The ayes are 73; the nays are 32.

Pursuant to standing order 63, your committee has selected the 2024-25 estimates of the following ministries for consideration: Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport; Ministry of Transportation; Ministry of Infrastructure; Ministry of Citizenship and Multiculturalism.

Pursuant to standing order 64(a), the 2024-25 estimates of the following office not selected for consideration is deemed to be passed by the committee and is reported back to the House:

Office of the Lieutenant Governor: 1701, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, $2,652,400.

Pursuant to standing order 63, your committee has selected the 2024-25 estimates of the following ministries and offices for consideration: Cabinet Office and Office of the Premier; Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade; Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development; Ministry of Finance; Treasury Board Secretariat.

Report presented.

Pursuant to standing order 63, your committee has selected the 2024-25 estimates of the following ministries for consideration: Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry; Ministry of Energy; Ministry of Mines; Ministry of Northern Development; Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs; Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.

Report presented.

Bill 180, An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact and amend various statutes / Projet de loi 180, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter et à modifier diverses lois.

I want to be very clear: A hospital is not a home. Hospital leadership, hospital staff, work very closely with patients and their families to match an appropriate and alternative level of bed, and that, in some cases, means in community with home and community care support. In some cases, it means a long-term-care placement.

I want to reinforce, as well, that that individual actually continues to have their first choice there, so that when there is an available bed at their first choice, they can have that option made available to them. But we don’t have the same level of engagement in a hospital, in an acute-care hospital, as we do in a long-term-care home, which is exactly why we brought forward these changes.

My question is to the Associate Minister of Small Business. Ontario’s retail and hospitality industries are fundamental to the prosperity of my local community and to our economy. However, the costly carbon tax continues to impose challenges on small businesses that have a crucial role in our cultural heritage and economic success. The businesses in these important industries add life to our main streets, many of which are cherished multi-generational family businesses. It is unfair that they are currently facing significant uncertainty as a result of the direct and indirect cost pressures from the federal carbon tax.

Through you, Speaker, can the associate minister tell this House how our government is championing these vital businesses by standing up against the federal carbon tax?

Speaker, our government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, has always stood shoulder to shoulder with the hard-working women and men in the skilled trades. We know we have the best workers in the world, and they work tirelessly to ensure businesses in Ontario continue to thrive and grow.

I know the associate minister recently held a round table with representatives from small businesses within the skilled trades. Speaker, can the parliamentary assistant please tell the House what they had to say about the detrimental effects of this carbon tax on their operations?

I want to thank the great member for Sarnia–Lambton for his advocacy for all of the small businesses in his riding.

Speaker, our government understands that small businesses on our main streets are economic drivers, but they’re also a source of immense community pride. Local small businesses like Little Rose Cookie Co. and Hobby Hobby in my riding of Mississauga–Streetsville are some of the reasons why we have been unrelenting in our efforts to advocate for these businesses against the devastating impacts of the carbon tax.

We’ve already taken concrete steps. When this government and this Premier cut red tape and we lowered taxes like the gas tax, how did the Liberals and NDP vote? No. Well, it’s time to get on the right side of history and stand up for small businesses in all of our ridings.

Speaker, I’m asking the federal government to scrap the carbon tax now.

Speaker, in London, I hosted a round table alongside Associate Minister Flack and representatives from construction and skilled trades associations. The message was loud and clear: Construction and skilled trades businesses want to build affordable homes for Ontarians, but the carbon tax is driving up costs for operations, transportation and forcing these companies to choose between cutting staff or increasing prices. So you can thank a Liberal the next time a young family in any of our ridings can’t afford to buy a home.

The opposition needs to call on their federal counterparts to scrap this disastrous tax.

Thank you so much, Speaker. I’m so proud to rise today to answer my very first question as the parliamentary assistant to the wonderful Minister of Long-Term Care.

As a result of Bill 7, nearly 20,000 patients have found a place to call home in long-term care. Of those, only 0.04% had a bill issued by a hospital to pay for post-discharge services. On this side of the House, we trust doctors to know what is right for their patients when they medically clear them for discharge into long-term care, as was the case with this patient who was medically cleared many days ago.

Don’t take my word for it. Bill Mara, the CEO of Hôtel-Dieu Grace hospital, where the patient is staying, had this to say: “Bill 7 is important legislation that is necessary to free up essential resources. As of Tuesday afternoon, there are at least two dozen people in Windsor emergency rooms waiting for a bed.” That is two dozen patients that could be very, very sick, maybe even in life-threatening conditions, like having a stroke, a heart attack or from a motor vehicle collision. I can tell you, Speaker—

Interjections.

I would like to invite members to join the delegation for Lupus Ontario for a group picture on the grand staircase after question period and the votes.

Deferred vote on the motion for closure on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 162, An Act to enact the Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act, 2024 and amend various Acts / Projet de loi 162, Loi édictant la Loi de 2024 sur la protection contre les taxes sur le carbone et modifiant diverses lois.

The supplementary question?

The response? The parliamentary assistant and member for Mississauga Centre.

That concludes our question period for today.

The division bells rang from 1150 to 1155.

On April 25, 2024, Mr. Sarkaria moved third reading of Bill 162, An Act to enact the Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act, 2024 and amend various Acts.

On May 7, 2024, Ms. Scott moved that the question be now put.

All those in favour of Ms. Scott’s motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Mr. Sarkaria has moved third reading of Bill 162, An Act to enact the Protecting Against Carbon Taxes Act, 2024 and amend various Acts.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard some noes.

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

Interjections.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The House recessed from 1200 to 1500.

Report deemed received.

Report adopted.

I would like to thank Mrs. Lorraine Charbonneau, who happens to be a good friend of mine from Lively, for this petition: “Gas Prices.”

You know, Speaker, that the price of gas varies wildly. In my riding, if you can buy gas on a Sunday or on a Monday, I guarantee you that it will be cheaper than on a Wednesday, Thursday or Friday. I was in my riding last week during the constituency week and went to Foleyet. Gas in Foleyet is $1.89 a litre. Gas in other parts of my riding is also very high, yet you will go a few kilometres to the west to Espanola, and gas is at $1.64. A few kilometres to the east of Sudbury, and gas is at $1.66.

Why? Because companies sell at what the market can bear, and unfortunately, in my riding we are deemed as a market who can bear a lot of gas price increases. Most people work in the mines; my riding has the most mines in Ontario. You have to travel a long distance to go to the mines. Most of them drive trucks, because they have to travel early to make the cage down to the mine ,and they have no choice but to take gas.

So they ask that the government does what 49—I forget exactly how many—many other states and provinces have done, and that is to regulate the price of gas. Set a ceiling at which gas in Ontario cannot be sold any more expensive than this. There is no reason for the people of Nickel Belt to always pay 20, 30, 34 cents more per litre of gas than people 20 kilometres one way or 35 kilometres the other way. We’re being gouged. Please, listen to the thousands and thousands of people who have signed this petition. Regulate the price of gas.

I support this petition. I will affix my name to it and demande à la page Charlise de l’amener à la table des greffiers. Merci.

I’ll remind the members of standing order 42(b), the new standing order with respect to petitions. I would ask that the members keep their explanations of their petitions brief.

Interjection.

I’ll ask once again that the members keep their explanation or summary of the petitions brief.

Petitions.

I have a petition here titled “Improve Air Quality for Our Children.” It is signed by members of family councils in schools in my riding of Parkdale–High Park.

This petition has a very simple ask: Clean air for our kids. It is asking that the House support and adopt the Improving Air Quality for Our Children Act, 2023, a bill that I have co-sponsored. The bill would require carbon dioxide level monitoring in public schools and licensed child care centres in order to measure and then improve air quality. It is backed by experts, educators and parents, and it will help ensure that kids have the best learning conditions possible.

I’m proud to table this petition, will affix my signature to it and give it to page Woods to bring it to the table.

Speaker, Ontario does not have a rare disease strategy, and that has left people living with rare diseases without access to the supports and services that they need.

The Ministry of Health established a Rare Diseases Working Group in 2016. The group did their work and presented a report to the minister with recommendations for action. That report has been ignored, has been sitting there collecting dust. So this petition is calling on the Legislature to adopt the report and to start implementing the report, as is suggested by a bill that I have tabled titled Rare Disease Strategy Act. We need to implement the recommendations so that people living with rare diseases get the support they need.

I have a petition to raise social assistance rates.

The rates for Ontario Works have been frozen since 2018, as we’re all aware, and small increases to the Ontario Disability Support Program, ODSP, have left recipients struggling well below the poverty line.

The people who have signed this are advocating for doubling the rates of both OW and ODSP, which I believe in.

I’m signing my signature and sending it with new page Lise.

It’s my honour to present the following petitions on behalf of Sally Palmer from McMaster University. This petition is to raise social assistance rates.

If we take a look at the rates for Ontario Works, they have been frozen since 2018, and the increases that this government has made to the Ontario Disability Support Program are still meagre. People are struggling. This government would pat itself on the back for indexing these rates, but they have indexed them below the poverty line, so they are keeping people in poverty forever.

Keeping people in poverty is an active choice by this government. The people who have signed this petition would like to see social assistance rates doubled, so that people can live with dignity.

I fully support this petition, will affix my signature and deliver it with page Raisa to the Clerks.

I am proud to present a petition that has been signed by hundreds of Londoners; in particular, those who work at Western University as faculty or staff, as well as at Fanshawe College.

This is a petition calling on the Legislature to stop Bill 166. The petition notes that this government has made significant cuts to community mental health services, which has increased the pressure on post-secondary institutions to provide mental health supports to students. It also notes that the government disbanded the Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Black racism and anti-Indigenous racism subcommittees under the Anti-Racism Directorate, which has severely limited the fundamental work that needs to go on in this province to address racism and hate, and has also underfunded our post-secondary institutions to such an extent that the equity and diversity offices and the mental health offices on campus are being very limited in the kinds of support that they can provide to students.

Bill 166, instead of providing the funding necessary for those campus offices to do that vital work of supporting students who are in mental health distress and addressing racism and hate on campus—instead, this legislation allows the minister to unilaterally dictate policies on campus, opening the door to unprecedented political interference in the autonomy of our post-secondary institutions.

These petitioners—and I fully agree with them—are calling on the government to stop Bill 166, to use its powers under the Anti-Racism Act to effectively deal with equity and anti-racism in the province, and to significantly increase funding to post-secondary institutions so that they can provide the support that students need.

I affix my signature—

Interjections.

Orders of the day? I recognize the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington.

Speaker, just so that you’re entirely clear about this, this bill is about making sure that Enbridge customers pay more and get poorer and that Enbridge makes a lot more money and gets a lot richer. That’s what this bill is about.

The Premier is planning to raise your gas bill this year. That’s what this bill makes possible. That’s what this bill is set up to do.

The Premier decided to protect Enbridge to make sure it could bring in billions of dollars from its customers and take money out of the pockets of those customers across this province. His buddies at Enbridge are being protected, and he’s sticking you, each and every Enbridge customer in this province, with the bill. That bill is calculated to be between $300 and $600 over the next four years.

Everyone in this room is well aware of how stretched people are, well aware of how they’re pushed hard by high rents, by mortgages that are difficult to cover, by rising grocery prices. They need this like they need a hole in their wallet. They need protection from Enbridge, and this government is not only not protecting them, it is making sure that Enbridge gets to collect billions of dollars from them—billions of dollars.

If you think that you should be paying more on your Enbridge bill, then you should support this legislation that’s come forward. And if you don’t think you should be stuck with those extra charges, if you think that Enbridge should be the body that actually coughs up the few billion dollars that they want to expand the gas supply system, then you should oppose this bill. Enbridge pays. That’s the situation that we would have if this bill did not go through. If the bill goes through, the customers pay, just as they have in so many other circumstances.

I don’t think I’ve made it plain enough: This bill is about raising your gas charges, making life more expensive for you and making sure that Enbridge shareholders make a lot more money.

This bill reverses the decision by the Ontario Energy Board—the agency set up in this province to regulate utilities and protect customers—the decision they made in December to protect people in Ontario from higher gas bills. Now, it’s the job of the Ontario Energy Board, that regulator, to look out for consumer interests when energy companies apply to raise their rates, as they do constantly. The job of the Ontario Energy Board, their mandate, is to protect the customers. They’re told, “Look out for the consumers. Look out for the public. Make sure they aren’t gouged, they aren’t ripped off, they aren’t pillaged, they aren’t silently stolen from. Look after those customers.” That’s their mandate, and that’s whether that utility is electrical or gas: protect the customers. And that is what the Ontario Energy Board did last December in, I would say, a Christmas surprise, a Christmas gift. They stood up and said, “We can read our mandate. We think this charge against the customers can’t be justified. We’re not going to approve it.”

Now this government is completely horrified that those customers are being protected. They’re horrified that Enbridge will not continue to make the crushingly huge profits that they’ve been making. And this government wants to reverse that. They know what has to be protected at all costs, and that’s the profits going to Enbridge. The customers? Not an issue, not a concern.

Since we had this bill before committee, the news service Narwhal published an article on the close co-operation between senior Conservative government staff and Enbridge. It was as if they were working in collusion. It was pretty clear from the article that the first concern of the government was to protect Enbridge and its profits. In what they reported, there weren’t big issues about, “How do we protect rural ratepayers? How do we look after small businesses? How do we make sure that new home buyers don’t pay more than they would have paid before?” No, their focus was on Enbridge’s profits and how expensive this decision was going to be for Enbridge, and then they looked for stories that would buttress the argument that they made.

Enbridge is a multi-billion-dollar company, and frankly, the one that we deal with in Ontario is a subsidiary of the larger Enbridge that runs gas transmission lines across North America—both of them multi-billion-dollar operations with multi-billion-dollar profits, not exactly on the edge of poverty. These companies have a few bucks available if they wanted to actually help customers, but that is not what we’re dealing with here. This is not about the government trying to protect customers and trying to keep energy bills low. This is about making sure that the company that wants to squeeze every last penny out of you is protected and given licence to do that. In fact, this government will ensure that your gas bill is going to go up.

Two weeks ago, we asked the Premier about his government’s efforts to ensure that Enbridge was protected and consumers got stuck with the bill. What do you have to say, Premier, on this?

So we asked: “In December, the Ontario Energy Board ruled that consumers should no longer have to subsidize Enbridge’s gas expansion. But instead of listening to the experts, the government decided to keep forcing consumers to pay the subsidy.

“Yesterday, the Narwhal revealed that the Premier’s top officials weren’t just communicating with Enbridge on this; they were actively coordinating their response together.”

Question for the government: Did the government give preferential treatment to Enbridge when it intervened pre-emptively to undermine the regulator and drive up costs for customers?

I’ll go on to the other two questions that were asked because I’ll summarize the response of the government.

The next question: On the morning of the Ontario Energy Board ruling, the chief of staff to the Minister of Energy reached out to the Premier’s staff and called an urgent meeting to prepare a response in case the OEB ruled against Enbridge in favour of consumers. Oh, horrors, protecting consumers; what has the world come to?

It just happens that the minister’s chief of staff is a former lobbyist for Enbridge. Was this chief of staff in a conflict of interest when he decided to put the interests of his former employer ahead of Ontario’s gas consumers?

Third part: Government lawyers warned the Premier’s staff and the former Enbridge lobbyists now working as the minister’s chief of staff that intervening in the OEB decision carried legal risks. They did it anyway. That’s why we’re debating this bill today.

They announced the plan to overrule the Ontario Energy Board, the regulator acting to protect customers—overrule them only 15 hours after the decision was published. I’ve never seen a government so determined to overrule an independent regulator and drive up gas bills for Ontario consumers.

Why is the government risking legal action in order to give preferential treatment to a gas monopoly over the interests of hard-working Ontarians?

Speaker, you had to be there to enjoy the show. No one will be surprised to hear that the Minister of Energy was bobbing and weaving like crazy to avoid answering the question. There were all kinds of diversions. Rabbits were pulled out of hats, red herrings were dumped on carpets, smoke was blown. The minister was a cat on a hot tin roof.

My experience around here is that when a minister can’t answer a question—and I’ve seen many over the years not be able to answer a question—then you have a minister with a big problem on their hands, because they like to be able to say, “You’re totally wrong; here’s the reason,” but when they dance and bob and weave and get into the red-herring stuff, you know that they understand they have a big problem on their hand.

We all remember the kind of—and I’ll just call it ambiguity in answers from ministers at the start of the greenbelt scandal. They wandered all over the landscape, sort of like a subdivision with no clear idea where it wanted to go. Why? Because what they were doing was wrong, wrong enough that they had to back off, bring in legislation to nullify those decisions, wrong enough that there’s now an RCMP investigation of the whole thing.

So far, we haven’t heard about Enbridge executives showing up at a wedding hosted by the Premier, but we’ve heard enough to know the government’s whole efforts are directed at enriching Enbridge and making life harder for families in this province.

This bill will strip Ontarians of protection from Enbridge’s attempts to gouge customers across Ontario. The minister, the Premier don’t have to do that. The Premier could take another course. The Premier could protect you, the Enbridge customers. He could protect your families and protect families across this province.

He knows that people are having a tough time. He talks about it regularly. We have debates, discussions, here in the Legislature, about the difficulties people are facing. People are pushed hard, as I said in the beginning. They’re facing rising rents. My colleague from Parkdale–High Park raised that just a few minutes ago. People are pushed to the limit.

They’re having a tough time with grocery bills. You’ve got major retailers that have engaged in squeezing people, squeezing their suppliers, squeezing the customers. The Premier knows that people are having a tough time staying afloat, and yet, today, we’re debating a bill that will protect the profits of Enbridge and raise gas bills that people will have to pay. It will take money out of people’s pockets. That’s the reality.

At the committee meeting a few weeks ago, we brought forward a number of amendments to protect people from higher bills, and I want to thank Unifor for suggesting two very useful amendments that would help reduce people’s Enbridge bills, one of which was to set up a system for monitoring and preventing leakages of natural gas from the system.

Let’s face it: Having gas leaks is bad in terms of safety, it’s bad in terms of people’s health, but it’s also bad in terms of the bills that people pay, because all of the customers are charged for the total cost of the gas coming through the system. Enbridge wants people to burn as much as they can: The more they burn, the more money is made. If the gas leaks into the atmosphere, well, hey, that’s just another form of consumption.

So did the government support that amendment which would be good for the environment, for health and for people’s bills? No, they did not.

Unifor also asked for action on the contracting out of utility functions. I raise this because a little more than two decades ago, there was a landmark hearing at the Ontario Energy Board about how Enbridge was hiving off parts of its operations to become what one would call a “virtual utility.” The ability to actually regulate the utility and control the costs they were taking out of people’s pockets was dramatically reduced when they contract out. In fact, it was alleged at the time that Enbridge was contracting out work—both direct maintenance and administration—to companies that they, in turn, controlled but which were outside the regulatory framework; in other words, there was no price control on them, which is why a regulator is there.

That was a good amendment, one put forward by Unifor which would protect customers from being gouged. No one will be surprised to know the government voted that down.

Now, we brought forward another amendment, and I want to thank Environmental Defence and Stand.earth for their suggestions for protecting customers from higher bills and that Enbridge pay for their own expansions. Pretty straightforward. Enbridge’s consultants know that there is a time limit to the gas distribution system in Ontario and across North America, and if the system starts phasing out more quickly—and it’s headed in that direction—the remaining customers get stuck with higher bills.

The amendment was to ensure that Enbridge, its investors, paid those extra costs, not the customers. No one in this room will be surprised to learn the government voted it down.

This bill is about making customers pay more, it’s about Enbridge getting richer, and when we actually get into the details of the bill in committee with amendments that would protect customers, they were refused by the government. It is focused on making sure Enbridge makes as much money as it possibly can.

I’m going to go back a bit to the decision by the OEB, the Ontario Energy Board, the regulator responsible for protecting customers from utilities.

Just before Christmas, the Ontario Energy Board announced the decision that would make Enbridge Gas responsible for the cost of expanding its gas system and protect almost four million customers from hundreds of millions of dollars in higher heating bills. Actually, I’m understating—we’re talking billions.

This is a very important point: Enbridge has investors. It has cash flow. If it wanted to put money into those new connections and collect from those new customers over 40 years, they could do that; no problem. They don’t have to take the money out of your pocket. They don’t have to take the money out of the pockets of the constituents that you represent. They could take it out of their own cash, but instead, they want it to come from existing gas customers.

I should say—again, I refer back to that 2002 decision by the Ontario Energy Board: They noted a pipeline Enbridge had been built that was uneconomic, one that actually drained money out of existing customers, and they said, “No, you can’t take that money from customers. The shareholders have to pay for that.” This is not unprecedented.

If Enbridge wants to put money in, they can put their shareholder money in and see if it comes back. But no, they treat customers like an ATM. They get permission to go to the machine, hit the button and take the money out of your pockets. That’s what’s going on.

The Ontario Energy Board, whose job is to protect customers from gouging, whose job is to protect customers from being taken advantage of, said, “No, we’re not going to support the increase that you’re asking for, billions of dollars for expansion of the system. It’s going to cost $300 to $600 per customer over the next four years.” They said, “Enbridge, it’s your expense. You pay. It’s yours”—entirely legit and something that’s been done before. The very next day in December, the minister announced that this government would be taking steps to reverse the decision of the Ontario Energy Board, the regulator they put in place.

Now I have to say, for those who have been around for a while, I used to refer to the Ontario Energy Board under the Liberals as glove puppets, as Muppets, and I think I was accurate, because I watched the performance. Those on the other side who were upset at many of the decisions made by the Liberals should be well aware that the Liberals skirted around the OEB. The OEB was there for a lot of show and display, but when it came to the fundamental questions, the Liberals said, “Well, very nice to have you, glad you enjoy your pay, but we’re going to make this decision. You’re not going to be part of it.”

So when this regulator actually stood up and said, “Hey, we’re going to follow our mandate and protect the customers of Enbridge,” I was astounded. They actually did their job. They had read their mandate. They listened to the evidence that was presented to them over a year—thousands of pages of evidence—and they said, “Damn, we’ve got to protect people.”

Of course, the party that used to attack the OEB for not standing up for customers realized that and said to themselves, “Boy, if this decision is allowed to go forward, then we’ve got Enbridge—a big company, very profitable—going to be very cranky with us.” That’s why we have this bill before us today. Enbridge and the government came together very quickly to protect Enbridge—within hours—and give the minister talking points, and obediently, the minister used those talking points and does to this day.

But, Speaker, wait; there’s more. Not only did the government decide right then to protect Enbridge, but they wrote the law to ensure that the regulator would no longer actually regulate. The bill restructures things so any well-connected lobbyist or team of lobbyists can get around the regulator. What kind of heaven have they created for utilities who want to pillage the public? The regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, is now there in many ways as they were for the Liberals: for display and not for protection of consumers. It’s an expensive decoration. It disguises where real decisions are made about your hydro and gas bills.

This is straight out of this government’s greenbelt playbook: decisions made in backrooms to protect powerful private utilities; not to protect you, not protect the Enbridge customers who are out there, not to protect the constituents who you represent, but to protect Enbridge.

The Premier is going to raise your gas bill. When you get the bill in the mail later this year with a notice saying, “We’ve got an increase,” I think you should remember who made sure that that happened. Make sure you remember who put their thumb on the scale to ensure that the price is higher. This Premier has acted and is acting to protect the very wealthy Enbridge and stick you and your family with the bill.

Not only is this decision that was protecting gas consumers going up in smoke, but future decisions will be in trouble. There were a few people who had comments. The Toronto Atmospheric Fund made a presentation. What was interesting to me was that typically they’re much more focused on environmental and climate issues, but in this presentation to us at committee their focus was on the reality of ending effective regulation. They wrote:

“We have reservations regarding the extent of the new ministerial authority proposed in section 96.2. As noted above, the OEB has a mandate to protect ... consumers’ interests”—I noted that before; that’s their job. That’s what they did—“while facilitating rational expansion of gas infrastructure....

“The OEB does this using a well-regarded transparent and evidence-based process in which all stakeholders are invited to participate, introduce evidence and challenge evidence introduced by other parties. This quasi-judicial standard of decision-making provides a safeguard, ensuring balance and alignment with goals of keeping energy costs down and expanding the energy system.

“Proposed section 96.2”—which is in the bill that’s before us—“permanently supersedes this transparent, evidence-based process with unrestricted ministerial authority to decide which gas infrastructure projects are in the public interest and who should bear the cost of the projects. Unlike the OEB, there is no obligation for the minister to consult stakeholders and transparently weigh evidence in an open process before issuing directives. This change also encourages project proponents to focus efforts on ministerial advocacy instead of putting forward rationale arguments and credible evidence in OEB applications and proceedings.”

What they’re saying is that the regulator is fully and truly just The Muppet Show; that everyone who can afford a lobbyist goes around that Muppet, goes to the minister, makes their pitch and, if they’ve been to a wedding or a stag, probably is successful.

Similarly, the Society of United Professionals, which represents the actual OEB staff, the Ontario Energy Board staff, spoke about the end of regulatory independence and they talked about the impact on investors coming to Ontario of the Muppet-ization of this regulator:

“At the heart of the society’s opposition to the proposed Bill 165 is the removal of regulatory independence from the OEB. Publicly traded companies that rely on regulated rates, and credit-rating agencies that determine credit quality in the province’s utility sector, need to trust that the regulator maintains its independence and does not become a political arm of the government.”

In a recent analysis, Standard and Poor’s Global, the bond-rating agency, laid out the four pillars of Ontario’s natural gas and electricity regulatory environment. They are regulatory stability, tariff-setting procedures, financial stability and regulatory independence. They further state that they “believe the Ontarian regulatory framework is the most credit-supportive kind, benefiting all key stakeholders.” However, they warn their assessment of the province’s regulatory framework could change if there was “a loss of regulatory independence or instances of political interference in the framework.”

Well, I’ll tell you right now, if you’re a credit-rating agency and someone is applying to invest in energy infrastructure in Ontario, and you know that you no longer actually have an independent regulator—that you actually just have a lobby machine that determines energy decisions based on who is most effective at getting to a minister—then you have an impact on the credit rating of investments made in this province. That is an argument that I would have thought would work on the government, because the argument was made in front of government members in committee, but it was ignored.

Also interesting were the words of the Industrial Gas Users Association—so you’re talking big employers in Ontario, major industries who use a lot of gas. They said there were two unintended consequences of the bill. I think they were overly generous, because I think they were entirely intended, but they said “unintended,” I think because they’re polite. They said that selective approvals—the ability to approve projects by going around the regulator—would push up costs for industry in Ontario; that uneconomic, nonviable projects would be subsidized by the industries that we depend on right now to employ tens of thousands of people.

So the big industries that this government talks about all the time didn’t like this. You should understand that they were not fans of ending regulation in Ontario. They said that the independent regulator has been useful in keeping costs down, but what we’re seeing now is going to drive costs up.

They also said they couldn’t understand why procedural fairness was something that was ruled out by the bill. I didn’t get into that, but there actually are rules in Ontario that governments and bodies should follow to ensure that decisions are made on a fair basis. Those were wiped out in this bill when it comes to energy regulation. They suggested that it was not a good thing to have that happen.

So, the Premier is planning to raise your gas bills this year, and in future remove any protection that Ontarians may have from lobbyists reshaping energy policy in backrooms. Man, I feel like I’m back in Dalton McGuinty’s Ontario. It is amazing. For anyone who was here for the gas plant scandal—

Interjection.

Good afternoon, Speaker. First, on a point of order, please—

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 7, 2024, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

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

J’aimerais remercier Nicole Bessette d’Azilda dans mon comté pour ces pétitions : « Soutenez le système d’éducation francophone en Ontario ».

Comme vous le savez, monsieur le Président, les enfants francophones ont droit à aller à l’école en français. Nous avons des écoles francophones du côté public et catholique pas mal partout en Ontario. On voit également une augmentation des inscriptions dans les écoles francophones, ce qui est quelque chose qui me fait plaisir et qui fait qu’on a besoin d’environ 1 000 enseignants ou enseignantes supplémentaires à chaque année.

Malheureusement, avec les changements qui ont été faits par le gouvernement, il y a seulement 500 nouveaux enseignants ou enseignantes francophones qui graduent à chaque année. Donc, on voit que dans toutes les écoles francophones, il y a eu une augmentation de 450 % des gens qui enseignent dans nos écoles francophones qui ne sont pas qualifiés comme enseignants ou enseignantes. Donc, des centaines et des centaines de personnes, surtout des parents francophones, ont signé la pétition pour demander au gouvernement de mettre en place le rapport qui a été fait par le groupe de travail sur la pénurie des enseignants et enseignantes dans l’éducation de langue française qui nous aiderait à combler ce déficit et à s’assurer que tous les enfants francophones reçoivent une éducation de qualité.

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

This petition is titled “Bring Back Rent Control.” Rent control existed for all units occupied by tenants regardless of what year they were built until this government came into power in 2018 and rent control for buildings built after 2018 was removed. As such, many renters in Toronto and across Ontario who are living in these units built after 2018 do not have protections of rent control. When you don’t have any cap on rent increases, it puts tenants in precarious housing. Massive, unpredictable rent increases also take away stability and predictability to build a life and to plan a life.

As such, this petition is calling on the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass my bill Rent Control for All Tenants Act so that we can ensure all tenants can live with rent control protections in safe, affordable homes.

Yes. It just totally—that’s where we are again. Amazing.

I want to dig a little further. There’s a subsidy that gas customers do not even know they are funding. If you talk to most people, they look at their gas bill and they see “gas”—it’s there—and they see “distribution,” another piece. That distribution is the cost of getting the gas through the pipes to their houses. They don’t spend a lot of time analyzing their bills. Most normal people don’t. What is going to be happening to them is that part on distribution is going to be going up because they’re going to pay the cost of expanding the system—not the shareholders, but the customers. The customers working long hours, getting as much overtime as they can, where they can, sometimes working second jobs, people who are cutting corners all the time, are going to get higher bills because this government wants to make Enbridge richer.

This past Christmas, I was talking to my nephew over Christmas dinner, and I said—because that’s the kind of weird uncle I am, to discuss these things over Christmas dinner—“You know that your gas bill is going to go up so that Enbridge can expand its gas system?” He put down his turkey and he said, “You’ve got to be kidding me—pass the cranberry. You’ve got to be kidding me about that. Why am I paying for that?” And I said, “Well, it’s the way it’s working.”

The independent regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, decided to put a stop to the subsidy because it raises energy bills for existing gas customers—and for new home buyers. This is not a wonderful gift for them. It sets them up for higher costs in the years to come, and it also increases financial risks for the whole of the gas system. Ending the subsidy to new developments alone would save gas customers over $1 billion over the next four years in avoided pipeline subsidy costs—a billion bucks.

So when this government says, “No, no, we’re going forward; it isn’t going to affect people’s gas bills,” tell me where the billion is going to come from. Because Enbridge is going to get permission to actually charge it to their customers. It isn’t some magic group of elves and leprechauns somewhere that are going to be coughing up. It’s going to be people with real bank accounts who are trying to get through their daily lives who are going to be charged this extra money. It comes to about $300 per customer. Some calculations show it at $600 over the next four years, so let’s say $300 to $600. There are about four million customers on the system. Now, I note that that $1 billion doesn’t include any interest or profit payments that go to Enbridge. I’m talking bare minimum. I’m just talking the minimum number that was cited by the Ontario Energy Board.

What ending the subsidy would do, aside from protecting customers from being gouged, is it would encourage developers to install electric heat pumps in new homes instead of gas. I note the Minister of Energy has his home heated by a heat pump. He doesn’t have any gas connection. He talked about it when we were going through second reading. He talked about how comfortable it was, how he was happy. He didn’t talk about the water in a cat dish freezing over because he couldn’t keep the heat up in the winter. He didn’t talk about the end of civilization or his teeth chattering while he watched Netflix on a Saturday night. No. The heat pump kept him warm. He wasn’t in downtown Toronto. Belleville is still on the shores of Lake Ontario, but it’s a bit cooler than down here.

Ending the subsidy would be a win for customers who otherwise get charged that amount. It would be a win for new home owners, who’d get a far more cost-effective heating and cooling system. And it would be a win for the environment—I’ll detail that later. It would lower energy bills for existing customers, something I think is wildly popular, lower energy bills for new home owners because they’d be getting a less expensive system, and it would lower carbon emissions. And it would avoid costs further down the road when people move away from natural gas.

But there is a loser in the OEB decision, and the government picked it up within seconds; probably on their phones to the loser saying, “Enbridge, you’re going to lose money here.” Well, maybe it was the other way around. Enbridge may have phoned them and said, “Hey, we’re going to lose money here. Jump to it.”

Enbridge can afford, frankly, to finance any expansion they want. They don’t need to use the customers as an ATM. Many tenants and homeowners, by the way, are going to have a tough time dealing with those bills. So our task, I believe, is to protect those tenants, those homeowners, and not protect these multi-billion-dollar multinational corporations. Well, well.

Now, the minister is trying to pass this legislation, the bill before us, to overturn that decision, the decision to protect customers. The government has decided to stand with Enbridge and its lobbyists, using the argument that change will reduce housing supply and affordability.

But developers can just forgo gas and install heat pumps instead. If they have a customer who really wants gas, they can do that, but everyone gets an electrical connection in any event. You’re not building new subdivisions without electrical connections, frankly. And if you’ve got an electrical connection, you can put in a heat pump.

So why wouldn’t one take the opportunity to install an electric heat pump and forgo the extra cost of putting in gas? And even if you didn’t want to go there, why do people around this province have to subsidize this? Why do people in Sudbury or London or Kingston or Thunder Bay have to pay more to subsidize a multi-billion-dollar corporation?

You don’t have to take my word for any of this. Ian Mondrow is a partner with the law firm Gowling WLG, practising in the area of energy regulation policy. He wrote an op-ed that was published in the Globe and Mail. He can see that leaving the regulator’s decision in place would protect current gas customers and new homeowners. Now, Gowling is not an environmental group. They’re a pretty straightforward corporate Bay Street law firm, and they understand the economics of this whole system. I’m going to quote the op-ed from the lawyer who specializes in energy regulation policy:

“While including gas connection costs to developers up front would marginally increase the cost of a new house, an offsetting rate credit recognizing the upfront payment would lower ongoing gas rates, resulting in a wash for homebuyers. The other choice would be to forgo gas servicing in favour of electric heat pumps, thus lowering the operating costs of the house—a win for homebuyers.”

The member from Perth–Wellington, back when we were talking at second reading, was talking about new home buyers. Well, we’ve got someone who specializes in energy policy saying this would be better for new home buyers.

“Either choice would reduce Enbridge capital costs, and potential stranded assets, in the range of $1 billion over the proposed five-year gas rate plan period, significantly reducing delivery rates and customer risk.”

Two associate professors, Brandon Schaufele and Adam Fremeth of the Ivey Business School, wrote a post about this as well: “The government’s decision to override the OEB should have virtually no effect on affordable housing in the province.” So the government’s whole argument that their bill is one that will keep the cost of housing down does not bear scrutiny from academics who work in this field.

If this bill passes, it’s not going make housing any cheaper. It’s not going to be to the advantage of homebuyers. In other words, the government’s actions will make you, Enbridge customers, pay more and will not help those new home buyers. But it will mean higher rates for your gas bills. The Premier is going to raise your gas bill. Don’t be confused. Be very clear and plain about this. The Premier is going to raise your gas bill.

Now, gas is no longer the cheapest heating source. Investing in new gas pipelines for heating is financially foolish because they will become obsolete and a massive cost to all current and future customers as we stop burning gas to heat our homes and other buildings.

Even the minister was talking about the electrification of home heating. He knows it’s coming; in fact, his whole plan for providing electricity to Ontario is based on the idea of a massive increase in electricity demand for home heating. He knows that the demand for gas is going to fade dramatically, or at least he’s willing to bet several billion dollars on that analysis.

So you’ve got the minister saying, “I need to spend billions of dollars on new generation for home heating,” and at the same time saying, “No, no, I’ve got to protect the gas utility.” Well, the reality is, you’re moving from one technology to another. What his plan means is that over the next few decades, fewer and fewer people will be burning gas, and the people who leave the system will not have to carry the burden of the cost of those pipes that are in the ground, but the ones who stay will be stuck with it.

There are cheaper alternatives to what has been before us. The OEB recognized that. Like rotary-dial phones, like Blockbuster Video, natural gas furnaces are coming to the end of their time—not tomorrow, not in 2025. But over the next 20 years, cheaper alternatives such as home heat pumps are undermining Enbridge’s market for home heating.

Even the parliamentary assistant, in his comments on third reading the other day, said the time for natural gas, in the near term, the middle term—yes, in the next 10 years, the next 20 years, it will probably be around; the next 30 years, it won’t. I appreciate the comment from the parliamentary assistant on that.

So the minister said exactly that—we’re going to be electrifying our homes. He’s betting a lot of money on that.

The OEB ruled that Enbridge can’t spread the cost of hooking up new homes over decades or charge it to current gas customers like you, like the people who are watching this, because those who are Enbridge customers are going to be stuck with a bill that’s going to be pretty significant. But that’s what the Premier wants to do—he wants to raise your gas bills. He will increase your gas bill. The OEB said that Enbridge or new home developers could take the risk if they want, but not new home buyers or current Enbridge customers. They recognize this would likely mean many more people installing cheaper heat pumps to provide heating.

As I’ve said before, the minister has an electric heat pump; he has got an electric resistance coil to back it up. And as I said before, the bowl of water for the cat has not frozen in the kitchen. He’s still alive. There are many debates, but he’s still there. So, apparently, an electric heat pump does work outside of downtown Toronto.

I’m going to go back to Ian Mondrow, the lawyer working for Gowling, about the question of how we can actually deal with the issues before us, because passing legislation to reinstate a subsidy that’s completely out of step and that risks financial disaster down the road doesn’t make sense.

The minister, in his statement in December and his speech at second reading, said the decision of the OEB would increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of a new home. The facts do not support that claim. When you look for those facts, when you round them up, when you put them together and you compare them to the minister’s statement, they are not related; they are not even distant cousins. There is no blood relation between the facts and the minister’s statement; it’s just not there.

I’m going to go back to the energy regulator lawyer from Gowling, Ian Mondrow, who had this to say about the claim by the minister—he writes in a more formal style than me, but I think he’s quite good:

“Early the following day after the release of the OEB decision, Ontario’s Minister of Energy released a statement expressing that he was ‘extremely disappointed’ with the OEB’s decision.... The minister asserted that the OEB’s determination on this point ... ‘could lead to tens of thousands of dollars added to the cost of building new homes, and ... would slow or halt the construction of new homes, including affordable housing.’”

Good God. That’s a scary thought. You’ve got to sober up when you hear that kind of statement.

Interestingly, the energy lawyer went on:

“If those facts were true”—and I like the way he slips in the “if”—“then the minister could well have a legitimate and immediate housing policy concern. The facts as determined in the OEB’s decision do not, however, support a ‘tens of thousands of dollars’ increase in home costs, and it does not appear that the decision will in fact ‘slow or halt the construction of new homes.’ The conclusions expressed in the minister’s statement”—and, frankly, his speech on the bill, according to the lawyer—“are inconsistent with the facts relied on, and determinations made, by the OEB’s three-member expert panel of commissioners as a result of the comprehensive hearing process undertaken.”

I want to say a few other things about the area of charges. I’m speaking to you gas customers who will get stuck with a higher bill if this legislation passes. One is that claim that gas heating is the cheapest option. Numerous studies now show that when you compare the combined costs of equipment and energy, heat pumps provide cheaper heating than gas heating. Just putting in a heat pump or putting in a furnace or an air conditioner, those capital costs and the cost over a lifetime—it’s cheaper to go with a heat pump. In fact, the minister referenced that in his speech, that Enbridge, which keeps spreading the claim about gas being cheaper, is now facing an investigation and hearing at the Competition Bureau for false advertising, for making that claim that gas is cheaper.

The National Observer reported on this case: “Enbridge has a new fight on its hands as Competition Bureau Canada officially launches an investigation against the gas giant over allegations the company is misleading customers about the role of gas in the energy transition.” I don’t think the Competition Bureau picks up frivolous cases. It will be interesting to see what their decision is. But on the face of it, there is enough credibility for the hearing to go forward. “Specifically, Enbridge has promoted new gas hook-ups as the cheapest way for Ontarians to heat homes, while branding natural gas as ‘low carbon’ and ‘clean energy.’” That’s being challenged by the environmental organization Environmental Defence.

National Observer reports: “‘Enbridge’s dishonest marketing is duping people into installing new gas hook-ups and spending thousands of dollars on new gas furnaces and other appliances, falsely claiming its cheaper than heating with electricity, which is just not true,’ said Environmental Defence programs director Keith Brooks in a statement. ‘It is good that the Competition Bureau has agreed to investigate Enbridge.’

“The ... complaint filed by Environmental Defence, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and a group of Ontario residents in September accuses Enbridge of falsely claiming gas is the most cost-effective way to heat homes. Enbridge has made this claim online and in communities pegged for expansion in an attempt to increase its customer base.”

Environmental Defence summarizes the situation this way: “Enbridge is misleading consumers into connecting to its gas system using false and misleading representations.... Enbridge is telling potential customers that gas is the most cost-effective way to heat their homes and suggesting”—and this I find totally entertaining—“that it is ‘clean energy’ and ‘low carbon.’ None of these representations are true.” That lack of honesty about what’s real and not real when it comes to home heating is something people should keep in mind.

But the other issue, and this is a big one because as the minister has said, we’re moving away from gas heating our homes—again, this government is committed to spending billions of dollars on new electricity generation to heat homes. If they’re doing that—if they are successful in their plans, there will not be a market for Enbridge. Those who are hooked up to the system will be stuck with the cost of a system that is increasingly expensive. We’ve had these transitions before. It’s not unique. It’s not novel.

If you look at the energy history of this province, you can see that at about 1958-59 TransCanada pipeline came from Alberta to Ontario with natural gas. This opened a whole new way to heat homes. It was cleaner. It was more convenient. It was probably cheaper than coal. From 1960 to 1970, the portion of homes that used coal for home heating went from 30% to 1%. Within a decade, 30% of Ontario homes no longer used what had been a very popular fuel.

So I want to note you can have a very rapid transition from one technology to another, frankly, with probably very little in the way of governments programs in that case. People looked at it and said, “Hey, handling coal is pretty dirty. We spend a lot of money on it. I put in gas. I just got a thermostat on the wall. I move it around when I want more heat. I don’t have to go in the basement and shovel coal into the furnace.”

I have to say, a reduction from 30% of homes being heated by coal in 1960 to 1% by 1970: These transitions happen, they happen rapidly and those who stay with the old technology get stuck with bills.

We’re facing a situation in Ontario now where, as we move away from gas home heating, something that the minister has said we’re doing because he has his own electrification plan for Ontario—people who stay out in the gas system, who get sold onto the gas system are going to be stuck with higher bills. The pipes that are put in the ground are going to be paid for by those who can’t afford to buy a new heating system, ones whose furnace is, say, eight years old. Those furnaces have a 15- or 20-year lifespan. If your furnace is eight years old, you’re not going to get rid of it and buy a new furnace. Mostly people can’t. They only buy when they have to—normally in January, when their furnace dies and they phone desperately to get a new one. They will be stuck with higher bills as the system becomes more and more expensive. It’s a risk for homeowners; it’s a risk for tenants. It’s a problem people are going to have to face in the future.

Frankly, continuing the subsidy from existing consumers—and remember, the Premier wants to raise your gas bill. He will drive up your gas bill. He will make you pay more so he can create deeper problems for you in the years to come.

Now, another reality that we need to face is the volatility of gas prices in this world. Quite a few people who are gas customers, about four million in Ontario, know that around 2022, the price of gas went up dramatically. What was happening in world events at the time? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the disruption of the supply of natural gas to Western Europe, and frankly, with that disruption and the rocketing increase in the world price for gas, you had a situation where the world market was setting the price.

We in Ontario generally have paid a much lower price than people do on the world market, but you need to know that 60% of the gas that we burn in Ontario is imported from the United States. It used to come from western Canada, now mostly from the United States, and in the United States there are large numbers of liquefied natural gas export terminals that are shipping that gas out. In fact, recently, within the last few months, there was a pause put on a few of those liquefied natural gas terminals because industrial manufacturers in the United States were saying, “These exports are killing us. They’re killing us. You need to stop exporting all the gas because it’s changing our cost picture.”

Well, that’s right. The world price is a lot higher than we pay. The more you integrate into the gas system, the more you’re tied into a very volatile pricing framework, one that can give price shocks. And we’ve had them. I don’t know when we’ll have another spike or a price shock, but wars happen, disruptions of energy supplies happen, and people suffer as a result.

I need to emphasize something that I mentioned at the beginning. The OEB, the Ontario Energy Board, the regulator, didn’t say you can’t have a gas connection to a new house. They didn’t ban it; they don’t have the power. If Enbridge wanted to install new gas connections to new homes, they could do it with the capital that’s provided by their investors, and they could try and recover it over the next few decades. But actually, I don’t think they take that as a good bet. I think they realize that there’s a huge risk to putting that money down into expansion of the system, and instead of them putting their money on the table and watching the wheel spin, they’re putting the money of customers across this province on the table. No one knows what the outcome will be other than this: Gas will fade out over the next 20 to 30 years and the people who are last in the system will be paying a lot of money.

Speaker, there’s no doubt that high prices are the number one thing that we’re dealing with here. I would say that you go out there and people who are trying to make sure their rent is paid on the 1st or who have mortgage payments, who have to get groceries, are very focused on immediate costs, and I don’t blame them. But we need to keep in mind that there’s another reality, something that is coming at us, and that’s that the world is steadily getting hotter. Every year, we are seeing more extreme weather events, which is driving up the cost of insurance, which actually puts a burden on public treasuries. Because insurance doesn’t cover all those costs, it means that we’re going to be paying more through our taxes, either higher taxes or reduced services, to cover the damage from climate change.

In Ontario, the second-largest number in terms of greenhouse gas emissions is from heating buildings. So in order to actually meet any targets to stabilize the climate to avoid the worst of extreme weather, we actually have to move away from gas. It isn’t just that heat pumps are cheaper, which they are; that they have a future, which they do, but also that we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to stabilize our climate so that we do have a future, so that our children have a future.

There are places now where the impact of climate is having a very direct impact. Sorry, impact—

Interjections.