I rise this morning to salute and pay tribute to a distinguished resident of Simcoe–Grey, Chad Bark, who passed away this month at the age of 99. Chad was a true member of our greatest generation; he was a gentleman, an accomplished athlete, a decorated World War II veteran, a devoted husband and father, and a friend.

Chad; his wife, Lyn; and their four children, Barbara, Susan, John and Don, were family friends and our neighbours in the Toronto neighbourhood that I grew up in.

In 1944, at the age of 18, Chad enlisted, hoping to be a pilot. However, he was deemed ineligible because he was colour-blind, and he joined the army corps. He was shipped to England in the spring of 1944, arriving on May 6, one month before the D-Day invasion.

Chad was assigned to the signal corps and the cipher group, where his job was to create and decipher codes to ensure communications were secure on the front lines.

After celebrating VE day in Manchester, England, he returned home to work in his father’s business, marry his sweetheart, Lyn, and raise four children.

A proud Canadian, Chad was a candidate in the 1974 federal election, running as a Progressive Conservative under the leadership of Robert Stanfield—the best Prime Minister we never had. I am so proud to say that I worked in his campaign, putting up Chad Bark signs. It was my first foray into politics and, clearly, it made an impression. I had the great fortune to reconnect with Chad 48 years later, when campaigning in the last provincial election. He was a constituent living in Alliston, and he returned the favour by campaigning vigorously in his seniors’ home, where he organized a meet and greet.

Speaker, my condolences to the Bark family on the passing of this remarkable man.

Farewell and Godspeed, Chad.

It’s a pleasure to rise this afternoon and join this debate on opposition day motion number 3.

I can tell this House that hearing from the member opposite that we are a very different party on this side actually warms my heart, because we, on this side of the House, are very different from the opposition and from the Liberal Party. We are getting things done.

On the topic for today, I would like to start just by differentiating our budget items from the Liberal budget items. This comes from the Auditor General’s report itself. Between 2015 and 2018, the Liberal government spent $48.9 million annually on advertising. On this side of the House—if you take out the pandemic years, which were very different—this side has spent $29.2 million, and it has been money well-invested in ads that have been informing. They’ve been approved by the Auditor General, pursuant to the policy, and they have been providing Ontarians with important information about what has been going on in our province—important information about access to health care; important information about housing programs; important information about long-term care; and important information about how we are improving Ontario’s economy.

We’ve attracted, as we heard this morning, 700,000 jobs to this province and over $35 billion in investment in the EV sector and the agricultural sector and other business sectors.

We are absolutely different, on this side of the floor, from that side of the floor. We’re improving life for Ontario residents, and we’re getting the job done, and we’re happy to talk about it.

Madam Speaker, if I can just review the Government Advertising Act history—it was passed in 2006, and it requires the Auditor General to review government advertising to ensure it is free of partisan content, as defined by the act. The act applies to a government office, which the act defines as a ministry, Cabinet Office and the Office of the Premier. Items that are reviewable by the Auditor General under the original act included any advertisement that a government office proposes to pay to have published in a newspaper or magazine, displayed on a billboard or broadcast on radio or television; printed matter that a government office proposes to pay to have distributed to households in Ontario by bulk mail or another method of bulk delivery, where bulk mail or bulk delivery means the printed matter is not individually addressed to the intended recipient; and any additional classes of messages prescribed by regulation.

That original act was amended in 2015, and these changes include: adding digital advertising to the Auditor General’s scope of review, and digital advertising is defined by the regulations; defining what partisan means in relation to government advertising; clearly stating what can be advertised publicly by the government, such as fiscal policies and policy rationales or objectives; clarifying rules around government advertising during general elections; and, finally, requiring the government to submit a preliminary version of the ad to the Auditor General for review, in addition to the final review process.

The amendments addressed comments received since 2011 from former Auditors General requesting the ability to review digital advertising. The amendments also clarified what is meant by the term “partisan” and defined a partisan ad as partisan if:

(1) It includes the name, voice or image of a member of the executive council or the Legislative Assembly, unless the primary audience is outside Ontario. However, the use of a member’s title would be permitted—e.g. Premier’s Awards.

(2) It includes the name or logo of a recognized party.

(3) It directly identifies and criticizes a recognized party or a member of the assembly.

(4) It includes to a significant degree a colour associated with the governing party, unless the item depicted in the ad commonly appears in that colour.

Just adding to the comments of my colleague from Mississauga–Lakeshore, these ads were all approved by the Auditor General, as per the act. These ads were all legitimate, they were almost half the cost of what the prior Liberal government was investing, and these ads were serving a public purpose in making sure that Ontarians know about the activities that are going on at Queen’s Park that impact their daily lives.

We believe that the government should provide important health information, like vaccination campaigns and public health measures, like we did during the pandemic.

We believe that the people of Ontario should be told about what their government is doing to help build new homes so that young families can achieve the dream of home ownership.

We believe that the people of Ontario should be informed about how their hard-earned tax dollars are building a stronger economy and creating thousands of new jobs across our province.

We believe that Ontario is a place we should all be proud of.

There’s work to be done, and we’re happy to do that work, we’re quite prepared to do that work, and we will continue to do that work. It is for this reason that we on this side of the floor believe that the ads that we have been putting out are responsible, informative and are a very critical part of continuing to be an open and transparent government about the things that matter most. And we will not apologize for that.

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 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.