I apologize to the member. There are conversations taking place and they’re disrupting the member who is speaking. If you could please keep your conversations a little bit lower. Thank you.

I apologize. The member can continue.

I apologize. The member from Toronto–Danforth can continue.

I follow climate issues, and you should know that there are three jurisdictions in North America right now facing really severe problems around insurance costs: Florida, Louisiana and California.

Now, Florida and Louisiana, because of the impact of hurricanes, the increasing power of those hurricanes, the frequency of those hurricanes, insurance companies are saying, “It’s not worth it to us to insure because we’re going to have to replace these houses pretty regularly,” so they’re actually pulling out of those jurisdictions.

In California, it’s forest fires that are causing insurance companies to say, “We’re not taking any more business.” In those three jurisdictions, three state governments are setting up a low—

Interjections.

The reality is that people are having a harder and harder time getting insurance, that they’re seeing their insurance bills double, triple and quadruple because, simply, the cost of replacing buildings on a regular basis because of fire or hurricanes is an awfully expensive process.

Those are the most vulnerable spots, but we’re going to see that here in Ontario. I was talking to one of my colleagues from the north today, talking about the increase in insurance costs because of wildfires. This is a reality. We are going to see increasing impacts on our standard of living from rising temperatures. It’s not just going to be insurance. It’s also going to be food production because more drought and more floods reduce food production. You get more diseases in a hotter world, more exotic diseases.

And already in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada has said that something like a million homes are facing potential for losing home insurance because of flood risk. Speaker, we actually have to deal with the climate issue seriously, and we have an opportunity because of technological advances to actually help people contain or reduce their heating and cooling bills, while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This bill will undermine that because the simple reality is that when a developer is putting in a new subdivision, if they’re getting all these new pipes paid for by customers in the rest of Ontario, they’re going to do that and put in a gas furnace.

If they weren’t getting this subsidy, they would probably put in a heat pump because it’s the cheapest option—pretty straightforward. But in doing this, in passing this bill, the government is undermining its own climate plan as well as reducing people’s standard of living and putting all of us at much greater risk in the years to come.

So, Speaker, I think I’ve made most of the arguments that I want to make, but I need to touch on a few other things. I think that the undermining of the independence of the regulator is something that is not at the top of most people’s minds.

I was talking to a reporter the other day who was trying to cover this story and they said, “I don’t know how to report this story. No one has heard of the Ontario Energy Board.” Yes, I’m seeing an opposition member nod his head, because he’s right. Who has heard of the Ontario Energy Board? I mean, you’ve got to be a pretty exotic bunch of people—sorry, 124 of us in this room and maybe a thousand in the rest of the province who have heard of it.

And there’s all kinds of stuff talked about with this 40-year amortization of the cost of hookups. Very few people spend a lot of time thinking about amortization of utility infrastructure—very few sane people who talk to neighbours and are considered fun.

But this is going to be a big issue for people when they get their higher gas bill. Because they don’t deserve to get a higher gas bill; they deserve to have their interests protected by the regulator. I think it’s entirely reasonable that you give a regulator instructions to protect customers from unreasonable costs. And when they see that the costs are changing, that the parameters that they relied on over decades are no longer there and they act to protect those customers, that decision should be upheld. It is entirely reasonable to uphold it.

If we proceed with this bill as we have, then we will undermine the financial well-being of gas customers today. We will undermine the financial well-being of those who buy new homes that have gas furnaces installed in them, because they will get stuck with higher costs in the years to come. And we will undermine our chances of actually stabilizing the climate and having a future that is more benign than is likely to be the one we’re getting right now. So there are some very good reasons for not doing this.

I was astounded, going through the bill, at seeing the removal of independent regulation. I thought there would be some messing around—there’s no getting around it. I thought there would be an instruction saying, “This one time, you’re going to be able to charge them and soak them.” But that isn’t where we ended up. What we ended up with was a system of energy regulation by lobbyists.

That is not defensible. It’s not defensible in the rest of Canada. It’s not defensible in the rest of North America. If you actually want to regulate and protects customers and have a rules-based system where evidence is presented and adjudicated, then you don’t have the kind of bill we have before us, and you also don’t have the removal of procedures that require governments to operate in a fair and transparent way.

Very few people have heard of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act—in fact, probably less than the people in this room now. But it’s an act that requires governments to actually inform people of decisions that are going to come down, give them an opportunity to make a presentation, give them information about the basis upon which a decision is made. And with regard to this legislation, that act is of no effect whatsoever. It is taken out. That is an extraordinary movement towards arbitrary decisions. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act is not the most thrilling piece of legislation in the world, but it actually requires some small level of fairness in decision-making that one would expect in a democratic society.

So what we have here is a bill that will increase people’s Enbridge costs, that will gut actual regulation in Ontario, that will reduce the use of fairness requirements in government, and make our environment far more perilous in the years to come. This bill needs to be defeated.

I listened with great interest to the critic from the opposition, as I always do. And he said a couple of things that—one, I want to take exception to. He talked about people who were accountable, that the government essentially said that we are not accountable. Well, is there anybody more accountable than those that go to the polls every four years—in fact, like we did in Milton this past week? The government is accountable; it’s called an election.

The member also said something about, “The government doesn’t like to answer questions.” Well, I’d like to ask him a question. Maybe he can do it the way that he says the government doesn’t do. Is it not in fact that the way that this legislation would put back into place the same system that we’ve had for decades, ensuring that natural gas distribution as it is built is spread across the distribution network, the customer network, so that no one is left with a bill that is exceeding what they can afford—it’s spread across the gas network, the same way it’s been for decades: Yes, or no?

But I want to ask you a little bit about rural Ontario, because you’re talking about—you were saying marginally increasing the cost of housing, if we come back with this system that’s been in place for decades. But I come from rural Ontario; you don’t. And I know what it costs, and we’re hoping to get natural gas moved into many of our rural communities. People are begging for it. Farmers are begging for it.

So do you believe that it’s fair, then, that the cost of a new home in a riding like mine, in Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, should go up by tens of thousands of dollars for that person, just because they have to absorb all of the costs of bringing natural gas to that home when the distribution gets there? Are you saying that, in rural Ontario, you’ve got to pay the full cost, where all over—the last 30 years or more—it’s been shared by everyone?

It’s now time for questions.

I actually appreciate the question.

The decision to charge customers is based on the idea that the lines will be in the ground for 40 years, but they won’t be. We’re talking about a system that will not be functioning in 40 years. It cannot; not only because, technologically, gas furnaces are expensive compared to heat pumps—so, again, like rotary dial phones or Blockbuster Video, they are on their way out. That ain’t going to be here. The assumption that the vast bulk of customers will be repaid over 40 years is no longer true.

And in fact, Enbridge’s own consultants, in their presentation to the OEB, said that Enbridge was in the situation where they were headed towards going down, because people were going to abandon the system. There won’t be customers to pay in the future. Forty years ago, it was true; they were going to pay. It isn’t going to be true in the future.

Yes, we are seeing history repeat itself. The Liberals had a different technique. They would define where the OEB could make a ruling and then they would make their decision in another space, and it was always quite something amazing to watch, that major decisions were shifted out of the OEB, into ministerial area of discretion. But what’s happened here is they’re not even doing that, they’re just saying, “The minister can overrule. The minister can make these decisions. That’s the simple reality.” It’s even less of a regulator than it was in the past.

And you’re quite correct: If energy companies get the chance to write their own cheques on your bank account, man, they’re going to write a lot of cheques. That’s where we’re headed. That’s what this is all about.

But I’ll say the other thing: I don’t think that, in the future, this is going to be very different between rural and urban Ontario because both jurisdictions will be moving away from gas. There is no good financial reason to go to gas at this point. There is no good financial reason.

In fact, when you look at the studies done by the federal government, it is more expensive to go to gas than it is to go to a heat pump. That’s the simple reality. It was cheaper in Montreal to operate home heating and cooling on a heat pump than it was with gas. Montreal is not a hot place.

I first want to thank my colleague from Toronto–Danforth for his presentation—I would say, an hour of good, solid argument as to why this legislation should not move forward, and if the government wanted to do the responsible thing for Ontarians, they should not proceed with this bill.

The member reminded the House that when the Liberals were in power, the Conservatives criticized the politicization of electricity planning and the Liberal disregard for evidence and professional, independent analysis. The Liberal government directed IESO to write blank cheques for new gas plants and sign hundreds of overpriced, private contracts with no OEB hearing to find out if these were a good deal for consumers, and what happened? Hydro bills skyrocketed.

So my question to the member is, are we seeing history repeat itself, and what is going to happen to consumers with this legislation moving forward?

Further questions?

Well, that would be the non-Orwellian title for it, but unfortunately, some cousin of George Orwell works for the minister and was delegated the task of writing this bill and decided to go the opposite way. I agree with you that this bill is the “more expensive energy act” and “Christmas for Enbridge shareholders act, 2024,” and should be recognized as such.

This bill is not meant to protect customers. This bill is not meant to keep energy costs down. This is meant to keep people’s disposable income down. It’s meant to keep investor profits up. But it’s not going to be helping people, not a bit.

But I can’t say I think that the minister believes in climate change, because if he did, he’d be acting in a very different way. He wouldn’t be expanding the gas-fired generation fleet in Ontario, because frankly, he’s undermining our climate goals, but he’s also undermining the clean interests of this province in having an electricity system that doesn’t belch out a lot more greenhouse gases.

I suspect, my colleague from Beaches–East York, that we’d have a lot of fun. The minister was pretty clear; he said he loved his heat pump, that he didn’t have any troubles when it got really cold. The resistance heater came on board. He didn’t have propane backup. He didn’t have gas backup. I think that other people in Ontario should have the same opportunity as the minister has.

As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, it is my pleasure to rise this afternoon to speak on the third reading of Bill 165, Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, introduced by the Minister of Energy.

Speaker, as the minister said, the changes proposed in Bill 165 will help to protect Ontario’s energy consumers and get housing and energy infrastructure built faster, while ensuring that families and businesses continue to have access to energy that is reliable and affordable, now and in the future. I’m proud of the work that the minister and our government are doing on a pragmatic approach to energy policy that provides customer choice and is also one of the cleanest in the world.

Speaker, just last week, I was proud to represent the minister at the Niagara Parks Power Station to celebrate 100 years of hydroelectric power in Niagara Falls with our friends from Hatch, a global engineering firm based in Mississauga–Lakeshore; Niagara Falls mayor Jim Diodati; and the Niagara Parks Commission CEO David Adames.

We’re extending the life of these stations by at least another 30 years, providing up to 1,700 megawatts of clean, reliable hydro power with a billion-dollar refurbishment plan to help Ontario meet our growing energy needs and to ensure we have the power we need for the homes we’re building.

For the next major international investment: Thanks to all the work our government has done to attract investments, Ontario is quickly becoming a leader in electric vehicles and battery manufacturing and green steelmaking, with over $43 billion in investments from global automakers like Stellantis, Volkswagen and Umicore, and just two weeks ago, another $15 billion from Honda, the largest auto sector investment in the history of Canada.

The investments don’t stop there. We’re also attracting massive investments in advanced manufacturing, life sciences and more. In fact, last September, in my own riding of Mississauga–Lakeshore, the member of Oakville North–Burlington and I were proud to welcome a $6.5-million investment by Eurofins, a global leader in bioanalysis, in a new lab that will support groundbreaking research while creating new well-paying jobs in Mississauga.

Across the province, we have been able to attract over $3 billion of investment in the life sciences sector in the last three years alone.

Since 2018, Ontario has added over 725,000 new jobs—more new manufacturing jobs last year than all 50 US states combined. That’s one reason why we’re seeing manufacturing move to electrify their systems, which will reduce emissions even further.

Adding to that, Speaker, Ontario’s population is growing faster, by over half a million people last year, and we’re on track for at least another half a million in 2024. That’s more growth than any US state, including the fastest-growing states of Florida and Texas.

All this means that, for the first time since 2005—20 years ago—Ontario’s electricity demand is rising. The Independent Electricity System Operator reports that electricity demand in the province could more than double by 2050. That means that our entire current supply, including all our nuclear and hydroelectric capacity, would need to double to meet this expanded demand. Clearly, it is critical that we start now to build new capacity to support all the new infrastructure and homes that Ontario will need, including the 1.5 million new homes to keep up with our growing population.

In my own community, we’re adding whole new communities along the Mississauga waterfront, including the site of the old Lakeview coal-fired generation plant. They will be homes for tens of thousands of people, including thousands of affordable homes. I know that the Liberal leader, Bonnie Crombie, is still livid about this, as she wanted to cut the number of affordable homes in half, but our government is moving forward on this.

Many of these new homes and businesses will require heating, and my constituents should have every choice available to them. With Bill 165, our government is ensuring that we hear from everyone to help guarantee that the right regulations are put into place.

As the minister said, the OEB made a decision last December that affects families and businesses without consulting the major players and stakeholders that understand this sector best, and without consulting the IESO about the impact this decision could have on Ontario’s electricity grid.

The minister has proposed amendments to the Ontario Energy Board Act in Bill 165 that would help to ensure that this never happens again. I want to take a moment now to echo the minister’s concerns about what commissioner Allison Duff had to say in her opinion. Given its importance, I’d like to read from here.

She wrote, “I do not support a zero-year revenue horizon for assessing the economics of small volume gas expansion” consumers. “The ... comparison table filed by Enbridge Gas did not even consider zero within the range of revenue horizon options.” As she wrote, “Zero is not a horizon. It is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of E.B.O. 188 by requiring 100% of connection costs upfront..., rather than a contribution in aid of construction. There was no mention of zero in E.B.O. 188,” although “a 20 to 30 year revenue horizon was considered. To me, the risk of unintended consequences to Enbridge Gas, its” consumers “and other stakeholders increases given the magnitude of this ... change.

The commissioner also asked, if we switched completely to all-electric development, would electricity generation, transmission, distributors and the IESO be able to meet Ontario’s energy demand by 2025? And, Speaker, she didn’t know. Obviously I share the minister’s concerns about this, and I think that everyone in this chamber should be worried when the commissioner says she didn’t have the evidence she needed to reach a decision, let alone such a major change for a 40-year revenue horizon set in 1998 to a zero-year revenue horizon in less than a year. To be frank, Speaker, as the minister said, the OEB went outside of their lane when they made this decision.

Back in December, when the minister said the government would bring forward legislation to fix this change, we all understood how critical this legislation would be. The change that we’re proposing now in Bill 165 would ensure that major OEB decisions, with far-reaching implications like this one, don’t happen again without the appropriate stakeholder consultations. These changes, if passed, would allow for the broader stakeholder participation in all major OEB hearings.

Speaker, our government is working hard to ensure that the voices of Ontarians are heard, and it was sad to see that the voices that matter most were not even acknowledged here. To ensure that future OEB decisions reflect and support the priorities of the people of Ontario, the amendments in Bill 165 would require the OEB to provide opportunities for the organizations and individuals that are affected most to participate in the proceedings. As well, these changes would provide the government, through the Ministry of Energy, with the authority to ask for a hearing on any matter of public interest that could arise during an OEB proceeding. This would ensure that the voice of Ontarians are heard on matters that will affect their families, businesses and communities.

Speaker, it is also important to note that if the amendments in Bill 165 are passed, our government may propose regulations related to specific stakeholders or economic sectors, such as housing, transit, low-income Ontario construction and government agencies, for which the OEB should have a process in place to ensure that the stakeholders are aware of the proceedings that may significantly impact them and also that they invite the participants in the OEB proceedings and other consultations.

Speaker, I know that better public and stakeholder input into OEB decisions will be a key mandate of the new OEB chair, who the minister will appoint in the near future, and I understand that there will be some clearly defined expectations about how the OEB and their new chair should conduct themselves in a number of areas. As I said, this includes improving OEB hearings to allow for broader stakeholder participation in OEB proceedings and more stakeholder input to the OEB in general, especially related to natural gas and electricity.

Speaker, the chair of the board of directors will continue to be accountable to the Minister of Energy for the effective delivery of the OEB mandate and to ensure that independence of the decision-making by the commissioner and others that carry out the work of the OEB.

Speaker, at this point, I would like to refer to a column written by Aleck Dadson, the former chief operating officer of the Ontario Energy Board, and Ed Waitzer, the former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, who shared their frustration with the OEB decision.

They wrote, “In our view,” the OEB “should focus on deciding specific matters in a transparent, fair and non-partisan manner. They should do so by applying a legal and regulatory framework to findings based on evidence and arguments presented.... And they should avoid trying to resolve complex policy issues, in which any decision will affect unrepresented stakeholders and other areas of concern. In short,” the OEB panel “shouldn’t stray.”

Speaker, even the former COO of the Ontario Energy Board understands how important it is for the stakeholders to be involved in this process. Our government also understands the importance of cutting red tape and reducing costs to help get shovels in the ground faster, which is exactly what Bill 165 will help do, as we all recognize Ontario is in the middle of a housing crisis, but unfortunately, it seems that the OEB did not even take this into consideration when making this decision, and would force new families to pay higher upfront costs when buying a new home.

That’s why I was very happy to hear from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, which thanks our government for introducing Bill 165. They wrote that they applaud the “government for introducing legislation to revoke the Ontario Energy Board’s December 21, 2023, decision. Securing energy choices for Ontario’s communities is vital to support economic development, energy access and reliability while we take a measured step toward energy transition.”

As well, the Ontario Real Estate Association also reached out to tell us how much this high, upfront cost would hurt Ontarians. Their CEO, Tim Hudak, said, “If we want to create more Canadian homeowners, we should not whack them with this massive upfront bill for infrastructure that will last for generations.”

And he doesn’t stop there. He goes on to explain how big an overstep this was: “This head-scratching overstep by the OEB will push affordability further out of reach for Ontarians, and put provincial and municipal housing targets at risk. Such one-size-fits-all policies will be particularly harmful to Ontario’s smaller and northern communities, where energy infrastructure is not well-developed.”

Catherine Swift, the president of the Coalition of Concerned Manufacturers and Businesses of Canada said this decision would have the effect of discouraging badly needed new home construction, especially regarding affordable housing.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture had similar feedback. They said, “We are supportive of this decisive action taken by the Minister of Energy to address the OEB decision, which threatens to increase costs for new homes relying on natural gas for heating, jeopardizing housing affordability and future access to natural gas. This decision also challenges Ontario’s efforts and current policy to bring reliable and affordable natural gas to Ontarians across the province, which has been an investment priority for agriculture and for rural communities.”

They continue: “The OEB decision has the potential to stifle the growth of the industrial sector, leading to higher costs for manufacturing, agriculture and consumer goods.” They wrote, and I agree, that our priority needs to be on providing infrastructure to support the growing province while minimizing unnecessary financial burdens on residents and businesses.

And again, our government did not make this decision lightly, but it is critical that we support fair and inclusive decision-making at the OEB. My constituency office in Mississauga hears daily about the housing affordability issues we’re having, not just in Ontario, but across Canada. And I know that most members are hearing the same thing in their offices. Unlike the queen of the carbon tax, Bonnie Crombie, and some in the opposition, our government takes these issues very seriously. Our new members from Milton and Lambton–Kent–Middlesex take these issues very seriously as well.

In addition to saving new home buyers money and creating more opportunities for economic development, the changes in Bill 165 will help to ensure that the province can continue to attract critical investments in the auto sector, life sciences, technology and much more. Through Bill 165, our government is seeking to do what we always do: to grow Ontario’s economy, cut red tape and get shovels in the ground to build the homes and infrastructure we need, while also ensuring the Ontario continues to be a place where the people’s voices are heard on the issues that matter most to them.

Speaker, access to affordable and reliable energy is critical to our province’s growth, and the changes that we’re proposing in Bill 165 will help to preserve customer energy choices and to ensure that all voices are heard when the OEB makes any major decision. In fact, Bill 165 would improve the OEB and ensure its decisions are based on feedback from the entire sector and consistent with government policy to protect ratepayers.

Ontario is in an excellent position. We have one of the cleanest electricity systems in the entire world, and we have been able to attract tens of billions of dollars of investment from companies who want to do business here in Ontario. And I want to thank the Minister of Economic Development for all the businesses that he’s been able to bring into the province of Ontario: $43 billion of automotive investment to build the cars of the future right here in Ontario, for the world. This has never happened with any other government in the history of Ontario, so I want to thank the minister and the Premier for being able to attract all these companies here to Ontario. At the same time, our growing knowledge in nuclear technology is creating new opportunities for our province and for Canada.

The future for Ontario is bright, but we need to make the right decisions today to ensure that we continue to have access to affordable, reliable and clean energy tomorrow. I know Bill 165 an important step towards this brighter future, and I want to urge all members to make the right decision and support this bill.

I want to thank you, Madam Speaker, for this opportunity here today to speak on Bill 165.

I would like to thank my colleague from Toronto–Danforth for a very interesting one-hour debate on this bill. It’s becoming more and more obvious that all that the bill does is it gives this government the power to force gas consumers to pay costs that the Ontario Energy Board believes they should not have to pay. The Ontario Energy Board is a consumer protection board. It exists to protect the consumer from being gouged by any kind of company, be it natural gas—so why, with this bill, does the government give itself the power to do this? I feel like the title of the bill should be “pushing energy costs up act”—not down. What do you think?

I thank the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore for his presentation. I will ask a question similar to the question I asked my colleague from Toronto–Danforth.

When the Liberals were in power, the Conservatives used to criticize their politicization of electricity planning, and the Liberals’ disregard for evidence and professional, independent analysis. The Liberals directed the IESO to write blank cheques, renew gas plants and sign hundreds of overpriced private contracts, with no OEB hearing to find out if these were a good deal for consumers, and hydro bills skyrocketed.

So my question to the member is: Why is your government doing exactly the same thing with natural gas systems and driving energy costs up?

It’s now time for questions.

I want to thank the member for that question. As you know, there are stakeholders that agree with Bill 165, because at the end of the day, we have to make homes much cheaper in the province of Ontario—when it would cost an individual house $4,400 here in Mississauga or in Toronto, or $8,000 to $10,000 to hook up gas in northern Ontario.

I know that we are going to transition to electric moving forward, but at this time, we still need natural gas because if everybody today were driving an electric car, with the investments that we are attracting here to the province of Ontario, we would have blackouts here in the province of Ontario. We have to have a combination of natural gas and electricity to move forward in this province and create the jobs that we are attracting here in Ontario for the future.

With all the investment that the Minister of Economic Development is bringing to Ontario—$43 billion of automotive investment with electric vehicles—we are going to need electricity, and right now, if we just kept the electricity that we do have in the system, we would not be able to end up driving electric cars.

So this is what this will do moving forward. This will help us to stabilize the system as we’re moving forward to the next 20 to 30 years down the road. I wish we could get rid of natural gas by 2030, but that will be impossible with what is going on right now across Canada and across Ontario.

We need our nuclear fleet to help, as well as using natural gas to heat our homes at this present time, but we have to do it to combine this together, to move forward as we do move off natural gas moving forward.

I still have a natural gas furnace. I have a natural gas water heater. I have a natural gas barbecue and a natural gas fireplace, and I know that moving forward, we are going to be moving off all this—and a natural gas stove, too, in the kitchen; I forgot about that one. I know, moving forward, we are going to be changing that, but right now is not the time to put this extra cost on the consumers and the new homes that we’re building in a housing crisis that we are having right now in the province of Ontario. This will only cost people more money at the present time, so Bill 165—

I’d like to thank the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore for his presentation.

With Ontario growing at an extremely fast rate, our government has a plan to build 1.5 million new homes, as Ontario’s population is expected to grow by two million people by the end of this decade. Therefore, I’m hoping the member can explain how the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act aligns with that plan.

Thank you to the member for Mississauga–Lakeshore for that great presentation. I was really interested; you mentioned a former colleague of mine, Ed Waitzer, who was also chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, and Aleck Dadson, who I remember as well—I think also a lawyer—who are quite knowledgeable about this. You said that they understood the minister’s reaction to this decision.

At a time of energy transformation, like this is, is this not an important time for all parts of the system to work together, to make sure that we’re going to have a smooth energy transition? I note that the IESO report said that by 2030, we cannot not have gas all over the province, because we’re still relying on it to make sure our system provides enough energy.

Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore for his presentation. Less than 24 hours: This is how long it took the minister to announce he would overturn the decision of experts at the OEB to the benefit of Enbridge. Apparently, swift action is reserved for corporations, not, say, underfunded hospitals, affordable housing and cost-of-living issues. With experts, particularly, tripping over themselves to criticize this bill, calling it Orwellian and suggesting it should be named “keep Enbridge profits high act,” how can the government justify ramming this bill through without so much as a nod to comprehensive stakeholder consultations?

I rise today to speak to Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act.

Ontario is in an affordability crisis. Energy costs are high and consumers are struggling to pay their bills. And yet, the Conservatives are bringing forward this legislation that is going to drive energy bills up by forcing nearly four million natural gas consumers to pay costs that the Ontario Energy Board says they shouldn’t have to pay. Not only that; this Conservative government is making the unprecedented move of interfering with a decision of the Ontario Energy Board, an arm’s-length independent regulator.

Conservatives claim that they’re keeping energy costs down, but this legislation is doing the exact opposite and is doing it at great legal risk.

Speaker, when looking at this bill, Bill 165, a big question came to mind, and thanks to the recent investigation by the Narwhal, I believe we have an answer. But before I get to that, I’d like to first ask the most obvious question presented in this legislation: Keeping energy costs down for whom? Not for Ontario consumers. They’ll be forced to pay costs the OEB has ruled they shouldn’t have to pay.

Right now, gas customers’ bills include charges worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year to cover Enbridge’s costs of expanding gas pipelines into new developments. The OEB decided to put a stop to this subsidy because it raises consumers’ energy bills and increases financial risks for the whole gas system.

Bill 165 would allow the government to add $1 billion in costs to the gas bills of nearly four million consumers, costing each an average of more than $300. It would also allow the government to approve a gas pipeline project that the Ontario Energy Board has deemed too expensive, not economically viable or otherwise not in the public interest. This would leave consumers on the hook for costly, uneconomical projects they don’t even benefit from.

Energy lawyer Kent Elson explained this clearly in the Globe and Mail, as he said, “Gas pipelines are paid off over roughly 60 years ... so a pipeline built today will be paid off in the 2080s ... long beyond the point at which fossil fuel use is set to drastically decline. Investments in new gas pipelines today will almost certainly go bad, and Bill 165 forces Ontario’s gas customers to make that bad investment.”

The OEB has a mandate of protecting consumers and making sure they aren’t gouged or silently stolen from. By listening to the experts, this Conservative government had the opportunity to put money back in people’s pockets and finally start addressing the realities of climate change. Instead, at a time when the world needs to move toward renewable energy, they are using their majority to drive up carbon emissions and gas bills and to undermine an independent regulator. This legislation does not keep costs down for Ontario’s consumers.

So then who does it keep them down for? Not for Ontario homebuyers. If we want to make housing more affordable, we need to give people access to sustainable, low-cost energy sources like electric heat pumps that are much cheaper to operate in the long term than gas furnaces. The NDP put forward Bill 172, the Affordable Energy Act, which creates the framework to set up large-scale programs to finance and organize deep home energy retrofits, including installation of heat pumps.

We are in a cost-of-living and climate crisis. A focus on conservation and community-based distribution for renewable energy can substantially cut energy costs down. We have the technology to build a reliable and sustainable energy future in Ontario that does not leave Ontarians with a pricey bill.

The OEB’s decision tried to protect homebuyers by making the costs of natural gas connections visible to them and to developers. They wanted to ensure that the costs of installing a new gas connection would be paid by those who benefit from that choice, and not by consumers who don’t benefit. With Bill 165, Conservatives are ensuring that when a developer chooses to install a gas connection, they are not required to consider the cost consequences to homebuyers and tenants. They aren’t keeping costs down for Ontario’s homebuyers.

Who are they keeping them down for? Not for Ontarian taxpayers. They’re the ones who are going to foot the bill for the high costs of climate change and the damage to highways, bridges, hospital buildings and other infrastructure if we don’t get serious about the clean energy transition. Climate change is already costing us a lot, and it’s going to get so much worse. The Financial Accountability Office estimates that it could add more than $4 billion per year to the cost of maintaining Ontario’s public infrastructure over the rest of the century if we don’t adapt. And the FAO warns that this cost impact estimate should be considered in the lower range since it doesn’t factor in costs incurred by hazards like river flooding and wildfires.

There are already warnings that Canada is at risk of another devastating wildfire season this year. Taxpayers are already paying the price through devastating property damage, health emergencies, and more.

Methane gas, the fossil fuel used in natural gas connections, accounts for one third of Ontario’s carbon emissions. According to Environmental Defence, 19% of Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions comes from heating our homes and buildings with methane gas. The NDP’s Affordable Energy Act will help us to stop burning it and will give residents and tenants the tools to cut their energy usage and costs. As has been said many times in this House by the NDP, “The cost of doing nothing is billions of dollars higher than the cost of proactively investing in our public infrastructure for climate adaptation.”

Bill 165 does not keep costs down for Ontario’s taxpayers. So keeping energy costs down for whom? Not for young Ontarians.

As this Conservative government’s own energy transition panel observed, the global energy landscape is evolving at an unprecedented pace. To take advantage of the economic opportunities that this change presents, the panel concluded that Ontario should commit to electrification and a clean energy economy by 2050. This includes following the transition panel’s recommendation that the Ontario Energy Board “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.”

Bill 165 carries economic costs for young Ontarians. It slows our move to a green energy economy and foolishly invests in gas pipelines that are going to become obsolete and present a massive cost to customers as we move away from gas heating.

This is not to mention the broader costs of climate change that young Ontarians will bear the brunt of, from the infrastructure maintenance that I mentioned earlier to mental health distress and health emergencies linked to extreme weather events, negative impacts on air quality and the increase in vector-borne diseases. We know that young people and people in marginalized communities will suffer the most from these effects as the climate crisis creates more instability in housing, food, employment and quality of life.

I tabled the Climate Crisis Health Action Plan Act, which would require the government to ensure that Ontario is prepared to address the current and future health impacts caused by climate change. The cost for young Ontarians and for all of us is simply too high, and Bill 165 is going to drive it higher.

So if not for homebuyers, if not for consumers, if not for taxpayers, if not for young Ontarians, who exactly does this Bill 165 keep energy costs down for?

Speaker, we have a pretty clear answer to that question. The Narwhal reports that hours before the government announced its unprecedented decision to overrule an independent regulator, senior officials from the Premier’s office worried that the OEB’s decision would create a “magnitude” of costs for developers and for Enbridge Gas.

Yes, you heard that right. An independent board of people with expertise and experience and a mandate to protect consumers made a decision to put money back in your pockets, and this Conservative government jumped into action and went to extraordinary lengths to keep energy costs down for a giant gas monopoly.

Hours before the OEB decision was even announced, the Minister of Energy’s chief of staff set up an urgent touchpoint meeting to strategize the government’s response. An official response was drafted, talking points were agreed upon and legislation was brought into the works, all before the OEB’s decision was made public. Staff from the minister’s office even consulted with Enbridge executives for input on the minister’s statement.

The government’s lawyers warned the Premier’s staff that intervening in the OEB’s decision carried legal risks. Their warnings were ignored. This Conservative government was just that determined to overrule an independent regulator and drive up gas bills for Ontario consumers.

At the committee meeting last week, a number of amendments were brought forward by the NDP to protect people from higher bills. Every amendment meant to protect consumers from higher energy prices was defeated by the Conservatives. So even when there were opportunities to include actual measures to keep costs down, this Conservative government voted against them.

Speaker, the Ontario Energy Board did its job. Its decision would protect consumers and the public interest by lowering energy costs and carbon emissions for current and future Ontarians. It is a win for almost everyone. But with Bill 165, the government is interfering with an independent regulator to raise gas bills for Ontarians so that a multi-billion-dollar gas company can make more profit.

This bill is giving the government the power to push energy costs up, and it’s forcing four million natural gas consumers to pay the costs that the Ontario Energy Board would otherwise disallow. This bill enables unprecedented political interference with an independent regulator in order to help a powerful gas monopoly at the expense of consumers. It does exactly the opposite of keeping energy costs down.

When the Liberals were in power, the Conservatives used to criticize their politicization of electricity planning. The Liberals disregarded evidence, disregarded professional independent analysis. The Liberals directed the IESO to write blank cheques for new gas plants and sign hundreds of overpriced private contracts with no OEB hearing to find out if these were a good deal for consumers. As a result, hydro bills skyrocketed.

We’re seeing now this Conservative government do exactly the same thing with the natural gas system. Speaker, this bill should not be titled Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. It actually should be titled “pushing energy costs up act,” because that’s what this bill is doing. It’s a shame that they are pushing energy costs up on behalf of a gas monopoly.

The government still can do the right thing for Ontario’s consumers, for Ontario’s homebuyers, for Ontario’s future generations and not proceed with this bill. This is the wrong direction. I urge this government to keep the interests of the people of this province and not their well-connected insiders before they make this grave mistake.

I want to thank the member for that question.

Yes, we do have to build 1.5 million homes, but we have to keep the cost of these homes down. With interest rates right now at 8%, it’s almost impossible for someone to purchase a home, especially on a condo build when you have to pay—before it’s registered, you have to pay the 8%; otherwise you could probably negotiate a mortgage for 5.45%. On a $500,000 mortgage, that would cost a consumer $4,500 a month. So, putting an extra $4,400 for a condo in the city of Mississauga would only harm and make it unaffordable for people to buy these condos and homes as well.

And moving in rural Ontario at $8,000 or $10,000 to put a natural gas fitting into their home, that would cost them even more. So by doing this, it will reduce the cost of homes being built in Ontario, and we have to do that for the future of this province, for our children and for our grandchildren moving forward.

So, I want to thank you very much for that question.

As you know, natural gas is probably one of the safest ways to heat your home today in the province of Ontario. And, as you know, I look at our cities across Ontario—Mississauga, Toronto, Burlington, Hamilton—most of us are in natural gas. It is a very safe system in place.

As we continue moving forward, I know that we are going to be moving over to electricity, but at this present time, we have to keep our natural gas in the province and keep it safe, as we are doing right now.

Further questions?

It’s now time for further debate.