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’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.

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.

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.

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.

Ça me fait toujours plaisir de me lever et de parler en Chambre pour représenter ma circonscription de Mushkegowuk–Baie James. On parle de Bill 165, Keeping Energy Costs Down Act—garder les coûts énergétiques bas. Quand tu lis le titre puis après ça que tu commences à réaliser que quand le « energy board » dit de ne pas donner ces coûts-là—vraiment, le projet de loi, il est aussi simple que ça.

Ce qu’on débat ici en Chambre, c’est que les coûts d’Enbridge, devraient-ils être payés par eux ou bien les concitoyens? C’est ça, le projet de loi. On peut mettre ça comme qu’on veut, on peut essayer de montrer : « Regarde ici, ça “shine” », mais tout ce temps-là, on met la main dans les poches des contribuables. C’est exactement ça qui se passe.

C’est pour ça que c’est tout le temps intéressant d’entendre les deux perceptions du gouvernement. Puis nous, l’opposition officielle, on dit : « Écoute, on a des experts du “energy board” qui disent que les quatre millions de consommateurs ne devraient pas payer », parce que le gaz naturel, c’est une énergie de laquelle on s’éloigne. On commence à s’éloigner. Puis, ça devrait être Enbridge qui paye et non les consommateurs. C’est ça qu’ils disent, les experts. Moi, je ne suis pas un expert là-dedans, mais c’est ça que les experts nous dissent.

Le gouvernement, tout de suite quand c’est sorti, ça n’a pas été long qu’ils ont dit : « Non, on va le passer; on va passer ces coûts-là. » Ça, ça veut dire que nos coûts vont monter. Ne tombez pas dans l’illusion : même si le titre dit que vous allez payer moins d’énergie, au contraire, les prix vont monter. On sait qu’ils vont monter. C’est là. Le gouvernement dit qu’ils ne monteront pas, mais ce n’est pas la réalité.

Fait que, là, il va y avoir des coûts additionnels. Je pense que personne ne veut voir ses coûts de chauffage monter. J’ai écouté les débats, puis on entend le gouvernement dire : « Quoi? Vous voulez qu’ils payent à l’avant? » Ce n’est pas ça qu’on dit, là. On n’est pas non plus contre le gaz naturel. On dit que ce ne sont pas les consommateurs qui devraient payer. Puis ce n’est pas en disant qu’on est contre le développement pour les maisons ou les condos ou tout le reste. Ce n’est pas ça qu’on dit. On fait juste dire que le gaz naturel, si une personne le veut, c’est Enbridge qui va aller payer. Parce qu’on parle qu’ils ont fait 16,5 milliards de dollars—pas des millions, des milliards.

Puis on dit que ces coûts-là—et les experts nous disent que ce ne devrait pas être les consommateurs qui payent. Je pense que c’est raisonnable parce que, écoute, moi, je viens d’un comté, Mushkegowuk qui va dans la Baie James. S’il y a de quoi qu’on voie quand ça vient à tout le réchauffement de la planète, plus que tu vas au Nord, plus qu’on le voit.

Cet automne quand j’y suis allé, j’ai vu la rivière Albany puis la rivière Attawapiskat—les « sandbars ». Elles étaient tellement basses qu’ils ne pouvaient même pas aller à la pêche dans leurs territoires ancestraux, sur la rivière où ils allaient pêcher le doré parce qu’ils sont obligés de se faire ramener en hélicoptère parce qu’il n’y a pas assez d’eau dans la rivière. Je n’ai jamais vu ça. Puis je parlais même à des chefs. J’ai parlé avec des « elders », et ils ont dit qu’ils n’ont jamais vu ça.

J’ai une communauté, à Attawapiskat, qui sont dans une situation d’eau où l’eau de leur lac où ils prennent l’eau est rendue à un niveau très dangereux, et ça se peut même qu’ils se fassent évacuer. Là, ils sont dans un processus de faire venir un système pour enlever le sel dans l’eau parce qu’il y a des puits qui ont été creusés trop creux et ils ont été contaminés par l’eau salée. Puis après, vers la fin de mars, il va y avoir le système dans un container pour l’amener. La planète se réchauffe tellement que probablement, quand arrive le temps de déménager, la route hivernale va être fermée.

La route hivernale, elle est ouverte et elle ouvre tout le temps de plus en plus tard puis elle ferme beaucoup plus vite Ça fait qu’on est dans une réalité qu’aujourd’hui on veut s’éloigner de ce produit-là, que les experts disent qu’il faut s’éloigner de ça. Puis, on voit que la tendance mondiale, en passant, s’en va dans la direction opposée de ce gouvernement-là.

On a vu des gouvernements conservateurs dans l’Est mettre des nouveaux incitatifs pour aller à la nouvelle énergie comme des « heat pumps » et tout ça dont on parle, dont on entend souvent parler. Ça se fait. La technologie existe. Va-t-elle avancer? Oui, elle va avancer encore. On n’a rien qu’à penser à Norway, qui en a.

On voit que nos hivers sont beaucoup moins froids, qu’il y a des solutions à être mises. On peut avoir un gouvernement qui met des incitatifs. De dire à Enbridge que ce n’est pas aux consommateurs de payer, on s’excuse—« Everything est fini. Allez connecter, puis le consommateur, s’il le veut, il payera. » Il n’y a rien de mal avec ça. Ce n’est pas un concept qui est nouveau, là. Ce n’est pas un concept qui est nouveau.

Mais ce qu’on sait dans le Nord, par exemple—j’entendais mes collègues dire, « dans le Nord, dans le Nord. » Oui, c’est certain qu’il y en a qui veulent l’avoir. Mais s’ils veulent l’avoir, Enbridge aurait à payer pour l’amener. J’entendais ma collègue de Nickel Belt. Ça c’est un exemple qui est exemplaire dans mon comté—que le gaz naturel passe proche de chez eux mais ça va coûter des milles et des milles juste pour l’avoir. Pourquoi Enbridge ne l’amène pas? Pourquoi il ne pourrait pas l’amener chez eux? Si elle veut l’avoir, elle va payer. Pourquoi faut-il que tous les contribuables payent?

Quand les experts disent, « Il faut s’éloigner de ça », non, ça devrait être à Enbridge de payer. Lac-Ste-Thérèse, un exemple pareil encore : s’ils veulent l’avoir, Enbridge veut l’avoir—mais quand Enbridge a passé la ligne, sais-tu pourquoi ils n’ont pas amené la ligne quand le gaz naturel a passé? Il n’y avait pas d’argent à le faire, madame la Présidente. Il n’y avait pas d’argent à le faire.

On a la ligne qui passe à Val Côté—même chose. La ligne n’est pas loin, là. Ils ne veulent pas mettre une base. Pourquoi? Il n’y avait pas d’argent à le faire. C’est une petite communauté, peut-être, de 20 à 30 personnes.

On a plein d’exemples comme ça. Ils disent, « Oh, les maires du Nord veulent l’avoir. » C’est sûr, mais les gens ne veulent pas que ça nuise. Mais on ne dit pas de nuire à construire des maisons. Au contraire, on veut que ces maisons se bâtissent, là. Mais si le gaz naturel va là, Enbridge l’amènera et ils vont être payés avec des contribuables, comme n’importe quel autre « business » qui se passe. C’est ça que les experts nous disent.

Mais le gouvernement veut vous faire accroire, par exemple, que non, non, non, ça va nuire à bâtir. Non, ça ne nuira pas. On en a besoin, de ces maisons-là. Et crois-moi, je suis convaincu qu’Enbridge va rentrer le gaz qu’ils ont besoin à ces clients-là. Ça va se voir dans les gros développements dans le sud de l’Ontario. Puis là, ça va se faire, parce qu’il y a de l’argent à le faire. Il y a de l’argent à le faire. Mais là où la population est basse, oublie ça. On le vit, comme c’est là. Pensez-vous que ça va changer? Si vous pensez ça, vous vous faites une illusion qui n’est même pas là, parce que c’est ça qui se passe maintenant et ça ne changera pas.

Mais, pour le Sud, Enbridge va rentrer les lignes, même si ce ne sont pas les 4 millions d’habitants, de consommateurs qui payent. Ils vont la rentrer, la ligne, s’ils veulent avoir ces clients. Pourquoi? Ils savent qu’éventuellement, ils vont perdre ces clients-là. Ils savent que ça s’en vient. Ils voient la lumière au bout du tunnel, comme on dit souvent en français. Ça va venir à là, ce qui fait qu’ils vont aller chercher le montant d’argent qu’ils peuvent. Le problème est qu’éventuellement ceux qui ont ça vont payer de plus en plus.

C’est pour ça qu’il faut commencer à regarder—je pense que c’est mon collègue, notre ami d’Algoma–Manitoulin qui l’a mentionné très bien. Il dit qu’on doit commencer à faire de nouveaux incitatifs pour aller à plus d’énergie, la nouvelle énergie verte qui va répondre à la situation. Parce que, moi, dans mon comté, je peux vous dire, je le vois. Venez dans le Nord; je vais vous le montrer. C’est épeurant, parce que ce monde-là, ça touche leur vie. Ça touche leur quotidien.

Quand vous pensez à la route hivernale, elle est rendue au point qu’ils ne savent même pas quand elle va commencer à être capable de rentrer tous les produits dont ils ont besoin—tous les produits dont ils ont besoin pour survivre pour le restant de l’année, là. Puis, avec quel coût? Ça veut dire, qu’est-ce qu’on va faire si la route hivernale n’existe plus? Comment est-ce qu’ils vont rentrer tous les produits dont ils ont besoin pour construire les maisons, pour la bouffe—puis, la liste est longue.

Mais, on a un gouvernement qui est parti à contre-courant. Les États-Unis vont vers là. Des conservateurs au Canada le font dans d’autres choses. Mais nous en Ontario, la plus grosse province, la plus riche, où on est capable de faire les bonnes choses, on est parti à contre-courant.

En Europe, les « heat pumps » existent. On a entendu qu’il y a des ministres qui en ont, des « heat pumps ». Il n’y a rien de mal avec ça. Si la personne veut l’avoir, le gaz naturel, bien Enbridge l’amène, puis après ça, elle paye. Mais ça ne devrait pas être au consommateur de payer. C’est ça le débat aujourd’hui, puis c’est pour ça que nous, on dit que ce n’est pas le consommateur—Enbridge, ils en font, des milliards. Qu’ils prennent un de ces milliards-là et qu’ils connectent, et ça ne nuira pas à la construction comme ils essayent de vous faire—cette belle illusion-là que ça va nuire—parce qu’il y a des incitatifs que le gouvernement pourrait faire.

Reliable and affordable energy: That seems to be what I think we can all agree upon as what we want for the people of Ontario. But once again, the opposition has kind of a conundrum. I know the member represents James Bay, represents constituents who do agree that natural gas should have a role in heating their locations and have applied for natural gas expansion programs through the ministry. And the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act is a great way for the member opposite to demonstrate to their constituents that they’ve been listening to them and they want to make it more affordable to buy a home, knowing what the cost of a house will be if we don’t do this.

Will the member opposite please commit to voting for this act so their constituents can get access to the reliable and affordable energy that have asked for?