It’s a pleasure to join the debate on this important legislation this morning, on behalf of the residents of Simcoe–Grey.

Bill 188 is titled Supporting Children’s Futures Act. I ask this House, what can be more important to our collective future than the well-being of our children? This question encompasses all children, including those at risk of abuse and neglect—in fact, probably particularly those children. It is said that a society can be judged by how it treats the most vulnerable, and I think we can all agree that our children at risk are among our most vulnerable. I appreciate the comments that I have heard from both my colleagues from Ottawa and their support for this legislation. It is an ongoing and evolving sector, and this legislation is part of this government’s effort to continue to improve our services for our most vulnerable.

Protection services are mandated under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and these services are provided by children’s aid societies.

Licensed out-of-home care refers to the provision of care to a young person in a home or setting that is away from the home of their parent or guardian.

Children and youth are placed into out-of-home care for a range of reasons in addition to child protection concerns, including being in conflict with the law, human trafficking, complex special needs or mental health and/or addiction treatment needs.

Care may be provided in foster homes, children’s residences or staff-model homes. Most children placed in out-of-home care are cared for in foster care.

Children’s aid societies are also responsible for Ontario’s public adoption system, adoption planning, recruiting adoptive parents, training, matching, facilitative adoption placements and providing supports. Private and intercountry adoptions are managed by licensees under the CYFSA of the Intercountry Adoption Act.

Over 7,000 children and youth in care in Ontario are served by 424 licence holders, and 301 group homes serve approximately 1,680 children, and 4,038 foster homes serve approximately 5,700 children.

Speaker, our government has undertaken a comprehensive redesign of the child welfare system in Ontario, and we did this because every child and youth deserves a decent start in life and a safe and stable home, regardless of their circumstances. Through the redesign, this government has introduced new initiatives to improve the quality of care in out-of-home settings which include:

—developing a new framework for what out-of-home care looks like;

—increasing and enhancing oversight and accountability for out-of-home care;

—supporting that oversight by adding 20 new positions across the province to support the management, inspection and oversight of out-of-home care for children and youth; and

—launching the Ready, Set, Go program, which provides youth in the care of children’s aid societies with the life skills they need, starting at 13, and financial support when they leave care, up to the age of 23, so that they can focus on post-secondary education, including the skilled trades, or pursuing employment.

In addition, we’ve implemented these initiatives after consulting widely in the community and with these service providers to better serve children and youth and understand their needs; and bolstering customary care arrangements to focus on family-based options, like kinship and foster care, to ensure children, youth and families have a strong voice in decisions about their care.

We have worked extensively on improving the quality of the child welfare data to establish a baseline of common measures across children’s aid societies that can be reported publicly. We all know that data is important to measuring our evolution and our progress, and what gets measured gets accomplished. And along with that, we have developed an outcomes-based performance measurement framework.

Speaker, we have also updated the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to better protect youth in care from human trafficking. Through those changes, we have made the role of children’s aid societies clear so they can intervene in situations where a child is a victim of sex trafficking or is at risk of being trafficked—and we know this is an ever-present and ever-growing trend. We have allowed child protection workers and police to remove 16- and 17-year-old victims of child sex trafficking, to voluntarily access protective measures and supportive resources. And we have increased penalties for traffickers who interfere with or harbour children who are subject to an order of supervision or care by a children’s aid society. These changes have strengthened children’s aid societies’ ability to intervene in child sex trafficking, made the role of societies in these cases more clear, and promoted consistent responses across the province.

With the Supporting Children’s Futures Act, we are continuing this hard work to build on what our government has achieved, and moving forward towards an Ontario where no one is left behind.

Speaker, as part of the development of Bill 188, this government consulted across the child welfare sector to develop the measures contained in this bill. Ministry staff held over 30 virtual engagements with various stakeholder groups, including youth with lived experience. We have also engaged stakeholders through the Ontario Regulatory Registry, where we received over 35 written submissions on the proposed changes.

As a result of this consultation process, Bill 188, at its core, is about protecting children and youth in Ontario’s care today, through new measures for safety, service, oversight, accountability and privacy, and providing better opportunities for children and youth who are in care in Ontario today to thrive as the adults of tomorrow, as they grow.

Speaker, if passed, this bill will protect children and youth in care and provide them with a better future by strengthening oversight and enforcement tools for out-of-home care, protecting privacy of youth formerly in care, and updating the Child, Youth and Family Services Act with lessons learned since it became law. The proposed changes in this bill will improve safety and independence for children and youth in care and assist them in moving on from care. In the short term, these measures will ensure safer and more consistent services for children and youth who need to live away from home. In the longer term, these measures will ensure these children and youth will be better prepared for adulthood and for success in their lives.

We are strengthening oversight for a number of critical reasons. To make sure applicants are fit to provide quality care, this bill proposes a more thorough application process and new powers to refuse a licence on several grounds, most importantly in the public interest. To ensure all children and youth in care receive safe, high-quality services, this bill proposes to increase accountability for all operators. This includes requiring inspectors to take certain actions when they find non-compliance.

In addition, we are introducing a better range of penalties, including compliance orders, administrative monetary penalties, and enhanced charges with larger fines.

All members of this House have seen the shocking instances where some providers have failed to provide high-quality care. And our government has been very clear that there is no room in our province for these bad actors who do not operate in compliance with the law.

As a result, this bill proposes new, high impact enforcement tools to root out bad actors, such as:

—an order for funding to be returned where a licensee has failed to use funds in accordance with the terms of service agreement for a child;

—an order for new management for an out-of-home care setting; and

—restraining orders which would restrain individuals employed or otherwise engaged by the licensee to provide direct care to or supervise a child or a young person in a children’s residence where there are reasonable grounds to believe that there’s an imminent threat to the health, safety and welfare of any child or young person by that care setting.

We’ve also introduced a new type of order, compliance orders, which would instruct the licensee to do something or refrain from doing something to achieve compliance.

We are creating new provincial offences for people in the sector who violate a youth’s rights to be free from corporal punishment, physical and mechanical restraints, and detention.

And we are enhancing the penalties for provincial offences under the act to fines of up to $250,000, imposing imprisonment for a term not more than one year, or both; and for a corporation convicted of offence, fines of up to $250,000. We are also introducing new administrative monetary penalties of up to $100,000.

Bill 188 proposes a number of important procedural changes to existing processes which include the following:

—for inspectors to follow certain steps when they find instances of non-compliance during inspections;

—for inspectors to conduct an investigation with a warrant when there’s reason to believe an offence has been committed;

—changes to the appeal process for licensing decisions, conditions, suspensions and revocations, and ensuring that any appeals of these decisions will not automatically result in a stay of the decision; and

—changes to the appeal process to require the applicant or licensee to file more information with the ministry, to clarify what constitutes evidence before the tribunal, and to clarify the orders that the tribunal can make following an appeal.

These changes are crucial new tools to uphold service providers to the high standard of care that our children and youth deserve and our government expects. These new and enhanced penalties give ministry inspectors a more responsive and useful range of tools to use when they find a service provider that isn’t consistently complying with the requirements and providing the best care for their wards. The offences are new. The fines are new or enhanced. The amounts are raised by orders of magnitude sufficient to deter service providers from thinking they can profit by providing poor or dangerous care.

Speaker, this act also strengthens the privacy of the individual children and youth. To protect the privacy of the children and youth once they leave care, this bill restricts access to records held by the children’s aid societies about a child or youth once they are no longer in care. These changes aim to enhance the privacy of children and youth with a history in the child welfare system by restricting access by others to their child welfare records, through regulations to be developed.

This bill will also enable adults with a history of child protection involvement to publicly identify themselves and speak about their experiences.

These are important changes. It is important that children who grow up in these types of environments have the same rights as others to talk about their past, to talk about their experiences and to move forward in their lives. This change clarifies an ambiguity in the CYFSA that permitted the interpretation that former children and youth in care were breaching their own privacy by talking publicly about their past experiences in care. This clarification aims to better protect the privacy of adults who were former children and youth in care by restricting access to their records by others, while permitting them to speak freely about their lived experience, as can any of us in this House. This clarification gives former children and youth in care the same right to speak about their childhood as everyone else.

Through Bill 188, we are also updating the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to make it clear and consistent across the sector. Bill 188 proposes to establish clear and consistent practices in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act through a number of new measures. This bill has provisions that will permit information-sharing between children’s aid societies, the College of Early Childhood Educators and the Ontario College of Teachers, to enable timely action when there is an allegation of a risk to children involving a teacher or an early childhood educator. This information-sharing would support investigations or hearings by the professional colleges.

Speaker, this change will also expand the current list of professionals who can receive personal information from children’s aid societies, beyond regulated child professions, social workers and social service workers, to include teachers and ECEs.

If passed, this bill will clarify that ECEs are a profession with a duty to report children in need of protections. Currently, under our system, only ECEs working in designated roles have an explicit duty to report. This change will also mean that ECEs who fail to report a child in need of protection may be subject to penalties, like the other professionals who have this obligation.

The bill will also enable the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers to share information about its members with bodies that govern other professions and with others such as children’s aid societies. Currently, the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers is not permitted to inform other parties that an investigation against a member is under way unless the member consents or until the investigation concludes. The college itself has requested this change, to be more consistent with other health professionals whose professional colleges are able to disclose information in a timely manner to reduce or eliminate the risk of harm.

Another important aspect of Bill 188 is to clarify the circumstances when children and youth must be informed about their rights to complain to the office of the Ombudsman. Currently, the Ombudsman Act guides how and when children and youth in care are informed about the office and the role of the Ombudsman. Currently, service providers rely on the CYFSA and not the Ombudsman Act to determine their responsibility to children and youth in care, and this creates a gap so that not all service providers, let alone children and youth, are aware of their right to contact the Ombudsman. We believe that by clarifying these obligations in the CYFSA in Bill 188, we are ensuring that all licensees will be aware of their obligations and able to utilize them if necessary.

Bill 188 will enhance transparency in reporting by allowing sector workers to file enabling offence declarations, to ensure that everyone who needs to provide a police record check as a condition of their employment is able to notify their employer if there is any change in their record between the required updates.

Speaker, there are also a number of actions that are not in this bill but that are contained in recently filed regulation changes. Our government has been clear that Bill 188 is an important step in the child welfare design process. That is why, in tandem with introducing this bill, we filed two regulations—namely, O. Reg 155 and O. Reg 156—that will come into force on January 1, 2025, containing a number of new measures, including the following:

—mandating information-sharing between children’s aid societies and the ministry about specific health and safety risks to children in licensed out-of-home care settings;

—requiring information-sharing between different children’s aid societies, as needed, to support service planning of children placed by one children’s aid society into the jurisdiction of another;

—requiring children’s aid societies to visit children in their care placed in out-of-home care more frequently, so every 30 days instead of every 90 days;

—requiring unannounced in-person visits by children’s aid societies in certain circumstances; for example, if a visit cannot be scheduled because the society was unable to contact the child or the caregivers, or if there are concerns related to the well-being of the child; and

—clarifying and enhancing rules prohibiting certain methods of discipline in licensed settings, like rules prohibiting the use of derogatory or racist language directed at or even used in the presence of the child;

—requiring licensees, their staff, and others to report to the ministry where there are reasonable grounds to suspect the use of prohibited methods of discipline in a licensed setting;

—requiring that licensees ensure that staff and foster parents providing out-of-home care do so in accordance with the licensee’s program description set out in their application;

—enhancing rules for record-keeping of financial arrangements with respect to the provision of licenced out-of-home care for the child;

—requiring bedrooms in children’s residences to have doors, to provide a reasonable degree of privacy;

—requiring bedrooms in a foster care home to have a physical or visual barrier, to provide foster care children with reasonable privacy;

—providing clarity in cases where there is a conflict between the regulations applicable to licensees and recommendations made by the local medical officer of health;

—enhancing rules on financial reporting to be prepared by licensees;

—clarifying the rules governing the use of physical and mechanical restraints by foster parents; and

—adding new provisions to set out offences for contravention of rules specific to the use of physical and mechanical restraints, prohibited methods of discipline and intervention that may be used in licensed out-of-home care settings, and nutrition and food to be made available to residents in licensed children’s residences.

Speaker, these are all changes that are part of our evolution ensuring that all children in this province have the best start to set them up for a successful and prosperous future—and from the conversations we’ve had this morning, we all can agree that is of critical importance.

I’d like to end my comments today with a quotation from Diana Frances, a former foster child who wrote to express her support for this legislation: “I am writing to express my support of Bill 188: supporting the futures of children and youth act, that is currently before the Ontario government. Speaking from my life experience, I believe with all my heart that these improvements to the safety, well-being and privacy of children and youth in care are of vital importance. Many important changes have been made to the system since I was adopted, given up again at 13 and placed with another family as a ward of the province. However, more issues need to be updated and amended as our social structure changes and social media poses new risks to privacy and safety.”

I want to thank Diana for sharing her lived experience. It’s part of the evolution, and this government is committed to—

It is a pleasure to rise in the House this afternoon, on behalf of the hard-working residents of Simcoe–Grey, to join the debate on Bill 165, Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024.

In light of the debate and discussion I have heard so far, my comments today are going to focus on the question of a sustainable Ontario and the competing challenges of housing and energy costs for the residents of our beautiful province.

After listening to the debate yesterday, I’d like to start by reviewing the mandate of the Ontario Energy Board, or OEB, and the December 21, 2023, decision and order in Enbridge Gas Inc. application for 2024 rates – phase 1 that is the reason for Bill 165.

The OEB is a statutory creature of the province with a mandate to regulate Ontario’s energy sector as required under provincial legislation. It is, in fact, governed by seven separate pieces of provincial legislation, including the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, the Electricity Act, 1998, and the Energy Consumer Protection Act, 2010.

The fact is that the OEB is a regulator, not a consumer protection agency. The OEB has regulated the natural gas sector since 1960 and the electrical sector since 1999. As a government agency, the OEB has been delegated the authority and responsibility for setting the delivery rates that electricity and natural gas utilities can charge and to monitor the financial and operational performance of these utilities.

According to its website, the OEB’s vision is to be a trusted regulator that is recognized for enabling Ontario’s growing economy and improving the quality of life for the people of this province, who deserve safe, reliable and affordable energy. And its mission statement is to deliver public value through prudent regulation and independent adjudicative decision-making processes that contribute to Ontario’s economic, social and environmental development. Indeed, these three headings are central to the sustainability of our province—economic, environmental, and social sustainability. They are part of a continuum and cannot be considered in isolation, and any change in one will impact the others.

The OEB’s decision in the Enbridge rate application of December 21 last year was phase 1 of a multi-phase process to determine the parameters for Enbridge’s 2024 rates. Rate-setting is a complex process in which the utilities provide detail and extensive information about their maintenance plans, their projected capital costs for expansion, the cost of supply, the long-term market for their utility and forecasted changes to their sector, all of which is subject to scrutiny by interested stakeholders or intervenors, such as industry groups, consumer groups, environmental groups, municipalities, First Nations and others. In all, there were 33 organizations that applied for intervenor status, of which 20 were approved by the OEB.

Speaker, the decision itself is 145 pages. It is technical and extensive, and it refers extensively to the OEB’s guidelines for assessing and reporting on natural gas system expansion in Ontario, otherwise known as EBO 188, which sets out the factors and parameters the OEB must take into consideration in deciding such rate applications.

Section 2 of EBO 188 sets out the standard test for financial feasibility and has a number of subsections. Subsection 2.2 is of particular relevance to our discussion today and sets out the specific parameters for the common elements, including the following subsections:

“(a) a 10-year customer attachment horizon;

“(b) a customer revenue horizon of 40 years from the in-service date of the initial mains (20 years for large volume customers);...”

Speaker, the intent of these provisions is to set the assumptions for the horizon or, as referred to in the OEB decision, the amortization period for the recovery of the capital costs of the common elements or lateral infrastructure necessary to connect the customer to the utility service. In fact, the term “amortization” will be familiar to anyone in this House or in this province who has a mortgage, and it allows the customer to spread these capital costs over a set period of time rather than pay them all at once, up front. The amortization period is there to make life more affordable. Without this mechanism, many would not be able to afford to connect to an essential service to heat their homes, their water heaters and their clothes dryers.

To cut to the chase, Speaker, EBO 188 sets out the parameters for the OEB to determine the utility rates based on two critical and essential considerations: first, that a customer will use the utility for 10 years; and, second, that the capital costs of the necessary infrastructure to service the clients will have a 40-year horizon for standard clients or 20 years for large-volume customers such as industrial clients. That distinction—to shorten the amortization period for large industrial clients—makes perfect sense. Larger industrial clients will have more consumption and have the ability to pay their share of the capital costs faster. They can afford to pay faster, and the corollary to that is that the residential customers need a longer period in which to pay those costs. This practice has been in place for many, many years and, until this recent decision of the OEB, has been a guiding parameter for the OEB.

The amortization of capital costs has been central to the OEB’s process to make access to safe, reliable and affordable energy, as set out in its mandate. We, on this side of the House, think it should remain that way, pending further discussion.

That is why Minister Smith and this government are introducing Bill 165 to pause the implications of the OEB’s decision in phase 1 of Enbridge’s ongoing application, pending review of the regulations and policy, and then send it back to the OEB for reconsideration.

To be very clear, at issue in the recent OEB decision, which was a split 2-to-1 decision, which is very unusual in the context of the OEB—to not only ignore the amortization period parameter, but to eliminate it entirely and rule that all capital costs for connecting a new Enbridge customer must be paid forward up front. The OEB found that the connection cost of a new home will increase by approximately $4,400, on average, across the province, at a time when this province and this country is facing a housing shortage and the cost of home ownership is beyond the reach of so many Ontarians, young and old. That cost will be significantly more—tens of thousands, in fact—for farms and residents in rural ridings like my riding of Simcoe–Grey.

For example, a recent 311-home subdivision in eastern Ontario would see an upfront connection cost of approximately $925,000, and those costs will need to be carried by the builder for multiple years until those homes are occupied, at which point they will be passed on to the purchaser in the upfront purchase price.

A small greenhouse in eastern Ontario will have an upfront connection charge of approximately $36,000, a crippling charge in an industry that is growing in Ontario and is, in fact, one of our largest economic drivers—$45 billion annually, one in 10 jobs across this province in the agricultural sector. This is a stumbling block which will prohibit many from going into that sector.

A recent seven-year commercial strip mall plaza in southwestern Ontario has an upfront cost of approximately $49,000.

And a recent restaurant project in a commercial plaza, also in western Ontario, would have upfront connection costs of $18,000.

Speaker, these are just a few real-life examples of the scale and scope and the impacts of the OEB’s decision to eliminate the amortization period completely. They are untenable, they are unaffordable, and they will cripple the development across all sectors, be it residential, commercial, agricultural or industrial.

Subsection 2.2(b) of EBO 188 requires the OEB to consider a horizon for the amortization of the capital costs, and in its decision the OEB disregarded that completely. In her dissent, Commissioner Duff spoke to that issue and made the following comments:

“I do not support a zero-year revenue horizon for assessing the economics of small volume gas expansion customers. I do not find the evidentiary record supports this conclusion. The CIAC comparison table filed by Enbridge Gas did not even consider zero within the range of revenue horizon options. Zero is not a horizon. It is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of EBO 188 by requiring 100% of connection costs upfront as a payment, rather than a contribution in aid of construction. There was no mention of zero in EBO 188—yet a 20- to 30-year revenue horizon was considered. To me, the risk of unintended consequences to Enbridge Gas, its customers and other stakeholders increases given the magnitude of this conclusive change.”

Speaker, I agree with Commissioner Duff’s comments. Zero is not a horizon. The OEB decision chose to ignore the status quo, ignore the current and long-standing practice, and it did so despite the lack of evidence as to the impacts of such a drastic departure. As Commissioner Duff stated, the risk of unintended consequences to Enbridge, its customers and other stakeholders is massive because of—in her words—“the magnitude of this conclusive change.”

It is for this reason that the Minister of Energy has introduced Bill 165 to pause the impacts of the OEB’s decision, to maintain the current status quo, and to look at changes to the policy framework for the OEB, in consultation with stakeholder groups across the province, and then to send the issue back to the OEB for reconsideration. This is the responsible thing to do, given the magnitude of this conclusive and drastic change and the dearth of evidence before the OEB about the potential unintended consequences.

No one in this government, despite what they might say on the other side, disputes climate change, its dramatic impacts on Ontarians and the importance of meeting our commitments to reducing our carbon footprint by 2030 and beyond. We’re committed to ensuring Ontario fulfills its obligations to make our province more sustainable, more resilient and better equipped to meet the challenges of climate change.

As I said in my comments on my private member’s motion to push the federal government to eliminate the carbon tax on transportation fuels—a motion, I’m proud to say, that was supported by the official opposition. Interestingly, the minivan caucus of the Liberal Party sat on their hands and abstained from voting—perhaps they had a minivan mechanical that day.

As I stated at the outset, sustainability is a critical topic for Ontarians and for hard-working residents of Simcoe–Grey, and it comes in many forms: environmental, economic, and social.

And 2030 is a big year for Ontarians, for a number of very important reasons. It is the year by which we are to reduce our GHG emissions by 30% from 2005 levels, and it is the year by which the CMHC, in its 2023 housing update, made a stark prediction about the housing shortage in Canada and Ontario.

Starting with greenhouse gas emissions, based on the Auditor General’s report of last spring, the State of the Environment in Ontario, we have reduced our greenhouse gas emissions by 27%. We’re 90% of the way to our target with six years to go now, and I’m proud to say that we will exceed that target, when we look at our projects in terms of converting our steel producers to green steel through arc furnaces and eliminating coke furnaces—a deal that is costing this province approximately $1 billion.

And I’m very proud to say that we have one of the most diversified electrical grids in Canada, utilizing nuclear energy for approximately 60%, hydroelectric for about 24%, renewables for 9%, and natural gas and biomass for approximately 8%.

These numbers in aggregate show that we are over 90% GHG-free in Ontario, and those numbers will increase when we get our four new small modular nuclear reactors online, which will power 1.2 million homes. The first one will come online by 2028.

I’m also very proud to say that Ontarians have one of the smallest per capita GHG footprints in Canada—we’re 10.1 tonnes per individual; the national average is 17.7, so we’re 43% below that. Ontario, with approximately 38% of Canada’s population, only emits 22% of our greenhouse gases.

We are being proactive, and we are being aggressive, and we have a plan to move forward.

Recently, at COP28, Minister Guilbeault was able to sign an undertaking to increase our nuclear capacity as a nation by 300%; he could only do that because, two days earlier, our very capable Minister of the Environment and Minister of Energy signed the very same one. Ontario has 90% of Canada’s active nuclear reactors.

Speaker, the real crisis facing Ontarians and Canadians is a housing shortage, and that is why it is a priority for our government. We are committed to building 1.5 million new homes by 2030. We ran on that in the last election, and we won convincingly—so convincingly that we bulged our caucus so that it sits between the NDP and the independents.

But let’s be very, very clear. CMHC predicted, in its recent 2023 housing update, that if Canada continues along its current rate of 200,000 new housing starts per year, 100,000 of which are in this province, we will be 3.5 million homes under-housed by 2030. At the same time, we’ll be crushing our GHG emissions. That is a crisis of massive proportions. If we look at issues of homelessness and affordability and food security today, if you magnify that, on the projection by CMHC, it will be a much more dire situation in 2030.

That is why this government is focused on making housing affordable. That is why this government is trying to push down upfront costs and eliminate barriers to new homeowners moving forward. And that is why the OEB decision that brings us here today is another roadblock to housing affordability. It disrupts the status quo by eliminating the long-standing 40-year horizon to amortize the cost for new customers. It forces homebuyers to pay for these costs upfront and puts another significant financial barrier in the way of prospective purchasers.

In the recent report on barriers to housing supply in Ontario, the Fraser Institute said, “Housing affordability has eroded significantly in many parts of Ontario in recent years, prompting a more thorough review of governments’ role in facilitating or impeding the construction of needed homes. While recent policy initiatives signal positive shifts, formidable obstacles persist.” And the OEB has just dropped another major obstacle in the way of home purchasers.

Ontario is now the third-biggest economy behind the US and Canada only. We’re attracting international attention and investment as a safe, reliable and sustainable partner for global businesses. This is all part of our plan to build a sustainable province environmentally and economically. So that third branch, social sustainability and housing, faces the real crisis, and that is why it is a priority for this government.

Speaker, this government is committed to the sustainability of our province and making life more affordable for Ontarians. We are committed to protecting our environment, meeting our GHG emissions targets. I have every confidence that we will not only meet that target, but we will exceed it, and we will do that while continuing to grow our economy and make us one of the most dynamic, diverse and sustainable economies in North America and internationally. To do that, we must solve the housing shortage. We must get critically needed homes built so that our residents, our workers, our students and our future can live there and continue on the path that we are on today.

If we contrast ourselves with the now-empty seats over there and their green energy program that drove 300,000 jobs south of the border, we know—and we heard it this morning in debate from our Minister of Economic Development—that we have brought 700,000 jobs back to this province since 2018, that we have made Ontario the third-biggest economy in North America behind the US and Canada, that we are seen internationally as a safe haven for industry and commerce.

We, on this side of the House, believe that the environment and the economy can go together. That is why we are focused on growing a green economy, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.

The big roadblock to getting us where we need to go is housing supply, and we’re seeing that across—when I go to town hall meetings in my riding, I hear from the social sector, from the commercial sector, from the retail sector: “We can’t attract employees here, because they have nowhere to live.” The speed bump for this great province is that we need to make sure we have housing for our residents and for our future.

This OEB decision is putting a major roadblock in the way of our prospective homebuyers. We are not usurping the jurisdiction of the OEB. We’re pausing their decision. We’re re-looking at their policies. We’re going to stakeholder engagement, and we are going to go back to them to re-examine their decision, with new policies in place to ensure that we can continue to grow while respecting the need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and our carbon footprint.

It’s my pleasure to read a petition that was submitted to my office by the residents of Simcoe–Grey. It says:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from the Ontario Land Lease Homeowners’ Action Group in support of private members’ Bill 48, An Act to amend the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, as it pertains to section 6.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, to be repealed:

“Whereas the population of land lease homeowners in Ontario numbers 26,000-plus women and men, mostly seniors, in 12,000-plus homes in 72 communities, with thousands more under development; and

“Whereas land lease homeowners live in self-owned homes on rented property; and

“Whereas, from a land lease homeowner’s perspective, the Residential Tenancies Act has not been revisited since 2006; and

“Whereas the land lease housing environment has changed dramatically; and

“Whereas many land lease homeowners feel the current section 6.1 of the Residential Tenancies Act allows certain landlords to exploit this section and must be addressed;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To direct the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to work in committee with appointed representatives from the Ontario Land Lease Homeowners’ Action Group, to review and revise the Residential Tenancies Act to repeal section 6.1 to ensure that land lease homeowners are treated fairly, justly and equitably.”

I will pass this to page Paxten.

It is a pleasure to rise this morning on behalf of the residents of Simcoe–Grey to speak about our environment.

Speaker, Ontario has committed to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 30% below the 2005 levels by 2030. By 2020, Ontario’s emissions were 27% lower than the 2005 levels. On a per-capita basis, Ontario’s emissions are the third best in Canada at 10.1 tonnes per resident annually; that is 43% below the national average of 17.7 tonnes per resident.

We know we have more to do, which is why this government is working with our steel producers in Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie to convert the coke furnaces to electric arc furnaces by the end of 2027. That will remove six million more tonnes of GHGs per year.

Speaker, in addition to adding 9,400 acres to the greenbelt this year, this government committed $14 million to our partnership with the Nature Conservancy of Canada, the Greenlands Conservation Program. This is the largest provincial fund to secure, restore and protect sensitive natural areas, and it has amassed over 167,700 hectares since 2020. That is more than 20% of the total landmass of the greenbelt.

Ontario’s energy grid is 90% GHG-free, and we are committed to increasing that number with the new, state-of-the-art, small modular nuclear reactor in Clarington, Ontario that will generate 300,000 megawatts, enough to power 300,000 homes.

Speaker, Ontario is leading Canada in reducing our carbon footprint, and this government is committed to making our province a leader in sustainability environmentally, economically and socially.

It’s my pleasure to welcome Alliston resident Joy Webster to the House today. She’s a great resident of Simcoe–Grey, and it’s my pleasure to introduce her.

My question is for the Associate Minister of Housing.

We know we have a housing crisis across the province. Certainly, in my riding of Simcoe–Grey, we’re seeing, with two growth nodes, both in Alliston and Collingwood, that there are incredible pressures there for housing.

But there’s also incredible population growth in our province. For the first time in our history, we exceeded 15 million people last year, and we know we’re going to be growing substantially. We grew by 400,000 new residents in Ontario last year. The federal government is planning to bring in 500,000 immigrants per year.

I’m wondering if the associate minister could please explain how this legislation, if passed, will help us to continue to grow to prepare for future growth and welcome new Ontarians looking to lay down roots in our province.

My question is to the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. He spoke eloquently about the supports in this budget proposed for seniors and other vulnerable sectors of our population.

Specifically, my question regards our Roadmap to Wellness: A Plan to Build Ontario’s Mental Health and Addictions System. We’ve known, over the past few years with the pandemic, that there has been a general decline in overall mental health across the province, and particularly those that face challenges in terms of food security and housing security. This program has a historic investment of about $3.8 billion over 10 years. We’re increasing that base funding by 5% to $425 million annually. I’m wondering if the member could please speak about the benefits that program will have for our residents.

Over the last four years, in my riding, our hospitals have had $21 million of investment in redevelopments that are long overdue and did not occur for 15 years prior to that.

I want to know what the member opposite has to say to those who lie in hallways on gurneys waiting for care.

I had a senior resident in my community who was in septic shock, was on a gurney for three days in the emergency ward before being admitted to a hospital bed, and spent three weeks there. That constituent was my father.

What does the member opposite have to say to those residents, those Ontarians, who lie in wait in emergency rooms, waiting for rooms that they can’t get because there’s an alternate-level-of-care patient who has been discharged, who’s ready to be moved and can’t be moved?

Hopefully I’ll get an opportunity to finish what I start this time.

I rise to speak as the member for Simcoe–Grey. It’s a great honour to be here today as part of a House that is prepared to get things done and to improve lives for the residents of our province.

As the member for Simcoe–Grey, I want to speak briefly about my riding. With a population of over 152,000, it consists of seven municipalities, six in Simcoe–Grey and one in Grey county. I want to highlight this morning the ways in which those municipalities are working together collaboratively to serve their residents effectively and efficiently, something that this government has been working hard with our residents and lower-tier governments to make happen. We know that there is only one taxpayer, and I want to congratulate each of these municipalities for their initiative and their leadership.

On Friday, my colleague from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, MPP Byers, and I attended a meeting with the mayors and CAOs of Collingwood, Wasaga Beach, Clearview, Town of the Blue Mountains and Meaford to discuss their work regionally to address issues relating to transportation and housing—issues that are very compelling and pressing for all of our residents.

Last week, both the councils of Collingwood and New Tecumseth approved the renewal of the water supply agreement that will continue and expand the supply of safe and abundant drinking water from Georgian Bay to the residents of New Tecumseth.

Speaker, these are just two examples of how my municipalities are working very hard collaboratively to provide effective and efficient governance for their residents.