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

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

Thank you to the member, my colleague from Nepean. Madam Speaker, Ontarians are struggling right now, and that includes people in the city of Ottawa. There’s no question about that, and with terrible policies like the federal government’s carbon tax, which we all know that the NDP and Liberals support, the opposition are clearly not willing to do the work to address the issues that the people of Ottawa are facing.

The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act will protect future homebuyers in Ottawa and, in fact, across the province from increased costs, and it will keep shovels in the ground on critical infrastructure projects. While previous governments implemented schemes that led to skyrocketing energy prices, we are using every tool in our tool box to help keep costs down for the people and businesses. This is what we campaigned on, and this is what we’re going to do.

That is why I’m so proud to support the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. This act speaks to not just my constituents in Carleton, not just to the people of Ottawa, but it speaks to Ontarians across the province. It speaks to their need for affordable housing for all Ontarians, and it ensures that new home buyers aren’t burdened with a massive upfront cost for reliable and affordable home heating. This bill ensures that Ontarians do not feel this added pressure when looking at buying a home for their family.

You know, Madam Speaker, before I answer, I just want to say I have a lot of respect for the member from Sarnia–Lambton—we all do; he’s great. I know we’re not supposed to name members, but we all call him Uncle Bob, because he is like our uncle.

But to answer his question, Madam Speaker: Again, this piece of legislation is so important, and natural gas is still an important part of the system. We know this because experts have told us that natural gas is an important part of the system. In fact, Ontario’s Electrification and Energy Transition Panel has stated, “Natural gas is an important resource for filling three ... essential and distinct functions in Ontario’s energy system today”: as a fuel for electrical power generation, space and water heating, and industrial and agricultural industry.

Just before Christmas, the Ontario Energy Board issued an important decision affecting the gas bills of nearly four million Ontarians. The Ontario Energy Board ordered natural gas distributor Enbridge Gas to bear the costs of expanding its gas infrastructure, rather than imposing the costs on you and me. This is at a time when Ontario is moving away from fossil fuels. Any plan to expand natural gas infrastructure carries enormous risks, not just to the environment but also to our bills. So the OEB, the Ontario Energy Board, did the right thing and decided that Enbridge’s proposal was not in the interests of consumers.

How did the Conservatives respond? Well, the Conservatives responded with this bill, which is called the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act but really should be called the “hike your energy bills act.” That is what it really should be called. That’s the bill that we’re debating today. This bill reverses the OEB’s decision and will continue to permit Enbridge to hike energy bills and make life more expensive for everybody. In essence, this energy bill is bad for new home owners, it is bad for existing gas customers and it is bad for the environment. The only people who benefit from this bill are Enbridge Gas. They are the only people who benefit from this bill.

Right now, your gas bill includes a charge worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year to cover Enbridge’s cost of expanding gas pipelines into new developments. On December 21, the Ontario independent energy regulator decided to put a stop to this subsidy, because it raises energy bills for existing gas customers and new home buyers, while also increasing financial risks for the whole gas system.

Ending this subsidy would save gas customers more than $1 billion over four years in avoided pipeline subsidy costs, which comes to more than $300 per customer. Ending this subsidy would also encourage developers to install heat pumps in new homes, which provide much cheaper heating and cooling, instead of gas. Ending this subsidy, in essence, would be win-win-win: It would lower energy bills for existing customers, it would lower energy bills for new home buyers, it would lower carbon emissions and it would avoid even more costs down the road when homes heated with natural gas inevitably convert to heat pumps.

There is, however, one loser: Enbridge Gas. Enbridge Gas stands to lose millions of dollars in profits. It is lobbying hard against the energy board decision and it has clearly been successful in doing that. Investing in gas pipelines in 2024 for heating is financially foolish, because they will become obsolete and a massive cost to all current and future customers as we move away from gas heating.

The Ontario Energy Board has made the right decision, based on evidence, to lower your energy bills. This government is choosing to take us on a terrible course. It’s making the wrong decision, based on backroom lobbying, in order to raise your energy bills to benefit Enbridge and nobody else.

We have seen this government bend under public pressure and reverse decisions like opening parts of the greenbelt for development. I believe it is time to do that again. I encourage you to contact your local MPP, and urge them to do the right thing for affordability and vote against this bill.

I’m now going to go and explain a little bit more about the bill in detail. In essence, this bill amends the Ontario Energy Board Act to allow the government to prescribe a revenue horizon, i.e., the number of years of presumed revenue used when assessing a natural gas rate application. The prescribed revenue horizon is used for determining (a) the economic feasibility of a proposed capital investment—for example, whether the costs can be reasonably recovered within the revenue horizon; or (b) a contribution in aid of construction.

The government says it will set a revenue horizon of 40 years, extending well past 2050, which is Canada’s target date for achieving net-zero carbon emissions. I don’t know why this government would want to give a subsidy to Enbridge to invest in infrastructure when, based on what the Canadian government is doing, this infrastructure is going to be a stranded asset because we’re moving to different energy sources. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

There are other things that people have raised, that stakeholders have raised about this bill and I’m going to read them now. Let’s start with what the Ontario Energy Board had to say about this. In its recent report, Ontario’s energy transition panel made recommendations that seem inconsistent with Bill 165. It says:

“The Ontario Energy Board should employ all tools within its existing mandate to implement activities consistent with Ontario’s goals for a clean energy economy and the requirements of the energy transition for Ontario....

“The Ontario Energy Board should conduct reviews of cost allocation and recovery policies for natural gas and electricity connections, as well as natural gas infrastructure investment evaluations to protect customers and facilitate development of the clean energy economy.”

That’s the Ontario Energy Board saying that we need to transition to clean energy, and this government is doing the exact opposite of this by asking customers to subsidize Enbridge’s gas expansion activities in infrastructure.

This is what ResCon had to say. This is Richard Lyall. He argues that the Ontario Energy Board decision will drive up home prices. He also failed to acknowledge the stark reality that Ontario is not yet prepared for electrification and must remain dependent on natural gas for some time longer. That’s the home building industry.

Then we have Ian Mondrow, an energy and policy expert at Gowling. He wrote, “Minister Smith would be well advised to consider the wisdom of the energy panel’s recommendation and leave the matter of further consideration of new energy connection cost-recovery policies with the Ontario Energy Board.”

In essence, what he’s saying is why is the government meddling in independent decisions that are made by electricity experts to the benefit of customers and to the benefit of the entire electricity grid?

“Leaving this in the hands of the independent regulator would maintain transparency, consistency, public accountability and a thoughtful and reasoned balancing of interests. That, after all, is the reason for an independent energy regulator”—makes sense.

This is what Adam Fremeth and Brandon Schaufele from the Ivey Energy Policy and Management Centre had to say: “Overriding an independent economic regulator is a big deal”—it’s a big deal. “It is not something to be done lightly. The government’s decision explicitly undermines the Ontario Energy Board and threatens credibility of future energy investment in the province. Moreover, it’s not obvious that this move is in Enbridge’s long-term interests. Once a precedent to effectively overrule the regulator is established, there’s little to stop future governments from using the tactic to different ends, perhaps against natural gas infrastructure.”

This is what Environmental Defence had to say: “This legislation would be bad for new home owners, bad for existing gas customers, and bad for the environment. The only one that benefits is Enbridge gas.”

This is what Richard Carlson, the energy director at Pollution Probe had to say: “The Ontario Energy Board was clear, correctly in my opinion, that the energy transition is under way and there’s uncertainty about the future of natural gas use in the province.”

Also: “As far as I know, the government has never intervened this directly in trying to alter an OEB regulatory decision, and that should be concerning to everyone.”

There’s a lot of people in Ontario who work in the electricity industry who are pretty concerned about what this government is doing. They’re concerned about the meddling in an independent decision. They’re also concerned about this government’s move to side with Enbridge over the costs of gas prices and energy prices in Ontario. It’s pretty concerning.

Now, I’m going to go a little bit into the details of the bill and provide some further analysis. As I mentioned, this bill is in response to a December 21, 2023, decision and order by the Ontario Energy Board with respect to Enbridge Gas’s ongoing 2024-28 rate-setting proceedings. The Ontario Energy Board set some of the principles governing who should pay what during the transition from fossil fuel heating to net-zero sources. Currently, existing gas consumers absorb the capital costs of new natural gas connections based on the premise that these costs will be recovered from the new customer over the subsequent 40 years. Since Canada has mandated a phase-down of natural gas heating to reach carbon net zero by 2050, the Ontario Energy Board determined that it was too risky for existing consumers to front the costs of new gas connections that might become stranded assets. It ordered Enbridge to reduce its revenue horizon from 40 years to zero, meaning that new gas customers or developers making the choice on behalf of a future new home buyer would need to pay for their own gas connection up front if they chose to install gas. It almost gives you less choice instead of more choice.

The Ontario Energy Board noted that reducing the revenue horizon would not only reduce costs and risks for existing gas consumers; it would make the cost of natural gas connections visible to developers and new home buyers who might be better served by choosing an electric heat pump, whose lifetime operational costs are lower than that of a gas furnace. We have been proposing to the Ontario government that they move forward with bringing in the heat pump option for a low cost or no cost to consumers so that we can transition away from fossil fuel use into a cleaner energy system. It is what other provinces are doing, and it is what we should be doing here in Ontario as well.

Either way, the Ontario Energy Board decision ensures that the cost of installing a new gas connection would be paid by those who benefit from that choice and not by other consumers who don’t benefit. That makes a lot of sense to me.

The next day, the Minister of Energy, probably under some heavy lobbying by Enbridge, announced that he would overturn the Ontario Energy Board decision, arguing that it would drive up cost of new homes by an average of $4,400 per gas connection where the developer has chosen natural gas heating.

Let’s also point out the Minister of Energy’s chief of staff is a former lobbyist for Enbridge. It’s useful to point that out. Nothing weird happening there, no backroom deals happening there—

Interjection: Nothing to see here.

Nothing to see here. You could make a decision that benefits four million Ontarians, or you could make a decision that benefits Enbridge, especially when your chief of staff is talking to you every single day and used to work Enbridge and now works for you—very interesting; no conflict of interest whatsoever there.

The minister’s decision will shift those upfront costs onto existing gas consumers, forcing them to pay over $1 billion in additional costs over four years, costs that the Ontario Energy Board believes they should not have to pay.

So it’s very interesting. There must be some people in the Ontario government, the Conservative government, right now who don’t like this bill. Some of you must not like this bill. You must be getting some calls from some of your constituents who are like, “You want me to pay even more for energy than I’m currently paying?” I bet you’re getting calls. And when they find out and their energy bills go up, you’re going to be getting more calls; I know it.

There are other ways in which Bill 165 would allow the Ontario government to force gas consumers to pay costs that the Ontario Energy Board would otherwise disallow. Currently, no one may construct a new gas pipeline in Ontario unless the Ontario Energy Board determines this expenditure is in the public interest and grants leave to construct. That makes sense. You just don’t want Enbridge deciding where to build gas without there being an independent regulator deciding that it’s in the public interest. That makes a lot of sense.

This rule seeks to ensure that expenditures are properly scrutinized so gas customers are not forced to pay for costly and uneconomical projects. By allowing politicians to decide whether or not a gas pipeline is in the public interest, instead of an independent regulator, there is a risk of politicizing the energy planning process and forcing consumers to pay for costly, lobbyist-driven projects they do not benefit from.

The former Liberal government did this with electricity system planning, and hydro bills skyrocketed. With Bill 165, it looks like it’s heading down the same trajectory as what we have seen with the previous government. We are very concerned that this would allow the government to do the same thing with the natural gas system.

The provision allowing the minister to bypass the hearing for a gas pipeline or overturn a refusal where the OEB deemed a project not in the public interest may be related to Enbridge’s Panhandle Regional Expansion Project in southwestern Ontario. The government might be claiming that Bill 165 is necessary for these economic priorities to proceed, but we don’t think that this is the case.

Another thing that this bill does is it establishes the concept of a generic hearing on matters affecting multiple stakeholders. The minister, with the LG in C’s approval—that’s the government—may direct the Ontario Energy Board to hold a generic hearing, including on matters that are the subject of an ongoing Ontario Energy Board proceeding.

This bill would also allow the government to prescribe additional persons who shall or may be represented during certain Ontario Energy Board proceedings—not just consumers, generators, distributors, or transmitters etc. For example, developers and the IESO have reportedly asked to participate in Enbridge’s ongoing rate application.

In essence, overall, I have a lot of concerns with this bill. I have concerns with this bill because it is not going to be keeping energy costs down; it’s going to be driving energy costs up. And this government should take note, because the previous Liberal government—one of the main reasons why they lost their election in 2018 was because of energy prices and energy decisions and people no longer having faith that decisions around electricity and energy were being made in the best interests of Ontarians.

You would hope that this government would not want to head down the same path, and I fear that Bill 165 is doing that. Because how we read it is, it looks like this bill benefits Enbridge, and it doesn’t benefit the four million consumers who are going to see their energy bills go up and they’re not going to get any direct benefit.

And what also concerns me is that the decision to further invest in gas infrastructure at a time when countries, provinces and states all around the world are moving to a different energy mix means that we could be locking ourselves into stranded assets that are no longer useful within a very short period of time.

We already have ways to generate energy and heat and cool people’s homes that don’t require gas. Heat pumps are a very cost-effective source of heating and cooling that many countries across Europe and provinces across Canada are adopting. We have alternatives that we should be investing in that are better for the environment, are better for consumers and are better for Ontario. I would much prefer to be debating a bill about that than a bill that is going to lock us into fossil fuels in and is going to lock us into assets which, if we’re heading in right direction, are not going to be needed. They’re just not going to be needed.

Thank you so much for your time.

Meegwetch to the member for the presentation on Bill 165. I know the member spoke about the OEB reversal and talked about Enbridge Gas. Can you perhaps elaborate again on why this government did the reversal on the OEB decision that was made?

I enjoyed the member’s presentation very much. There are kind of two separate things there. There’s the problem with the mechanics of the bill and with the long-term implications of the minister’s intervention in OEB decisions, which is something that I think everybody on both sides of the House needs to be concerned about. But what I’m hearing here, and I’ve heard from the member from Danforth, is that it’s going to drive up four million people’s energy bills.

The OEB decision: They made this decision based on keeping people’s energy bills lower. But on the other side, what they’re saying is, “Well, it’s actually driving up the cost of housing.” As members here, how do we square that? That’s the question that I have. I understand the long-term implications of the bill; they’re not good. I’d like to understand where you stand on those two things.

Point of order?

I listened respectfully through her submissions, and I appreciate the member’s statement. Our government has been working pretty hard every day to keep the costs down for the people of Ontario. Approximately 3.8 million households in Ontario currently use natural gas for home heating. That’s two thirds of all households in Ontario, and that includes households that are represented by members in the House, Cochrane or—let me just see; there are a few others that have applied for it—James Bay. They’ve applied for the natural gas expansion program to the ministry. So obviously, they want to take advantage of this option.

I guess my question to the member is, will you commit to voting for this act so their constituents can get more access to the reliable and affordable energy that they’ve asked for?

Thank you.

We’re going to move to questions.

The Ontario board made the right decision, based on evidence, to lower our energy bills. The Ontario government has made the decision, based on maybe backroom lobbying, to raise our energy bills in order to give Enbridge Gas a continued subsidy. Four million customers are going to see their energy bills go up so that Enbridge can continue to have their infrastructure investment subsidized. I think that is the wrong direction that we should be going in Ontario, and I urge this government to rethink this bill.

We also know that it really doesn’t work when we have politicians coming in and meddling with decisions that should be made by experts and independent electricity regulators. They have made the decision. It was a wise one. We support it. And instead, this government is heading down the path of listening to the Minister of Energy’s chief of staff, a former lobbyist for Enbridge, a staff person for Enbridge, and they are giving Enbridge what looks like a sweetheart deal. I have a lot of concerns with that.

Look, Speaker, I have some news today that will dismay members of this House. Believe it or not, on April 1, the federal Liberal government is set to increase the carbon tax. I wish I could tell you this was an April Fool’s joke, but it’s not.

Speaker, the carbon tax makes life way more expensive for families across Canada. It’s a tax on driving your car to work and a tax on driving your kids to school. It’s a tax on heating your home and a tax on the groceries you need to provide for your family. It’s a tax that does absolutely nothing for our environment, because for communities across the country, driving your car, heating your home and buying groceries is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Look, Speaker, I can appreciate why the wise minds of Canadian academia thought this might be a good idea when it was first conceptualized. But the carbon tax has clearly not worked. It has clearly punished families for living their lives.

I am pleading with the federal Liberal government not to increase the carbon tax on April 1. Families in Ontario could really use a break. Please give us one. This April Fools’ Day, let’s leave the jokes to the kids, and let’s finally scrap this ridiculous tax.

Remarks in Anishininiimowin. Speaker, life has become very unaffordable for people across Ontario, for working people, for people on fixed incomes. The lack of competition lets big corporations like the North West Co. control the cost of goods with no consequence.

When we talk about affordability in northern towns and First Nations, it is not comparable to the rest of Ontario. A case of water that costs $3 here in Toronto, costs $30 or more in Kiiwetinoong. Gas prices in Webequie last summer were $4.60 per litre.

Speaker, families need to be able to afford the necessities of life, but how do we fix it in the north? All of us need to work together: leadership, businesses, First Nations, municipalities. We can all work together to ensure people don’t have to choose between buying food or gas because they can’t afford both. We can work together to ensure that there is an affordable, nutritious supply of food available across the north.

We must find these answers because the health and the wellness of the north depends on it. Meegwetch.

I want to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her excellent presentation. And I have to say, I agree.

The Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator whose mandate is to protect the interests of consumers, and with this decision, the OEB could not be more clear. They have told Enbridge that they cannot pass the cost down to the consumers and we cannot lock Ontarians to relying on fossil fuels for the next 40 years.

My question to the member is, we know that it is important to have faith in an independent regulator, and the government overturning the decision undermines it. We know that if this moves forward, it will harm the environment and it will hurt Ontarians. Could the member expand a little bit on what it means for tenants and homeowners at the end of the day if this bill goes through, in the context of the affordability crisis?

Good morning, everyone, and thank you for that informative and interesting speech from the member from University–Rosedale.

What do you think of the audacity of this government, thinking they can just swoop in and meddle with an independent regulatory body that is supposed to be at arm’s length, and they just swoop in and think rules don’t apply to them? They’re just going to meddle away with this regulatory body who has made this tough decision, forward-thinking and thinking of Ontarians. Does it worry you that they’re going to do this with other independent bodies like the FAO, the AG, the Auditor General—thoughts on that?

Thank you to the member for Beaches–East York. This government has a long track record of moving very quickly, breaking things, and then realizing they have made a mistake, they’ve gone too far, the public pressure is too intense and then they back track.

We have seen that with their decision to bring in strong-mayor powers and undo hundreds of years of tradition with parliamentary democracy where it is majority rule. We saw them move forward with opening up the greenbelt, even though all parties here supported the greenbelt when it was developed. We have seen them try and sabotage collective bargaining and say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t apply here in Ontario.

But what we also see is that when people stand up, and say, “Enough. This is not acceptable. This is not the kind of Ontario we want,” this government backs down, and I hope that this government backs down on this bill as well.

You go to the supermarket; food has never been more pricey. You pay your rent; we are at record high levels of rent. And the cost of buying a home and then paying off the mortgage has never been higher. It is a huge problem and that is why I am urging this government to rethink this bill and listen to the Ontario Energy Board and respect the decision that they have made.

Questions?

Further debate—oh, I’m sorry. It being 10:15 of the clock, it is now time to go to members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to talk about something that we don’t discuss often in the public but needs to be discussed here in this chamber, in chambers across Canada and in our city council chambers.

Last week, when the mayor of Gatineau announced that she was going to resign her seat effective immediately, citing mental health issues and a death threat, it hit home to me. It hit home to me, because I have been here for 18 years, watching a variety of different protests occur at people’s homes, like at Sam Oosterhoff’s, at Kathleen Wynne’s, at Doug Ford’s, at Christine Elliott’s and of course, at Stephen Lecce’s. I have seen my colleagues see their constituency offices vandalized, like the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Laurie Scott, or the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, Marit Stiles.

I, too, have had my share of private security, legislative security and of course, OPP and Ottawa police protection, as someone was incarcerated not once but three times in her uttering of death threats against me. Of course, it came with a significant toll for my mental health.

I think we must have a national conversation, and I think we have to talk about misogyny in politics, radicalization in politics and international influence in politics as it pertains to the safety and security of everyone, from a municipal councillor to a staffer that’s at the front lines, to a federal parliamentarian. I’m pleased that I was able to write an op-ed for iPolitics, and I’ll continue to do this advocacy and this important work.

Ed Broadbent was born and raised in Oshawa. From early on, by all accounts, he was a leader. Ed was elected in 1968 and served as the member of Parliament for Whitby–Oshawa, then Oshawa, until 1990. He was the federal leader of the New Democratic Party from 1975 until 1989 and served again as the MP for Ottawa Centre from 2004 until 2006. He was always tremendously well liked and respected, even by many who didn’t agree with his politics. Ed passed away on January 11 of this year and was 87.

Ed Broadbent shaped so much of what it means to be Canadian. He championed human rights and principles of social democracy. Few politicians have stood as tall or cared with such principled commitment about the betterment of society for all Canadians. In Oshawa, we also mourn the loss of a friend, leader and neighbour who cherished his deep local roots. Across party lines, Ed’s legacy endures and will long inspire us to care and work for a better, kinder society.

At the opening of the Ed Broadbent Waterfront Park, Ed did not reflect on his accomplishments but instead on the community volunteers and caring adults who had helped to guide and inspire him. Ed always saw value in all people. He had hope for a life and a fairer path that was filled with opportunity for everyone.

Personally, I’m grateful for each warm and inspirational opportunity I had to learn from him. I remember being a fangirl the first time I met Ed Broadbent. It was shortly after being elected in 2014 and winning the seat back for the NDP. I’ve been proud to call him through the years with good news or to steal a quick selfie and a laugh in between important engagements.

We offer heartfelt condolences to his family. There are so many who worked with Ed, learned from him, and countless folks who will miss him tremendously. I will continue to work for the vision of society and country that Ed Broadbent championed throughout his career. He wanted us to be better and make the world better.

Thank you, Ed Broadbent, and we miss you.

Applause.

Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to return to Queen’s Park after a productive winter break. I’m grateful for this opportunity today to share my recent engagements with stakeholders and constituents in Markham–Unionville during the lunar new year festivities.

The lunar new year holds profound significance for the Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean communities across Canada. To celebrate this cherished tradition, I hosted a meet-and-greet event and attended different celebrations in the community, which were met with great enthusiasm and participation from local families. Witnessing the community come together to embrace ancient customs and celebrate familial bonds was truly heartwarming.

I want to extend my sincere appreciation to Premier Ford, Minister Dunlop, Minister Lecce, Minister Parsa, Minister Williams, as well as my fellow MPPs Wai, Kanapathi and Smith for gracing us with their presence at the celebration at First Markham Place. Together, we shared warm wishes and distributed red packets to families and friends.

This year marks the Year of the Dragon in the lunar calendar. The dragon symbolizes strength and vitality. As we embrace the spirit of renewal and embark on new beginnings, let’s face the opportunities ahead with courage, resilience and unity. May the Year of the Dragon bring strength, vitality and abundance to Ontarians.

March 10 this year marks the 65th anniversary of the Tibetan people’s uprising against China’s illegal occupation of Tibet in 1959. Today, Tibet remains an occupied territory under tight military surveillance.

Since 2008, over 160 Tibetans have self-immolated to protest China’s repressive policies. UN experts have raised alarms about the forced separation of one million Tibetan children from their families for assimilation into Chinese colonial boarding schools.

Just recently, more than a thousand Tibetans were arrested in one day in Derge county, as there were unprecedented protests against the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Drichu River by the Chinese government which would force the displacement of thousands. This proposed dam would also cause significant environmental harm and destroy six monasteries, including submerging the Wontod monastery, founded in the 14th century, which has one of the finest examples of Tibetan Buddhist murals, and is of great historical and cultural significance.

Even to see footage of these protests on social media is incredibly rare, as Tibet has consistently been ranked as one of the least free countries in the world by Freedom House, with little to no information making its way out.

Tibetans inside Tibet have shown extraordinary courage. Language, culture, history and identity is under threat in Tibet, but resistance is as strong as ever.

I strongly condemn the brutal crackdown and urge the international community to call on China to free the protesters and halt the construction of the dam.