I guess what I would say to the member is, I think tuition reductions and freezes are fine, but, if on the other hand, the funding envelope coming into the university intensifies the financial crisis on campus, that ultimately doesn’t serve anybody.

If you can’t afford to have an educator in front of a classroom of 20 for a small seminar—instead, it has to be 42—what is that educator likely to do? Are they going to be testing people’s writing skills, deliberative skills, debating skills, or are they going to be doing multiple-choice tests? Because, ultimately, that’s all you manage when the school’s funding is being cut because of the tuition revenue coming down.

I look at other countries around the world. I look at a great country like Germany. This is country where, if you meet the standards, you can study as an international student there for free at over 200 universities, paying modest ancillary fees. What do they get from that, one would ask, if you were a German citizen paying taxes? They get the benefit of people coming from all over the world to enrich the debate at that campus.

I actually see Ontario going in the opposite direction. We are using international students, often, as revenue sources, as cash cows—what many of them tell me—at a time when the funding to our campuses is cut off.

I salute the member’s interest in keeping the costs for students low, but we can’t do that at the expense of finances for the campus, which is what’s happening now.

Let me just be a lot more specific. Saint Paul University, which is an independent campus at the University of Ottawa, which is in Ottawa Centre, they do what they can with what they have. One of the programs they have, which helps our mental health strategy for the city, their psychotherapy students participate in offering people in need of free or pay-what-you-can counselling sessions overseen by a trained professional. That’s them maximizing their budget, collaboratively, doing whatever they can to help people in distress.

So when people come through our constituency, we have areas of referral: Counselling Connect, which I’ve already talked about; workplace sites, if there is one; an employee wellness program, where there is one; or the Saint Paul campus, playing a huge role for the city. That’s collaborative. I would invite the minister to be as collaborative in this bill.

There was a moment a little over a decade ago—if I have my calendar in my mind correct—when Ontario decided to phase out coal-fired electricity. That was critically important. That was a decision that made the air cleaner for our kids, that made huge strides for Ontario in its climate responsibilities. I salute it, even though it was done by a government that has a different political shade than mine. It was the right move. Was it easy? According to people I know who served at that time, no, it wasn’t easy. Did it involve a lot of discussion, planning, industrial policy, thinking through the impact on businesses and consumers? Absolutely it did, but it was a decision that was taken.

And now, when we’re faced with the really important responsibility of deciding how the energy needs for Ontario are going to be met in the next 10, 20 or 30 years, what are we doing with this bill in this House? We are passing a specific piece of legislation to overturn a decision made by an independent regulator of this House, the Ontario Energy Board. Not a partisan organization, a research-based, adjunct entity of this House that is obliged to give us the right advice—and the energy partners in the sector—on what we do to make sure we do right by the energy needs of the province. And when we’re living in a time of such climate chaos, that advice could not be more important.

I’m sure everybody did the same this morning when you got up and you checked the news on your phones. You saw the news from the west end of this country, the wildfires that are blazing. The member from Thunder Bay–Superior North has talked about the woodland firefighters who are putting themselves in harm’s way. They did it last summer and—are they already doing it now? They are in the middle of prepping for it right now.

My wife’s family lives in Calgary, Speaker. We are planning—we hope—a family reunion this summer where we can finally get together with some of her cousins from interior BC and from Calgary. But we’re booking cancellation insurance on those plane tickets, believe me, because it’s highly possible that by the time later July comes around, the air will be so thick with smoke that it will be impossible, particularly for the elders in our family, to safely have this family meeting. And we’re just one anecdote in a larger scenario here, Speaker, but we’re living in a time where climate chaos has real impact on people’s lives.

So the decision the Ontario Energy Board made—for the record, it’s been stated a number of times; I’ll just repeat it here: The Ontario Energy Board told Enbridge, which holds the monopoly on the distribution of gas in the province of Ontario, that they needed to pay for the costs of all the infrastructure for new home developments up front. They gave that advice because they believed the gas sector was being unduly subsidized at a time when more climate-friendly options—heat pump and geothermal installations—were making huge inroads. The costs of these technologies are coming down, and the Ontario Energy Board looked at the evidence—10,000 pages of documents, extensive consultations, including housing providers, subject-matter experts—and they rendered the opinion, two of the three adjudicators on that board rendered the opinion that it was not feasible to tell Enbridge that they could continue to expect a subsidy from the province of Ontario for a particular kind of home heating fuel. If people wanted to choose gas for their homes, they could. If the developer community wanted to install it in those homes, they could. But the province of Ontario would not be on the hook for a significant subsidy to a highly profitable energy company whose CEO made $19 million last year at a time of climate chaos.

My friend the Minister of Energy over there has installed, as I understood it from debate, a heat pump in his home. The PA, my neighbour from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, a great riding where I grew up, has done the same thing for his home. I would like to see every single Ontarian, whether they live as a renter in an apartment building or whether they have their own home of any type, have the same options that the members of the government have shown through their own leadership. And we do have—we’re groping towards it; we’re inching towards it—the Independent Electricity System Operator of Ontario is offering some subsidies, modest as they are, to low-income Ontarians so they can start disconnecting from fossil fuel-based heating and cooling systems to electrical or geothermal systems.

But we’re nowhere near the ambition of the province of Prince Edward Island, which is at the moment run by Conservatives. In that House, in Prince Edward Island, they set the objective much larger than we have here. They have, if I understood the Premier’s latest comments correctly—35% of the homeowners and residents in that province had made the switch to heat pumps, because if you make less than $100,000 a year and if your home is worth less than $400,000, the province will buy you a heat pump. And I believe it’s a similar strategy for the multi-level apartment buildings in the bigger communities like Charlottetown. I mean, that’s an ambitious strategy.

I look at the city of Vancouver. The city of Vancouver decided to take the choice that for new hookups for new apartment buildings they were going to require that it not be automatically going to their monopoly natural gas holder, Fortis, in that province. They were going to say, “No. We see our climate obligations for what they are. We are going to insist that new hookups be electrical. You’re not going to have a subsidy.”

But for some reason, here in Ontario, we are absolutely determined to do Enbridge a favour, and I don’t understand why. Over the last four years, profits for the fossil fuel industry, oil and gas, are up 1,000%. And have those companies done anything to help consumers at the pump or at their homes for their heating costs, their transportation costs? Have they paid any of that forward? Absolutely not. The only instances where they have been compelled to pay that forward are in countries that have made conscious policy decisions.

Let me just cite another one: A Conservative government in England brought in a windfall profits tax, and with that windfall profits tax, they are generating billions in revenue to make life more affordable in England—a Conservative government. But what are we doing with this bill before the House here? Will Enbridge be required to make energy costs more affordable? No. Will Enbridge be required, as they say they are, by law to hit certain targets in the transition to cleaner heating and cooling options in Ontario? No. We’re essentially saying we’re going to continue the regime we have.

The primary reason I got into this job, Speaker, when my family and I decided to make the leap back in 2017, of all the issues—they are all important, but ensuring that there was a viable future for our children was the first one. When I look at independent research organizations that look at the decisions made by this government on this particular matter with Enbridge and reversing the OEB decision, or the decision to embrace gas-fired electrical as we refurbish nuclear stock, this is going to absolutely impact our ability to deliver on our climate obligations in the province of Ontario.

I honestly don’t understand why we’re making that decision, except for the fact that Enbridge likes it; except for the fact that the lobbyists who circulate in this building for Enbridge are well paid, I’m sure articulate and make all the right short-term calls to help this minister deal with the problem, the problem being that people need heating and cooling options. They have an affordability crisis, and half the people in our country—that was the last comment I remember hearing from my federal leader, Jagmeet Singh: Half the people in this country are living from paycheque to paycheque. One in seven kids are still going to school hungry in Canada. We do have a huge problem. In that reality, I don’t understand why we are making life easier for Enbridge.

I’ve also noticed that for months, my friends in government are very interested in having a debate about the federal price on carbon. That has been a big focus for them as they deal with the affordability crisis. But what I honestly don’t understand—and I had to seek out a consultation with environmental experts at home—is how it becomes the only thing in the environmental policy file to talk about. It takes up all the space: the federal levy on carbon, the provincial carbon tax that we have because we decided to get rid of the cap-and-trade initiatives of the previous government. This has taken up all the space.

I went back home and had a specific consultation with environmental leaders back home who do a number of different things I’ll talk about in a minute. I asked them, “Help me out. Is this the only thing worth talking about with environmental policy right now, given the obligations we have?” We talked specifically about the Ontario Energy Board’s December 21, 2023, decision. They said, “No. Absolutely, Joel, it’s not.” That OEB decision was the first that they had seen that actually reckoned with the evidence of saying, “This is where we have to get to by 2030 in our climate emissions; this is where we’re going, now that we’re embracing gas-fired electrical,” and the two didn’t square.

I talked to my landlord back home, the Centretown Citizens Ottawa Corp. The biggest non-profit houser in Ontario is in Ottawa, my landlord at 109 Catherine Street. Sarah Button, who’s their ED, said to me, “Joel, one thing we could do is bring back advantageous financing options for co-ops like ourselves, for non-profits like ourselves, for housing.” With that advantageous financing—which Ontario could do, because we regulate credit unions—we could get back into the business of building the kinds of sustainable, environmental homes that people want to live in.

My office sits at Beaver Barracks. People know Ottawa; it’s an old military base that was transformed into a series of residential properties powered, heated and cooled by geothermal sources. It is absolutely even heat and even cool when you’re in there. Come visit us any time if you’d like to sample it yourself. It’s wonderful. We don’t have a big space, but it’s a great place for residents to interact with us.

The folks in the buildings all around us really appreciate their living conditions, too. But it required a significant investment by CCOC on the infrastructure side. They took on a large debt obligation, because they didn’t get the help they needed from the federal or provincial governments. They got some, but not enough. Sarah Button said to me, “Joel, can you imagine what we could do for environmentally conscious housing if there was an active partner at Queen’s Park and an active partner at the federal government?”

Just in case my colleagues in government think I’m only holding them to account, let me just say clearly for the record that the federal housing strategy, the 10-year housing strategy, insofar as how it has done its job to provide affordable, sustainable housing, has met 3% of its target. Those 3% of the homes built under the strategy five years in are 30% of the residents’ income. We are subsidizing highly profitable corporate landlords to build housing that people can’t afford at the federal level. Just in case the government thinks I’m only having concerns about them, I have massive concerns with how the federal government has fallen short of its obligations—some changes lately, but that’s the reality.

But back to Enbridge. If you think about the amount of money we are shovelling to Enbridge, and you think about what we could use it for—I think about a subject near and dear to my heart: public transit. Talk to a transit user in the city of Ottawa, and you will get a look back of massive consternation. We, through this bill, are going to be offering a subsidy to Enbridge of billions of dollars. But our city right now, in this year, is 74,000 service hours less with the buses we have on the road, bringing people around to where they need to go because of cuts from Queen’s Park.

The latest new deal we signed with the government which has some stuff in there that we could work with on community safety, security, emergency housing. There is absolutely a goose egg for transit. There’s nothing for transit.

And hey, I’m not sure what the Premier is thinking. Maybe his view is that everybody works for the federal government, has a wonderful salary with benefits, and that’s what Ottawa is. That is not—some people in our city meet that description, but in Ottawa Centre, we have the highest number of rooming houses in Ottawa. A rooming house is a multi-unit building where people rent out a room. Conditions are often squalor in many of these buildings that I’ve had occasion to visit neighbours in. We have a lot of deep poverty in Ottawa Centre too. What do those people rely on to get around? Transit.

So I think if we were to propose a climate solution, following the advice we’ve given to this government, through all levels of this bill, it makes a lot more sense—excepting the fact that the OEB made a decision that upset Enbridge, certainly. But it set us on track, were we to have followed it, to do a lot more by the climate. Ottawa has been the recipient of some significant weather emergencies. We’ve had tornados rip through the west end of our community. We’ve had floods on the east and west. We’ve had a historic derecho that happened literally during the provincial election where all of us were competing for our seats. We had to shut down our campaign for two days so we could check in on neighbours who had power lines falling across their verandas or their apartment buildings by phone and signalling to emergency services where there were emergencies—like this is the world we’re living in. We’re having more and more significant weather events, and the decisions we make on the big files—the big files being housing, transportation and this one, energy—set the pattern for everything else.

Some 45% of the emissions in the city of Ottawa come from buildings, come from housing. When I think about one in particular, I’ve got a great relationship with many of the residents in the apartment buildings all over the downtown. But I think of one in particular, on McLeod Street, the Golden Triangle area of Ottawa Centre. If you walk up to McLeod—it’s a community housing building—in the dead winter in January, you will see at the top of the building, the windows are wide open. Ottawa winter; the windows are wide open. Why are they wide open? Because literally the families and the people living in those units, because of the nature of the heating system they have, which works in one direction only: on 100%—they’re sweltering. They might as well be living in a sauna. They find mould all over their units, because of the amount of condensation that drips into their homes.

If you talk to Ottawa Community Housing, you talk to people like Stéphane Giguère, the executive director or Brian Billings who is the properties manager. They shrug their shoulders, like “Joel, we’re doing our very best, but there’s no magic pot of money for us to be able to refurbish our buildings and to embrace the technologies that are becoming more and more affordable right now.” So windows are left wide open in the middle of January. And we are paying, the province is paying—as we direct subsidies to municipalities for community housing, because they are unsustainable—to have heat escape into the air. Oil boilers in these buildings makes absolutely no sense.

So instead of giving a multi-billion dollar gift to Enbridge and continuing that regime, why wouldn’t we consider doing what we ran on in the last provincial election and the NDP proposed, which is a significant retrofit program for community housing and apartment buildings right across the whole province, where we would make a big upfront investment, create a lot of jobs for skilled trades workers, create jobs for manufacturers of heat-efficient windows and heating in cooling units? We could make sure that people don’t live in a sauna in the winter if they live in community housing. We could spend the people’s money wisely, but instead, no, we’re not doing that. We’re giving a gift to Enbridge.

Now, Enbridge has also said that they want to be part of the energy transition, they see the value of homes making this shift towards electrification or geothermal sources of heating and cooling. The words are nice, and the anecdotes that you see every now and again in the Enbridge brochures are great, but, ultimately, this is a company that has a lot of influence in this province. This is a company that has a monopoly agreement in the province for the transmission and distribution of gas. We here in this House get to sell the rules by which they exercise that monopoly right.

I want to believe that if a Conservative government in Prince Edward Island can undergo a revolution in the heating and cooling of homes there, we can do it here. I want to believe that if a Conservative government in England can say to energy giants like Enbridge or other oil companies that, “Hey, you’ve been doing fantastically well. Time for you to share some of that wealth with the societies in which you live so people can get access to the things they need”—that makes a lot sense, but I don’t see that in this bill.

What I see in this bill is continuing a very favourable playing ground for Enbridge. I didn’t get elected in this House to work for Enbridge; I got elected to work for the people of Ottawa Centre. All of us have our responsibility to look our residents in the eyes and say in this moment we made the right climate decisions, and that involves voting no to this bill.

I move that the question now be put.

To my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre: One of the things that we heard at committee is that there are two basic essentials for policies to be effective. One is the direct engagement and involvement of those who are directly affected by a policy, to be involved in the development of that policy, and the second is the resources to operationalize a policy, to implement it. I wondered if the member sees either of those two criteria included in the bill.

I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his impassioned speech. I certainly understand where he’s coming from, but I know in my community there is a development called Little River Acres. It was, I’ll call it, a modern development in the 1970s, and none of the homes were built with natural gas, and, boy, are they regretting that decision today, because the cost to power these homes is significant through electric heating and cooling.

I know that the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act speaks not just to my constituents, who need affordability at their homes, but all Ontarians. By reversing the Ontario Energy Board decision, we’re saving families tens of thousands of dollars on the price of a new home and will save, down the road, heating and cooling costs for those people like my constituents at Little River Acres.

So I ask the opposition why their party is trying to make housing more expensive than it already is rather than working with the government to keep the cost of housing affordable down, not just on the capital but on the operating side too.

I’d like to thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for an excellent presentation. It seems that with Bill 165 it’s yet the next installment of must-miss theatre. Its quite unselfconsciously yet ironically titled bills are part of a pattern of this government, but this bill represents unprecedented political interference with an independent regulator. Does this political interference help consumers or put them at risk?

It is now time for questions and answers.

I guess to properly answer the member’s question I’d ask, through a head nod, are those electrical systems electrical baseboards or heat pumps?

Interjection.

Buying into this market right now, the electrification of heating and cooling right now, is getting more and more affordable, and what will cost us a lot is stranded assets of natural gas-heated communities that may not even be relevant 20 or 30 years from now.

Further questions?

I want to thank the member for an excellent speech. You touched on this, but I would appreciate it if you would expand on what you see as the climate impact if this bill is passed as proposed by the government.

He’s right; the member from Whitby is right. We do care about affordability all over the province. Ottawa Centre, Whitby—people are having a really, really hard time out there. But we’re not going to make it better, Speaker, by embracing a technology that will be obsolete in 20 or 30 years. If somebody is investing into a natural gas-powered community now or in five years and is later reckoning with the fact that they may not even get that service anymore because the entire sector is moving towards electrification but it didn’t 10 or 15 years prior—we don’t want to put anybody in that situation, not a renter, not a property owner, not a homeowner.

If you look at the province, a third of our emissions are coming from energy. We have to make the right choices to make sure that we can make people’s lives more affordable right now but also going forward.

There’s a few things happening now, and the member knows it well. If we embrace gas-fired heating and cooling and we continue the Enbridge subsidy, we create a preference for that in new home construction. That will have a huge climate impact. But in addition to that, we’re embracing gas-fired electricity too. There are climate costs to every single one of these decisions, and the wildfires that are going to be happening this summer are not abstract from this; they contribute to this. It’s the environment in which we live. And the people we put in harm’s way, the woodland firefighters, that deal with the moment, these are the people we push into the emergency when we could be making the decisions to reduce emissions. But that’s not what’s going to happen with this bill.

In Thunder Bay, if the electrical capacity is a question, geothermal, if there is space, could potentially be an option. And the drilling technology is getting even more effective in smaller urban areas. So, we do have choices, but one of the choices I would hope we don’t make is doing Enbridge a favour and continuing a multi-billion dollar subsidy for them, when we could be helping people out on energy affordability by making the right investments.

So I’m very glad, and I hear we’re getting good news today on the industrial policy front. But we need to make sure that the housing that we put in the ground works, and that it’s good for the planet, too.

To my colleague from Ottawa Centre: When I’m knocking on doors, one of the main issues I hear is affordability, and I’m sure he does in Ottawa Centre, as well; there’s no question about it. But with the policies like the federal government’s carbon tax that I know that the opposition supports, Ontarians are being forced to give up their hard-earned money.

I’d like the member from Ottawa Centre to speak to affordability challenges—and I know they’re top concerns in Ottawa Centre, as well—and whether he would welcome the changes, and his constituents, in this particular legislation that he spoke on.

Can the member from Ottawa Centre speak to the leave-to-construct change in the legislation that he spoke about earlier, another great example of how we are cutting red tape?

Good morning, Speaker. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 165, Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024, because this is a significant matter. It’s one that touches the lives and livelihoods of hard-working families, farmers and business owners all across Ontario.

The landscape of energy consumption is changing. Our government understands the importance of developing infrastructure that addresses Ontario’s expanding energy requirements, fosters innovation and drives economic progress, while remaining affordable and keeping Ontario competitive. High interest rates, skilled trades shortages, lack of supply and increased demand in housing have increased building costs and increased housing prices.

Our government is focused on working to make life more affordable for everyone. We’re delivering solutions that will help power the province’s growing economy. As Ontario’s population continues to grow, the proposed Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024, would ensure that the province can build new homes, and people from across the province can continue to access reliable, cost-effective energy, where and when it’s needed.

My riding of Chatham-Kent–Leamington spans from the beautiful town of Leamington, my hometown, to Pelee Island and across the southern half of Chatham-Kent, along the shores of Lake Erie, through Wheatley, Blenheim, Ridgetown and Highgate. I’m proud to share that my riding hosts 3,800 acres of controlled-environment agriculture, the largest concentration of greenhouse agriculture in Canada. These farms produce fresh, safe, locally grown fruits and vegetables with exceptional quality and yield, while conserving water, recycling nutrients and implementing cutting-edge technology solutions right here in Ontario.

I have personally witnessed a technological revolution in sustainability, innovation and entrepreneurship on our farms, in our orchards and in our high-tech greenhouses. To maintain our momentum as global leaders, our government is taking decisive action to keep energy costs down and empower our farmers to reinvest in their operations while remaining competitive. Lower energy costs help keep family farms viable to reinvest in their operations, remain profitable and respond quickly to changing consumer preferences, all while enhancing long-term resilience.

By prioritizing policies that keep energy costs down, we’re strengthening our Grow Ontario Strategy and empowering our entire agricultural sector and Ontario’s farming families to continue to grow fresh food for families in Ontario, Canada and the world. By supporting safe, reliable, affordable energy to grow our own food, we can maintain food sovereignty while nurturing the technological industries and innovation that support it, right here in Ontario.

The latest report from Ontario’s Electrification and Energy Transition Panel highlights that natural gas plays a crucial role in Ontario’s energy landscape, serving three vital functions: powering electrical generation, providing home and water heating and supporting various industrial and agricultural sectors.

Our government knows that this bill is a step in the right direction to preserve consumer energy choices by ensuring that natural gas remains viable, safe and affordable for all consumers. Bill 165 is a pivotal piece of legislation that supports safe, affordable, reliable options for farm operations like grain drying, which contributes to broader agricultural stability and security. By prioritizing measures to minimize energy costs and promote affordability, this act ensures that grain farmers all across Ontario have access to cost-effective energy solutions, including natural gas, for their critical drying operations.

This is essential for farmers across the province, especially during harvest season, to ensure these precious crops can be safely stored, make it to processors and make it to our markets. By using natural gas, grain farmers can effectively manage moisture levels in a wide variety of harvested grains. That prevents spoilage and ensures the highest quality of production that Ontario is known for.

As global leaders in fresh food production, Ontario greenhouse growers rely on safe, affordable natural gas, which is essential during our cooler months while enabling us to grow crops year-round. This, in turn, enhances exports, increases prosperity and strengthens food sovereignty. This is growing Ontario.

Greenhouses, of course, require precise temperature and humidity controls for optimal plant growth, and this is exactly what natural gas can deliver: safe, consistent and reliable power. By using natural gas, greenhouse farmers can maintain ideal growing conditions for a variety of crops with higher yields and world-renowned quality year-round.

The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act would, if passed, also provide an ability to reverse the Ontario Energy Board’s split decision which would have required any new home buyer, farm or business to pay 100% of the cost of a natural gas connection up front—very, very difficult. Reversing this decision would save at least $4,400 on the price of every new home for my family, for our constituents and for your families.

Through the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, our government is dedicated to promoting fair and inclusive decision-making processes within the Ontario Energy Board. This ensures affordability for everyone. The legislation, if passed, will mandate the OEB to engage specific stakeholders or economic sectors, ensuring voices from diverse backgrounds are hard, particularly those who could be affected by forthcoming decisions. By prioritizing inclusivity and transparency, we’re taking meaningful steps toward building a more equitable and sustainable landscape in energy for everyone.

Speaker, I’m going to share some local and highly credible voices who are supporting this act, if I have time.

First, Mr. George Gilvesy, chairman of the board of directors of Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers: “Natural gas is an essential crop input, as heat and carbon dioxide are captured to optimize and enhance greenhouse vegetable production.” That’s right here in Ontario. “Legislation such as this will continue to drive investment in Ontario’s agricultural sector, growing food, jobs and economic prosperity.”

Similarly, the president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Drew Spoelstra, stated, “The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is supportive of the decision taken by the Minister of Energy to address the Ontario Energy Board’s decision, which threatens to increase costs for new homes relying on natural gas for heating, jeopardizes housing affordability and future access to this energy”—

I apologize to the member, but it is now time to move on to members’ statements.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

It’s my pleasure to rise to talk about the long and proud hockey tradition that is part of the DNA of my riding of Simcoe–Grey. In Collingwood, the tradition of junior and senior hockey goes back generations, to the late 1800s, with storied teams like the Shipbuilders from the early 1900s, the Greenshirts in the 1950s, the Glassmen in the 1970s, the Blues in the 1980s and the Blackhawks in the early 2000s.

Speaker, that tradition continued with the return of the Collingwood Blues Junior A hockey team to Collingwood in 2019. In four short years, the team raised the Buckland Cup in 2023 as Ontario’s champions.

This year, the Blues picked up where they left off last season, finishing the regular hockey season ranked number one in Canada, and last month, they defended their Buckland Cup title. The Blues are now playing for the Centennial Cup in Oakville as one of 10 teams from across Canada vying to be Canada’s Junior A hockey champions for 2024.

The success of the Blues is a testament to the dedication of the ownership and management, the talent and tenacity of the players and the support of the hard-working volunteers, but it is the fans that are the team’s special sauce, faithfully packing the arena for home games. The Blues led the league again in attendance this year, averaging over 1,100 fans per game.

I want to thank the Blues, the local Junior C teams, the Alliston Hornets and the Stayner Siskins, and the many vibrant minor hockey associations throughout my riding for continuing our proud hockey tradition. Go, Blues, go!

Today, I mark the passing of Rod Brawn, a good friend of mine, beloved of Tina, a staunch New Democrat and a kind, gentle and loving person to all lucky enough to meet him.

Rod was born in Sarnia on May 19, 1954, and earned three degrees at the University of Western Ontario: honours history, honours music and bachelor of education.

Rod had a variety of jobs: James Reaney Sr.’s research assistant, a journalist for several small-town newspapers and an elementary and secondary supply teacher.

Rod was passionate about music and was active in his church, St. John the Evangelist. He sang in the choir and played the trumpet for special occasions. Rod often played the Last Post at the funerals of WWII veterans and refused to be paid for the service; it was his way of honouring veterans.

Craig Smith writes, “Rod’s trumpet may have been silenced, but his music will still be heard.”

Rod tutored refugee children and volunteered with the Amabile choir. He was adamant about helping the underdog. As Rod and Tina were fond of saying, “Jesus was a socialist.” Now if that confuses anyone, please be sure to go back and read it again.

Rod fought for universal health care and public education. He truly believed J.S. Woodsworth’s words, “What we desire for ourselves, we wish for all.”

In his final years, Tina had to fight for Rod’s health care, trudging him through snow in the middle of winter to a clinic for his so-called home care. Rod fought for a system that wasn’t cut to the bone and privatized. Throughout, Tina has been the example of selfless love, caring for Rod without a word of complaint.

Rod died on May 12, a week shy of his 70th birthday. He was well loved by all.

Rod, I commit to you that I will keep you at the heart of all of my work and every decision I make here in this Legislature. Rest in peace, Rod.

Speaker, if you seek it, you’ll find unanimous consent to allow members to wear pins in recognition of May 14 being the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies’ Children and Youth in Care Day.

On May 4, we were happy to celebrate International Firefighters’ Day. This was an opportunity to thank the firefighters of Mississauga for their service, recognize their extraordinary efforts and acknowledge the sacrifices that many firefighters have undertaken to keep us safe.

I was happy to hear the government’s announcement about increasing coverage for firefighters with cancer. And I had the opportunity to visit the three fire stations in my riding, Stations 107, 115 and 122, to meet with the hard-working firefighters and thank them for their service.

Speaker, this week also serves as national police week and road safety week. We know the police play a critical role keeping our roads safe for all of us to enjoy. The dedicated personnel at Peel Regional Police are working hard to take criminals off the streets and enforce traffic laws.

The latest provincial budget announced $46 million to support response times, including purchasing four police helicopters. This will help keep our streets safe. Our government’s committed to supporting police and giving them the resources they need.

I am proud to be part of a government that supports our front-liners.

Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’m so pleased to rise today to recognize the Jerseyville Baptist Church, a church in my riding of Flamborough–Glanbrook that recently celebrated its 200th anniversary. I had the privilege of attending this celebration and witnessing the sense of community the organization provides for residents in the surrounding area. I was genuinely moved.

I asked Pastor Matthew Richards what this 200th anniversary means to him and his church. He said, “For many years, the church’s stated mission has been, ‘We will, by prayer and faith, in action, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, impact our community with the love of Jesus Christ and walk in fellowship with those who trust Him.’ This takes place in formal times of worship and Bible teachings and also in genuine friendships within our congregation. We ... support with our prayers, time and resources other charities, local and global, which complement our mission.”

Pastor Richards explained that many of the last names of those who were instrumental in the establishment of the church are still prevalent in the community today. Clearly these deep community roots are evident as the church celebrates 200 years of offering fellowship and support throughout the community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to again congratulate Pastor Richards and the congregation at Jerseyville Baptist Church on their remarkable longevity. I wish them many, many more years of service to Jerseyville and beyond.

We recently had a tenant contact our office to raise a very concerning issue. The tenant had read about the recent court decision that forced a tenant to pay his landlord’s delinquent tax bill to the CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, and he was concerned that this rule could affect him.

Since his landlord was refusing to tell them if they were paying their taxes, the tenant contacted the CRA and asked them what he should do. The CRA told him to withhold 25% of his rent and pay it directly to the CRA.

Now, if a tenant doesn’t pay on time, the CRA’s website says they will pay interest and they may be fined. The tenant went back to the landlord with the bad news and the landlord said, “If you withhold your rent to pay this tax bill, I’m going to evict you for arrears.”

Okay, so this tenant is now caught between a rock and a hard place, between having the CRA go after him for someone else’s tax bill or risking eviction. And this renter isn’t alone. Every renter who is living in a property owned by a non-resident landlord could be in the same horrible predicament.

No tenant should have to risk eviction for paying their non-resident landlord’s delinquent tax bill. This is fundamentally unfair. In this incredibly expensive housing market, renters have it hard enough.

We are requesting the following measures to resolve this situation: The province should direct the Landlord and Tenant Board to deny any landlord’s application to evict a tenant if the tenant is withholding rent to pay the landlord’s own tax bill, and second, the CRA should work with the federal government to reverse this rule immediately and not force tenants to pay their landlord’s delinquent taxes ever.