the discussions that were held by this government through the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel—that the information it did contain was not made available or was not provided to the OEB to consider. Okay, well, let’s have that information. Let’s have those discussions at committee so that we can do a transition that will be able to help all Ontarians and not put anybody at a disadvantage and provide the savings that everybody is looking forward to this government actually implementing, but also not overstepping your role as a government and really interfering with an independent agency in this province.

Next question?

My friend alluded to something that I still have a very huge curiosity on. Since the launch of the 2019 natural gas expansion program, we’ve supported projects that are supposed to connect over 17,000 customers in 59 communities across Ontario. We talked about the choice between heating and eating, and we’ve reached out to local government to expand natural gas to the ridings—and I know the member from Sudbury has some of these communities.

So I am going to continue to ask, would you stop your constituents from heating their homes with natural gas if that was the fuel source that they chose for themselves, given they’ve already made an application for the natural gas expansion?

To begin, it’s a bit of a strawman conversation. Sudbury is fortunate enough that we have access to natural gas in every area of my riding. But when you talk about access to natural gas, I think it’s fine, and I was clear in my debate—

Interjections.

I was clear in my debate that if people want access, that’s fine. I don’t think everyone else should pay for your access—it’s not just that I didn’t think that; the Ontario Energy Board didn’t think that. Independent experts said, “No, do not do this.”

And if I were to go out in my riding and I were to talk to people in my riding and say, “Do you want to pay an extra $300 for this billion-dollar company to be more profitable?”, every single one of them would say no, and they would be outraged that the Conservative government is trying to pass this off as good for them. It’s not good for them.

What we’ve heard many times during the debate from the Conservative side, the government side, is that this money is going to be passed along to the homebuyer, this money is going to be passed along to the condo buyer. I think it’s laughable.

On the drive down here, around Barrie, there are condos available from the mid-$800,000 range.

There is not one person looking at a condo, looking into a home, who thinks that Enbridge is going to pass the savings along to them. You guys have lost the thread. Honestly, there is nobody who thinks the price of their house is going to come down because of this incentive.

What’s going to happen is, this multi-billion dollar company is going to have a couple more billion dollars in their pocket that the existing ratepayers are going to pay for. It’s lose-lose. Everyone in the province will pay more, plus that fee won’t be passed along to the consumers who are buying new houses for the first time.

C’est intéressant d’écouter le membre d’Algoma–Manitoulin. Je veux vraiment qu’il clarifie la différence entre aller chercher de l’aide pour des communautés qui veulent être connectées. Ça, ça ne fait pas partie du projet de loi. Le projet de loi, c’est vraiment pour les nouveaux développements où on va aller demander aux quatre millions d’Ontariens et Ontariennes déjà connectés de payer pour la connexion de ça.

Donc, dans son comté, est-ce qu’il y a des municipalités qui auraient aimé ça, être connectées? Oui. Est-ce que ça, ça va les aider? Non. Et est-ce qu’il pense qu’Enbridge, qui fait 16 milliards de dollars par année, pourrait aller chercher le 1 milliard de dollars—qu’on veut aller chercher des quatre millions de contribuables—dans leurs profits plutôt que d’aller chercher ça dans la poche des quatre millions d’Ontariens et Ontariennes qui sont déjà connectés?

I want to thank the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for his question. I’ve always been engaged with municipal leaders, community members, organizations and so on. Sometimes there are particular sensitive issues that come up that require a little bit more engagement, and this is one of those engagements.

No, it’s not the first time that we’ve talked in my riding when it comes to natural gas. I can tell you I was a huge advocate in order to help the community of Prince township. Just a couple of years ago we were able, and successful, to make a connection to bringing reduced rates to those individuals to get them off of firewood and oil and to get them to provide new options from electricity.

But anyway, this is not going to be an easy issue for any of us in this room. Again, I look at the government, and you’re overstepping your role as a government on an independent agency, and that is not sitting well with many Ontarians.

We’re going to move to questions.

Thank you to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin for representing his constituents. I know, because as a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, I have some municipalities all across Ontario that reach out to us about having more natural gas expansion projects. I believe some of your municipalities are part of that and I see that some of your municipalities agree with what we’re doing right now.

I’m wondering, have they been reaching out only since you became an independent member? Or did they want natural gas when you were part of the opposition?

Thank you to the member for Algoma–Manitoulin. I appreciate the balanced conversation, because this has been framed as, either you’re going to have natural gas or you won’t, and that’s not what’s happening here. What we’re saying is that an independent organization, the Ontario Energy Board, has said that ratepayers should not have to pay for this. And that’s the stance we’re taking as New Democrats. The Conservative government is saying, “Well, they should pay for it.”

So just for the member for Algoma–Manitoulin: If this bill passes, or if this bill fails, do you think it’s going to affect access to natural gas for the people of your riding?

We hear a lot from members opposite and the independent members. They talk about the PCs and their buddies. I’ve been thinking about some of my buddies. I’ve been thinking about a buddy of mine. He lives in St. Catharines, works in Milton, drives about 80 kilometres there; I just googled it. It’s about an hour to commute and back. That’s why I was so proud when we cut the gas tax, why I’m so proud to fight the carbon tax.

I thought about a buddy of mine who lives in Cambridge, a renter who is paying the carbon tax on natural gas, which is why in my member’s statement this morning I talked about fighting the carbon tax.

I thought about a buddy of mine, 29 years old, a service manager at a Ford dealership—a pretty good job, a middle-class job—who, quite frankly, would have to save up for 20 years to afford a down payment for a new home, living at home with his parents because he can’t afford a home. And I think about the thousands of dollars that the OEB decision would make that guy pay upfront, increasing the cost of buying a home.

These are some of the stories of my buddies. I’m wondering if the member opposite would think about them and maybe decide to vote with the government, stand up for new home buyers.

Next question?

We’ll have to move to the next question.

I want to thank the member for his presentation and his speech today. The member was here when the Conservative government, their members, were actually in the official opposition at the time. And at the time, they were very, very critical, from what I hear, about the politicization of energy, energy delivery, the entire energy system. Liberals at the time used a lot of politics to influence decision-making, not listening to experts, not listening to regulators, just making decisions based on phone calls possibly from donors and others.

How do you feel, considering what the Conservatives are doing now in light of their criticisms before?

I want to thank the member from Sudbury. Let’s not kid ourselves. This government has a majority; this bill will pass. The debate that we’re having here today will hopefully inform the public as to what is actually going to be happening with this bill and who is being impacted and what the things that we need to consider as this bill passes are.

My concern in this bill is that there is information that may be coming out from other agencies that could have been taken into consideration as to how we do this transition. There could have been better steps in regard to how this government decided to approach a decision that was made by the OEB. Why did the OEB make this decision at a time when there was the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel—why did we wait for the information that could have been brought up by them to make a better decision or something different? Who knows? We might be coming back with the panel that will be coming back with the same recommendations that we’re dealing with.

My biggest concern is in regard to the overreach that this government is doing.

The options—again, I’m not sure what the question was, but I think part of my role is to really bring those stories, whether right or wrong, true or false, indifferent—these are their life experiences. As the MPP who has the privilege of sitting here in my seat, it’s my role to bring those issues forward and those views forward.

Now, I’ve heard, as I said in my statement—

At the end of the day, I still have to bring the concerns and the views of individuals not only in my riding but also across northern Ontario. Again, the transition needs to happen in a way that is going to be just and fair and that won’t negatively impact consumers.

For those joining us at close to 5 o’clock, we’re debating the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024.

What’s clear is that, since day one, our government, led by Premier Ford, has taken action to lower energy costs, including by cancelling the previous government’s cap-and-trade carbon tax, cutting the gas tax and introducing the Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Now, while previous governments implemented schemes that led to skyrocketing energy prices, we’re using every tool in our tool box to keep costs down for residents and businesses like those situated in the town of Whitby and other part of the region of Durham. The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024, will protect future homebuyers from increased costs and, yes, keep shovels in the ground on critical infrastructure projects.

The proposed legislation would, if passed, give the province authority to reverse the Ontario Energy Board decision to require residential customers and small businesses to pay 100% of the cost of new natural gas connections upfront. These costs would have previously been paid over 40 years. Once the government introduces a natural gas policy statement, a recommendation of the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel’s final report, it will require the Ontario Energy Board to consider this issue again.

The government will also appoint a new chair of the Ontario Energy Board this spring with the expectation that the board and commissioners conduct appropriate consultation—in line with the proposed legislative requirements—before reaching decisions that support the objective of an affordable, reliable and clean energy system.

Natural gas will continue to be an important part of Ontario’s energy mix as we implement our pragmatic plan to invest in and bring online more clean nuclear energy. For example, the recently announced refurbishment of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station which creates and sustains approximately 6,400 Ontario jobs per year for decades to come in towns and cities that surround Pickering like Whitby.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which saddled families with sky-high hydro bills, our government is taking a thoughtful approach that keep costs down for people and businesses and delivers energy security.

To ensure that future decisions made by the Ontario Energy Board consider a wider range of affected parties and government policy priorities, the proposed act would require the Ontario Energy Board to conduct broader engagement with stakeholders and provide the Minister of Energy with the authority to ask for a separate hearing on any matter of public interest that could arise during an Ontario Energy Board proceeding. This would include both transferring an issue from an ongoing Ontario Energy Board proceeding to its own generic hearing and directing a hearing for a matter not currently before the Ontario Energy Board under certain circumstances.

If passed, the government may subsequently propose regulations to require the Ontario Energy Board to notify and invite participation or testimony from specific stakeholders or economic sectors—for example, transit, low-income service providers, construction, housing or government agencies—that could be significantly impacted by an upcoming decision or hearing.

With the proposed legislation, the government would also ensure new customers do not have to incur upfront contributions towards the construction of certain gas transmission projects that are critical to the province’s economic growth. This would preserve the historical treatment of these transmission projects that provide broad energy system benefits and serve many customers in different areas. Preserving this treatment will help ensure that the province can continue to attract critical investments in sectors like greenhouses and automotive in southwestern Ontario, some of which we heard about earlier today during question period.

In discussing legislation like this, I think it’s helpful to hear perspectives from third parties, and one of those third parties is Ontario Real Estate Association, and their particular quote, which I’m about to read into the record, I think provides valuable context to our deliberations this afternoon. And it’s from Tim Hudak, who is the chief executive officer of the Ontario Real Estate Association:

“If we want to create more Canadian homeowners, we should not whack them with this massive upfront bill for infrastructure that will last for generations.” And this legislation is generational.

“This head-scratching overstep by the” Ontario Energy Board “will push affordability further out of reach for Ontarians, and put provincial and municipal housing targets at risk. Such one-size-fits-all policies will be particularly harmful to Ontario’s smaller and northern communities, where energy infrastructure is not well-developed....”

The Ontario Energy Board’s “bad move to upend Ontario’s long-standing approach to finance infrastructure like natural gas over time puts new neighbourhoods and desperately needed new homes in jeopardy....

“If the short-sighted OEB decision goes through, fewer new connections will be made and fewer homes will be built. Those that do get built will be more expensive and homebuyers will need to pay the entire hookup cost upfront, adding thousands to the price of a home.”

This legislation would also enable the government to require the Ontario Energy Board to conduct a separate hearing on any matter of public interest.

The proposed legislation would also maintain the existing treatment of gas transmission projects that are critical to the province’s economic growth by ensuring new customers do not have to incur upfront financial contributions and update the Ontario Energy Board’s leave-to-construct process to respond to concerns raised by municipalities around supporting critical housing projects and local economic development initiatives.

I’d like to spend a little bit of time on the leave-to-construct process, because I have eight municipalities that form the region of Durham, an upper-tier government, where I live. Many municipalities are very supportive of proposed legislative approach—not only the eight that are in the region of Durham but from the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus. This is what they had to say: “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 seeking to expand), transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments” and fuel blending as well. That’s from the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus.

Speaker, I see I only have about a minute and nine seconds left, so I’m going to sum up right now.

All of these proposed changes will improve processes, building on the work of the Ontario Energy Board’s modernization started back in 2018, ensuring that the entire energy sector and other impacted sectors have more input into Ontario Energy Board decisions and will ensure that future OEB decisions take into account government policy priorities including protecting ratepayers in the town of Whitby and other parts of the region of Durham.

Speaker, as demand continues to grow across Ontario and, yes, the region of Durham, due to economic and population growth, our government, led by Premier Ford, will continue to work hard to ensure a reliable supply of energy continues to be available for hard-working Ontarians now and in the future.

I would like to ask the member what he thinks of a company that makes $16 billion in profit off of the four million Ontarians who pay Enbridge—their gas bill every month—do they really need $1 billion more from those four million customers that are connected to Enbridge in order to provide connections to new builds? Is it that terrible to go from a $16-billion profit to a $15-billion profit and use that $1 billion that would go to profit to do exactly what you’re trying to do with this bill, but don’t charge the four million Ontarians who are already connected, charge it to the owner and shareholders of Enbridge instead?

It’s an opportunity for me to be able to speak about some of the fiscal impacts of this piece of legislation. I, of course, enjoyed my time listening to my colleague and good friend from Whitby. It’s appropriate that I’m following the member from Nickel Belt who, I might add, has been a very strong advocate for her constituents and health care here, but I do feel has not fully understood how these changes can be beneficial to the health care system and long-term care. I’d like to ask the member from Whitby what the fiscal impacts associated with these changes are and how it may indeed support the health care system, including long-term care.