role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 27, 2024

43rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2024-Feb-27 (PDF)

L126 - Tue 27 Feb 2024 / Mar 27 fév 2024

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 27 February 2024 Mardi 27 février 2024

Orders of the Day

Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à maintenir la facture énergétique à un niveau abordable

Members’ Statements

Members’ safety

Northern cost of living

Taxation

Ed Broadbent

Lunar new year

Tibet

Nicholas Nembhard

Bon Soo Winter Carnival

Glenn Arthur

UBC Millwright Union Local 1916

Introduction of Visitors

Question Period

University and college funding

Justice system

Government accountability

Public transit

Teachers

Taxation

Municipal finances

Government spending

Public transit

Forest firefighting

Energy policies

Taxation

Health care

Public transit

Children’s mental health services

Visitors

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

Introduction of Bills

Doreen Scolnick Investments Limited Act, 2024

Petitions

Health care

Alzheimer’s disease

Missing persons

Tuition

Tuition

Health care funding

Tuition

Broadband infrastructure

Sécurité routière

Health care

Northern Health Travel Grant

Orders of the Day

Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à maintenir la facture énergétique à un niveau abordable

Adjournment Debate

Housing

Government advertising

Justice system

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024 / Loi de 2024 visant à maintenir la facture énergétique à un niveau abordable

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 26, 2024, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 165,

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

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: It’s always an honour to rise and speak in the House, and today I’m speaking on second reading of Bill 165, a bill that should really be called “keeping energy costs down for Enbridge,” because it’s certainly not keeping energy costs down for gas customers in this province.

What this bill is doing is forcing existing ratepayers, people who currently use methane fossil gas in their homes, to subsidize the hookup of new fossil gas infrastructure in our province, in order to support a company that had profits of $16.5 billion last year and whose CEO earns a nice salary of $19 million a year. I don’t think Enbridge needs a subsidy. I think the people of Ontario could use a bit of a break, but certainly not Enbridge.

What are the implications of taking the unprecedented step, for the first time in Ontario history, to overturn an OEB decision? What are implications for the people of the province? Well, Enbridge is going to save $250 million a year just up front. But what does that mean for existing gas customers in Ontario? Well, if you take this complete decision, according to Environmental Defence, Enbridge is going to save around $2 billion over the five years of this decision, which equals $600 per fossil gas customer in Ontario.

I just want the people of this province to understand what is happening here. Enbridge is getting a subsidy and it’s going to cost you—if you use fossil gas in this province—on average $600 a person. I think that’s a bad deal, at least for the people of Ontario. It’s a pretty good deal for the 19-million-dollar man and his company, Enbridge, but certainly not a good deal for the people of Ontario.

If there was no other alternative or no other option for people, or if developers had no other way of heating and cooling people’s homes, then maybe you could make an argument that such a subsidy for Enbridge costing ratepayers so much money would be justified. But it’s not. Because as the OEB decision—and I’ll remind you that the OEB decision was based on input from hundreds and hundreds of stakeholders, producing thousands and thousands of pages of documentation to justify this decision that it would actually be cheaper for people to heat and cool their homes with heat pumps.

Not only is the government taking the unprecedented step of overturning this OEB decision, they’re actually doing it to disincentivize developers putting in technology that will be cheaper.

As a matter of fact, over the average life-cycle cost of a heat pump versus a gas furnace, those new home owners will have 13% lower costs. So we’re asking ratepayers to subsidize Enbridge for new home owners to have more expensive heating and cooling in their homes.

According to the OEB decision—if you actually take the time to read the decision—there will be no incremental cost increases for developers if they put in heat pumps and don’t do the initial gas hookups in the first place. So not only do we risk forcing new home owners to have a more expensive heating system, this bill will also force them to have a stranded asset.

Even this government, with its weakened climate targets, says we should be net zero by 2050. So my calculation is, it’s 2024, so 2050 is less than 30 years from now, and if we have any hope of being net zero, we cannot be heating our homes with fossil gas. So why is the government imposing a 40-year amortization schedule, which means they’re making calculations for gas furnaces way beyond 2050? By definition, they’re going to be forcing existing homeowners to have a stranded asset that will then cost them even more money to replace so we can meet our net zero targets.

This is also going to have implications for our economy. In 2022, the green energy transition, according to Bloomberg, resulted in investments around the world of $1.3 trillion, over half of that in low-cost renewable energy, primarily wind and solar because the prices have come down so much. That investment in 2023 rose to $1.8 trillion. That kind of growth is going to continue each and every year, moving forward.

I want Ontario to be a global leader in what is now a $1.8 trillion economic opportunity. According to Bloomberg still, about half of that investment is wind and solar. A growing amount of that investment is in electric vehicles—and I’ll say that finally Ontario is starting to catch up and make investments in electric vehicles—but a growing percentage of that investment is in alternative heating sources, like heat pumps. As a matter of fact, according to the International Energy Agency, heat pump installations are growing at double-digit rates around the world, no more so than in Europe, where we saw a 40% increase in heat pump installations last year.

As a matter of fact, the EU’s target is that 60 million additional heat pumps will be installed by 2030. So Ontario has an amazing opportunity to not only be a leader in electric vehicles, but to be a leader in manufacturing heat pumps. But in order to do that, we actually need a government that believes in a technology that’s going to save us money.

And I know some people have said, “These heat pumps, do they work in cold weather?” Absolutely they do, to minus 30 degrees. As a matter of fact, the countries in Europe that have installed the most heat pumps are the Scandinavian countries, which have a cold climate very similar to Canada.

Speaker, I want to close by saying: What are the implications of this decision? The government has spent the last few months opposing carbon pricing, a price on pollution, because they say there are other ways to address the climate crisis. Well, those other ways are through regulations and through investments in technology that result decarbonization. But the government is opposed to that too, because that’s exactly what this bill, Bill 165, does.

It says that we are, as a province—even though the independent energy regulator says that the way to go is not in expensive gas but in lower-cost alternatives like heat pumps, instead of actually putting in place a regulatory regime that would encourage that, the government is opposed to that.

So I don’t know what the government’s for. They’re going to ramp up gas plants for electricity, increasing carbon pollution by 400%, even though we are at a time where the costs of the climate crisis are escalating. We see it each and every day, and the government seems to be opposed to any and all solutions.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): It is now time for questions and answers.

Mr. Graham McGregor: I want to thank my colleague for his presentation this morning. I appreciate his clarity on his position on the carbon tax. I think it’s clear that the Green Party leader supports carbon taxes and an increased carbon tax. Of course, on the PC side, we’re the only party that’s actually fighting to scrap the carbon tax.

I also have his position on nuclear power. On a recent decision we made around refurbishing Pickering nuclear, not only ensuring saving our grid but also saving jobs, he says, “It makes no sense for the government to pour billions into keeping it operational when lower-cost, cleaner solutions are available....

“The Ford government is making Ontario’s grid dirtier and more expensive by prioritizing ... the costly, poor-performing Pickering plant.”

In the member’s mind, we should all be on heat pumps to heat our homes. I’m just wondering: How would this member—if he won’t stand up for nuclear, how are we going to power the grid to make this happen?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. I believe in investing in the lowest-cost, cleanest solutions to our energy needs. I’ve been very clear: I support the rebuilding of Darlington and Bruce. We know that nuclear power is going to be part of Ontario’s energy mix for decades to come. Pickering, I believe, is a huge mistake. Of the 65 operating nuclear plants in North America, Pickering is consistently rated as the 64th poorest-performing plant. I don’t know who pours money into such a poor-performing asset, especially when the cost of wind and solar has come down so much that if we invested in low-cost renewables, it would cost us less for cleaner power.

That’s exactly why, of the $1.8 trillion being invested in the clean energy transition right now, over half—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further questions?

Mr. Chris Glover: I want to thank the member from Guelph for his comments today on Bill 165, raising costs for gas customers across the province. I just want to go through some of the figures and make sure I got the figures right. I do appreciate them.

You said that right now, with this bill, the government’s actually proposing that anybody who’s buying Enbridge gas, who’s an Enbridge Gas customer, is going to be subsidizing the expansion of their lines by $600. That’s the cost to each individual customer. Then you said that the people who are the new customers for Enbridge are going to be paying 13% more over the life of a gas furnace than they would have if they had a heat pump. Those are the numbers.

Is this the only example that you know of where this government is squandering our tax dollars in order to support a private, for-profit corporation? I’ll give just one example from my own riding: Ontario Place. This government is giving Therme 650 million tax dollars. Do you have other examples?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member’s question. I would add agency nursing to that and just the increasing privatization of our health care system, where people are being forced to pay more for less.

But let’s stick to this particular bill. It’s just outrageous to think that existing gas customers are going to pay $600 more to subsidize a $16-billion company with a $19-million CEO. I remember when the government used to complain about the six-million-dollar man at Hydro One. Well, let’s talk about the 19-million-dollar man at Enbridge that they’re subsidizing.

On top of that, these new home owners are going to have a heating system that costs them 13% more. That’s what it says in the OEB decision.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): We have time for one last question.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Just a quick question: I know that in the north, we do our heating with wood stoves, and sometimes I see people selling their wood in sled loads. A sled load is like—it’s $150, $200 for a sled load. Depending on the weather, that lasts probably three days to maybe a week at most, at best. How will this bill help those people?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: Yes, well, let’s help those people first of all. High-efficiency wood furnaces: Let’s make them available to everyone. Better yet, let’s make heat pumps free of charge. PEI is doing it for every household under $100,000. Why don’t we make heat pumps free to people in the north?

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Donna Skelly): Further debate?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: I’m pleased to rise today and speak to this important piece of legislation, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024. The proposed bill, if enacted, would amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to put in place mechanisms that facilitate broader stakeholder input as well as the manner in which a generic hearing process may be directed by the minister. The proposed bill would also set out a mechanism to address aspects of a specific natural gas order of the Ontario Energy Board related to revenue horizons.

The proposed bill would also address certain other matters relating to the granting of leave-to-construct approvals, including the exemption from the requirement to obtain leave to construct for certain energy projects.

The bill might seem very technical, and it does sound technical. There’s a lot of things in here that our government is working on to fix, but ultimately, all of these technical phrases, adjustments and terms lead to one thing: the fact that our government is working hard to keep energy costs down by amending the Ontario Energy Board Act. As we all know, one of the reasons we got elected in 2018 is because of the skyrocketing cost of hydro, especially after the fire sale of those hydro shares by the previous Liberal government.

So we are coming here to fix a mess that was left by the previous government, supported by the current official opposition, in fact. Ontarians have put their faith and trust in us to fix this mess and to get Ontario back on track, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation is doing.

We have received numerous supportive quotes for this work that we are doing. The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus has said, “Modernizing these outdated regulations would reduce delays and costs for economic development initiatives including new industries seeking to locate in Ontario and create jobs (or existing companies seeking to expand), transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments, connections for low-carbon fuel blending (e.g., renewable natural gas, hydrogen) as well as residential and business customer connections.”

The Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus has said, “Western Ontario has seen significant growth in the past decade with pressures to build out the gas pipeline network. Many municipalities in our region have lost major investment opportunities because of the delays in getting natural gas to development sites. Any person or company planning to construct hydrocarbon transmission facilities within Ontario, must apply to the OEB for authorization, if the projected cost to build the pipeline is over $2 million, a threshold that was set in 1998....

“Increasing the cost threshold to $10M would closer align Ontario with other Canadian jurisdictions (e.g., in BC, these thresholds are $15M for electricity and $20M for natural gas)....

“Due to increased regulatory and cost pressures, as well as inflation, virtually all gas pipeline projects are now greater than $2M rendering the threshold meaningless. Roughly 0.5 km pipe in urban settings now often exceed the $2M threshold.”

They’ve also said, “Modernizing these outdated regulations would reduce delays and costs for economic development initiatives including new industries seeking to locate in Ontario and create jobs ... transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments, connections for low-carbon fuel blending ... as well as residential and business customer connections.

The South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corp. has said, “As Ontario continues to face a shortage of industrial land, the south-central Ontario region, made up of Brant, Elgin-Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford counties”—and I just want to mention that the member for Brantford–Brant is sitting right in front of me, so this applies to his region. They have said, “As Ontario continues to face a shortage of industrial land, the south-central Ontario region ... is challenged with balancing competing pressures for prioritization of agricultural land, industrial land and residential land.

Attracting new business investment continues to be an economic development priority, as municipalities in SCOR aim to further develop industry sectors, expand the municipal tax base and increase job opportunities in the region.”

They are asking the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to work alongside the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Ontario Energy Board to modify current regulations that delay the expansion of utility services.

For example,

section 90(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, states the need for a leave-to-construct application if the project is projected to cost more than the amount prescribed by the regulations, which is currently set at $2 million. Thus, any project that surpasses this threshold is required to undergo a lengthy regulatory process of 15 to 18 months before even starting construction. With inflation, many planned business investments require natural gas expansions that exceed this threshold, acting as a barrier to investment in the province and, more specifically, rural Ontario.

Madam Speaker, the list of supportive quotes goes on and on and on. We have supportive quotes from the township of East Hawkesbury. We have supportive quotes from the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership. We have supportive quotes from the city of Welland. We have supportive quotes from the Niagara Industrial Association. We have supportive quotes from Invest WindsorEssex.

We also have stakeholder quotes. For example, the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers say, “The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers commend the recent decision by the Ontario government to increase the leave-to-construct threshold from $2 million to $10 million. This will enable faster builds with quicker connections that will result in increased food production capacity and continue to fortify domestic food security imperatives. Natural gas is an essential crop input, as the heat and carbon dioxide are captured to optimize and enhance greenhouse vegetable production.

Legislation such as this will continue to drive investment in Ontario’s agricultural sector, growing food, jobs and economic prosperity.”

Speaking of greenhouses, I cannot forget to mention SunTech Greenhouses, a large greenhouse in my riding of Carleton, close to the area of Manotick. I just want to say, people talk about the tomatoes in Leamington, but I want to brag about the tomatoes in Manotick, because SunTech tomatoes are the best. I am willing to do a food-tasting competition with Leamington tomatoes. I’ll bring in tomatoes from SunTech Greenhouses. They can bring in—I think it’s the member for Essex can bring in tomatoes from Leamington. We will do a tasting test, because I guarantee you that the tomatoes in Manotick will, hands down, beat the tomatoes in Leamington.

Mr. Will Bouma: Let’s do some BLTs.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Oh, yes. Actually, the BLTs are really good. I will go to the greenhouse—their greenhouse is located 10 minutes from where I live, and I will go buy my tomatoes from there.

Interjection.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: You want me to bring tomatoes? I will bring you tomatoes. If I brought tomatoes from SunTech Greenhouses, you would convert to the PC Party. I’m just saying they’re that good. They would make a believer of anyone.

Mr. Ross Romano: I’ll bring the pasta.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Yes, there we go. See, we have a whole Italian thing going on here—I love it now—with local food.

Getting back on topic, Madam Speaker, I did want to give a shout-out to SunTech Greenhouses, but there are other stakeholders as well who are very supportive of this legislation. We have the Residential Construction Council of Ontario, ResCon, who have said, “The OEB decision has left a void by inhibiting the delivery of new natural gas infrastructure to support new housing needs, not offering up alternative solutions. The OEB has assumed that power supply will be available to new subdivisions, which is not the case, ultimately limiting where and whether builders could construct new homes, hindering the delivery of new housing.” That is said in support of this regulation.

We also have the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Again, in my riding of Carleton, several, numerous farms—in fact, agriculture is one of the biggest industries in my riding of Carleton. It’s so important, in fact, that this past Saturday, I actually hosted my annual farmers’ appreciation breakfast, which I do every year. I had over 250 farmers show up to enjoy a breakfast and get together with friends. It was a fantastic and wonderful time.

My only recommendation to everyone is that if you do a farmers’ appreciation breakfast, make sure you do it in the winter, because if you do it in the summer, they’re going to be out in the fields and they won’t be able to attend. That’s why I do my farmers’ appreciation breakfast in the wintertime, because they’re not going to be out in the fields. It’s always a fantastic event. I get to catch up with so many farmers. I get to catch up with people in the community, and they get to catch up with each other. It’s just a great, great time.

Many of them, Madam Speaker—in fact, I would say over 90% of them—are members of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and they have the OFA sign on their front lawn.

Supportive quotes from organizations like the Ontario Federation of Agriculture are so important. I think that speaks to the legitimacy of this piece of legislation. It speaks to the fact that this government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, is a government that is listening to the people of Ontario, that is taking in feedback and that is getting it done for the people of Ontario, including our hard-working farmers.

Here is what the Ontario Federation of Agriculture has to say : “The Ontario Federation of Agriculture is supportive of the decisive action taken by the Minister of Energy, Todd Smith, to address the Ontario Energy Board’s decision, which threatens to increase costs for new homes relying on natural gas for heating and jeopardizes housing affordability and future access to this energy source. The decision also challenges Ontario’s efforts and current policy to bring reliable and affordable natural gas to Ontarians across the province, which has been an investment priority for agriculture and rural communities over the last decade.

“The OEB decision has the potential to stifle the growth of the industrial sector, leading to escalated costs for manufacturing, agriculture and consumer goods. The OFA acknowledges the concerns raised by the Ontario Energy Board regarding Enbridge Gas’s long-term plan and recognizes the importance of balancing energy transition with practical solutions. However, priority needs to be set on flexible future infrastructure that supports a growing province, while minimizing unnecessary financial burdens on residents, businesses and the agricultural community.”

We also have supportive quotes from Power Advisory, supportive quotes from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association—I think that one is really important, especially given the need to build more housing in Ontario, which, once again, goes to show that the work that we are doing is not just impacting energy costs, it’s not just keeping energy costs down; what it’s doing is creating a domino effect, where it’s positively impacting other areas. By keeping energy costs down, not only are we helping our agricultural sector, we’re also helping our industrial sector and we’re helping our home-building sector as well.

Here is a quote from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association. They say, “The Ontario Home Builders’ Association applauds the Ford government for introducing legislation to revoke the Ontario Energy Board’s December 21, 2023, decision. Securing energy choices for Ontario’s communities is vital to support economic development, energy access and reliability while we take a measured step toward energy transition. In an unprecedented housing and affordability crisis, now is not the time for the OEB to place additional costs on builders or homebuyers.

“Furthermore, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association supports the Ontario government”—that’s us—“to look at every tool it has at its disposal to help get more housing approved and built.” I’m going to repeat that, because that is really important: “The Ontario Home Builders’ Association supports the Ontario government to look at every took it has at its disposal to help get more housing approved and built.”

We also have supportive quotes from the Ontario Energy Board, a former COO of the Ontario Energy Board and former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission. We also have supportive quotes from Enbridge Gas. Enbridge Gas says, “Enbridge Gas abides by an existing Ontario Energy Board (OEB) regulation that protects existing natural gas customers from the cost of expanding the natural gas system and ensures costs are appropriately borne by the customers who will benefit from the new infrastructure.” This is really important because natural gas needs to be expanded across the province.

Do you know, Madam Speaker, I live maybe 11 minutes away from the Ottawa International Airport, when there’s no traffic; with traffic, I would say 15, maybe 20 minutes, maximum. But I live about 11, 12 minutes away from the international airport in Ottawa. I don’t have natural gas; I’m on propane—

Mr. Will Bouma: Really?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Yes. I live 11 minutes away from the international airport, and I don’t have natural gas. My propane bills have increased exponentially since I moved into my house in 2019—doubled, at least. I can only imagine what a family of four or five is going through when they are paying their propane bills. It is unbelievable how devastating the federal carbon tax has been for people who rely on propane.

That’s why this bill is so important. That’s why it is so important to get natural gas out to communities, to rural communities, to new developing communities. It’s fundamental, because if we want to talk about making life affordable in Ontario, we need to make it easier to build and invest in this critical infrastructure that will allow Ontarians to live an affordable life and to not be subject to these incredibly devastating cost increases due to the carbon tax. I see it myself. I see it myself on my own bills: $800 just to fill up two propane tanks. It’s unbelievable. I can only imagine what Ontario families are going through. That’s why we want to see an expansion of natural gas.

I’ve actually been very lucky to have worked with Enbridge Gas and with the Minister of Energy to bring natural gas to a

section of Metcalfe in my riding of Carleton, which made it more affordable for one of the local businesses there, Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm, which is a pillar not just in the riding of Carleton but across the city of Ottawa. They’re a large farm. They also are an event venue. They’re constantly booked for weddings. They’re one of those places where if you want to book a wedding there, you have to book it at least a year or a year and a half, sometimes even two years in advance. They’re also selling maple syrup, some of the best maple syrup. In fact, Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm was named one of the top 10 sugar bushes in Canada a few years ago.

That business was struggling until they were able to get natural gas. That’s something I assisted them with. Enbridge as well got involved, and I want to thank Enbridge for finally bringing natural gas to that area because that, in and of itself, was a huge relief for that particular business because, now, it made it affordable for them to continue operating. If they hadn’t received natural gas, I don’t even know if they would be in business right now because the costs are so exponentially high. And we’re seeing that all across the province.

Businesses who don’t have access to natural gas are suffering due to the carbon tax. At least with natural gas, even though the carbon tax is still there, the cost is a little bit less and it’s a little bit more affordable, given the infrastructure and the way it works. So that’s why it’s so important.

We have municipal quotes that are supportive of natural gas. I mean, the municipalities who support natural gas—we have the municipality of Manitouwadge, the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, the township of Huron-Kinloss, the municipality of Red Lake, the municipality of Oliver Paipoonge, the township of Ramara, the South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corp., the township of Uxbridge, the Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte. The list goes on and on and on.

Ultimately, what I want to say: This bill is so critical. It is so important, and it does exactly what the title of it says. It says, “Keeping Energy Costs Down”—because that is something that the people of Ontario wanted. It was one of our campaign promises. It’s what we were voted in on. I’m pleased to be part of a government that is doing exactly that, that is keeping energy costs down, keeping our promises to the people of Ontario, and we are getting it done. That’s why I will be voting in favour of this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We’re going to go to questions.

MPP Lise Vaugeois: Thank you for the presentation. I would just like to say, she started by saying they were having to fix the mess that was left behind, but we’ve had seven bills that this government has had to rescind, so I think that they’re quite capable of making their own mess, and a considerable mess.

I’d like to know how increasing the cost to people who are already Enbridge customers by $600 is keeping costs down for the people of Ontario.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: At a time when Ontario, like the rest of Canada, is already dealing with difficult headwinds of high interest rates and inflationary pressures, the Ontario Energy Board’s decision would have significantly increased the price of new housing and all other costs, and we could not stand for this. Reversing this decision is going to prevent an average of $4,400 being added to the price of new homes, or tens of thousands of dollars being added to the price of a home in rural Ontario.

Instead, we’re taking a pragmatic approach by supporting electrification of home heating, transportation and manufacturing, with a focus on keeping costs down. And in fact, phase 2 of the natural gas expansion program is supporting 28 projects across the province with $234 million in funding to connect more homes to our natural gas grid and, in turn, get those homes off more expensive and more emitting forms of energy like home heating oil. This—

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you. We’re going to move to the next question.

Mr. Will Bouma: I’d like to say thank you to the member from Carleton for her very good speech.

I’m trying to wrap my brain around why anyone would stand in opposition to this piece of legislation. We’ve heard from small communities, we’ve heard from farmers, we’ve heard from home builders, we’ve heard from municipalities that this is a great move to help keep costs down in a world where costs are going out of control.

From what I’ve been hearing from the opposition and the independents, it feels like they’re going to be voting against this common-sense, smart piece of legislation for the people of Ontario. Now, I’m no lawyer, but I know the member from Carleton is, and I was wondering if perhaps she could give some insight as to how or why anyone would stand against this piece of legislation.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Do you know something? My response to the member from Brantford–Brant is I actually can’t give any insight, because it makes no sense to me. I cannot understand the logic behind resisting this piece of legislation. This piece of legislation is exactly what the people of Ontario want. It’s exactly what they’re asking for. So, unfortunately, to the member from Brantford–Brant, I can’t answer your question because I don’t understand why they would not support this piece of legislation.

What I can say is that I think this position they’re taking, just like many of the other positions they’ve taken in the past, is perhaps one of the reasons that the official opposition is polling at only 19% in the province right now.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member from Carleton’s presentation. Maybe I’ll help her answer the previous question: The OEB decision that Bill 165 would overturn would save existing ratepayers $2 billion, or $600 per household.

I want to ask the member how the member will explain to her constituents that your government has introduced a bill that will increase climate pollution at a time when we’re facing a climate emergency and increase their gas bills by $600.

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: What I hear from the member for the Green Party is that he wants to leave rural Ontario and northern Ontario out in the cold. What I can tell you is that people in rural Ontario—and Carleton is a very rural riding. Like I said, I don’t even have natural gas; I’m still on propane. Should I not deserve to have natural gas? Apparently the member from Guelph doesn’t think so. The member from Guelph doesn’t think that I should be entitled to natural gas. The member from Guelph thinks it’s okay for me to spend $800 every month in the winter for propane—$800 a month for propane. That’s the only thing I can say to answer that member’s question.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I want to congratulate the member for Carleton for her strength and advocacy for her constituents, particularly for people like Earl Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm and, of course, our friend Bob and his wife, and the little miracles in Manotick, over there at SunTech.

But I recall many, many years under the Ontario Liberal government that we would be here talking about whether the Liberals wanted people to heat or eat, because they didn’t have an option because of the affordability crisis. We’re in another affordability crisis. How is that impacting your constituents, those in the city of Ottawa and across Ontario? You talked a little bit about northern Ontario and rural Ontario, but how does it affect everyone who is dealing right now with an affordability crisis?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the member, my colleague from Nepean. Madam Speaker, Ontarians are struggling right now, and that includes people in the city of Ottawa. There’s no question about that, and with terrible policies like the federal government’s carbon tax, which we all know that the NDP and Liberals support, the opposition are clearly not willing to do the work to address the issues that the people of Ottawa are facing.

The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act will protect future homebuyers in Ottawa and, in fact, across the province from increased costs, and it will keep shovels in the ground on critical infrastructure projects. While previous governments implemented schemes that led to skyrocketing energy prices, we are using every tool in our tool box to help keep costs down for the people and businesses. This is what we campaigned on, and this is what we’re going to do.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question?

Mr. Jeff Burch: Thank you to the member from Carleton. A similar question to my other colleague’s: This bill takes existing costs not being paid by the consumer after the OEB decision and places them on the backs of consumers. So it takes costs that are not being paid now by consumers and puts it on the backs of consumers into the future. How is that possibly making life more affordable for folks when you’re taking costs that they are not paying now and placing them directly on the backs of those consumers?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the member for the question. Madam Speaker, I’ve heard from my constituents time and time again how much they are struggling right now with the high prices of groceries, and especially the federal carbon tax, which I know the parties across the aisle support.

That is why I’m so proud to support the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. This act speaks to not just my constituents in Carleton, not just to the people of Ottawa, but it speaks to Ontarians across the province. It speaks to their need for affordable housing for all Ontarians, and it ensures that new home buyers aren’t burdened with a massive upfront cost for reliable and affordable home heating. This bill ensures that Ontarians do not feel this added pressure when looking at buying a home for their family.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Another question.

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question to the member is, has she heard from local communities in her area—or, for that matter, across the province—about raising the leave-to-construct threshold?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Thank you to the member from Sarnia–Lambton for that question. It’s always great to get a question from the member.

You know, Madam Speaker, before I answer, I just want to say I have a lot of respect for the member from Sarnia–Lambton—we all do; he’s great. I know we’re not supposed to name members, but we all call him Uncle Bob, because he is like our uncle.

But to answer his question, Madam Speaker: Again, this piece of legislation is so important, and natural gas is still an important part of the system. We know this because experts have told us that natural gas is an important part of the system. In fact, Ontario’s Electrification and Energy Transition Panel has stated, “Natural gas is an important resource for filling three ... essential and distinct functions in Ontario’s energy system today”: as a fuel for electrical power generation, space and water heating, and industrial and agricultural industry.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): One quick question: the member for Guelph.

Mr. Mike Schreiner: I appreciate the member from Carleton’s concern for people who live in rural and remote parts of the province. Heat pumps would enable them to reduce their heating costs by 13% over fossil heating costs. PEI is offering free heat pumps for households that earn less than $100,000. Would the member support such a program in Ontario, so we could ensure that rural and remote households can have highly efficient, affordable heating?

Ms. Goldie Ghamari: Madam Speaker, this piece of legislation allows everyone to determine the kind of heating they want to have, whether it’s natural gas, whether it’s propane—although I don’t know who would want propane—or whether it’s heat pumps. We are giving Ontarians the option to choose, and we’re also giving them the option by keeping it affordable.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): We have no more time. Thank you very much.

We are going to move to further debate. I recognize the member for University–Rosedale.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Just before Christmas, the Ontario Energy Board issued an important decision affecting the gas bills of nearly four million Ontarians. The Ontario Energy Board ordered natural gas distributor Enbridge Gas to bear the costs of expanding its gas infrastructure, rather than imposing the costs on you and me. This is at a time when Ontario is moving away from fossil fuels. Any plan to expand natural gas infrastructure carries enormous risks, not just to the environment but also to our bills. So the OEB, the Ontario Energy Board, did the right thing and decided that Enbridge’s proposal was not in the interests of consumers.

How did the Conservatives respond? Well, the Conservatives responded with this bill, which is called the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act but really should be called the “hike your energy bills act.” That is what it really should be called. That’s the bill that we’re debating today. This bill reverses the OEB’s decision and will continue to permit Enbridge to hike energy bills and make life more expensive for everybody. In essence, this energy bill is bad for new home owners, it is bad for existing gas customers and it is bad for the environment. The only people who benefit from this bill are Enbridge Gas. They are the only people who benefit from this bill.

Right now, your gas bill includes a charge worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year to cover Enbridge’s cost of expanding gas pipelines into new developments. On December 21, the Ontario independent energy regulator decided to put a stop to this subsidy, because it raises energy bills for existing gas customers and new home buyers, while also increasing financial risks for the whole gas system.

Ending this subsidy would save gas customers more than $1 billion over four years in avoided pipeline subsidy costs, which comes to more than $300 per customer. Ending this subsidy would also encourage developers to install heat pumps in new homes, which provide much cheaper heating and cooling, instead of gas. Ending this subsidy, in essence, would be win-win-win: It would lower energy bills for existing customers, it would lower energy bills for new home buyers, it would lower carbon emissions and it would avoid even more costs down the road when homes heated with natural gas inevitably convert to heat pumps.

There is, however, one loser: Enbridge Gas. Enbridge Gas stands to lose millions of dollars in profits. It is lobbying hard against the energy board decision and it has clearly been successful in doing that. Investing in gas pipelines in 2024 for heating is financially foolish, because they will become obsolete and a massive cost to all current and future customers as we move away from gas heating.

The Ontario Energy Board has made the right decision, based on evidence, to lower your energy bills. This government is choosing to take us on a terrible course. It’s making the wrong decision, based on backroom lobbying, in order to raise your energy bills to benefit Enbridge and nobody else.

We have seen this government bend under public pressure and reverse decisions like opening parts of the greenbelt for development. I believe it is time to do that again. I encourage you to contact your local MPP, and urge them to do the right thing for affordability and vote against this bill.

I’m now going to go and explain a little bit more about the bill in detail. In essence, this bill amends the Ontario Energy Board Act to allow the government to prescribe a revenue horizon, i.e., the number of years of presumed revenue used when assessing a natural gas rate application. The prescribed revenue horizon is used for determining (

a) the economic feasibility of a proposed capital investment—for example, whether the costs can be reasonably recovered within the revenue horizon; or (

b) a contribution in aid of construction.

The government says it will set a revenue horizon of 40 years, extending well past 2050, which is Canada’s target date for achieving net-zero carbon emissions. I don’t know why this government would want to give a subsidy to Enbridge to invest in infrastructure when, based on what the Canadian government is doing, this infrastructure is going to be a stranded asset because we’re moving to different energy sources. It doesn’t make any sense at all.

There are other things that people have raised, that stakeholders have raised about this bill and I’m going to read them now. Let’s start with what the Ontario Energy Board had to say about this. In its recent report, Ontario’s energy transition panel made recommendations that seem inconsistent with Bill 165. It says:

“The Ontario Energy Board should employ all tools within its existing mandate to implement activities consistent with Ontario’s goals for a clean energy economy and the requirements of the energy transition for Ontario....

“The Ontario Energy Board should conduct reviews of cost allocation and recovery policies for natural gas and electricity connections, as well as natural gas infrastructure investment evaluations to protect customers and facilitate development of the clean energy economy.”

That’s the Ontario Energy Board saying that we need to transition to clean energy, and this government is doing the exact opposite of this by asking customers to subsidize Enbridge’s gas expansion activities in infrastructure.

This is what ResCon had to say. This is Richard Lyall. He argues that the Ontario Energy Board decision will drive up home prices. He also failed to acknowledge the stark reality that Ontario is not yet prepared for electrification and must remain dependent on natural gas for some time longer. That’s the home building industry.

Then we have Ian Mondrow, an energy and policy expert at Gowling. He wrote, “Minister Smith would be well advised to consider the wisdom of the energy panel’s recommendation and leave the matter of further consideration of new energy connection cost-recovery policies with the Ontario Energy Board.”

In essence, what he’s saying is why is the government meddling in independent decisions that are made by electricity experts to the benefit of customers and to the benefit of the entire electricity grid?

“Leaving this in the hands of the independent regulator would maintain transparency, consistency, public accountability and a thoughtful and reasoned balancing of interests. That, after all, is the reason for an independent energy regulator”—makes sense.

This is what Adam Fremeth and Brandon Schaufele from the Ivey Energy Policy and Management Centre had to say: “Overriding an independent economic regulator is a big deal”—it’s a big deal. “It is not something to be done lightly. The government’s decision explicitly undermines the Ontario Energy Board and threatens credibility of future energy investment in the province. Moreover, it’s not obvious that this move is in Enbridge’s long-term interests. Once a precedent to effectively overrule the regulator is established, there’s little to stop future governments from using the tactic to different ends, perhaps against natural gas infrastructure.”

This is what Environmental Defence had to say: “This legislation would be bad for new home owners, bad for existing gas customers, and bad for the environment. The only one that benefits is Enbridge gas.”

This is what Richard Carlson, the energy director at Pollution Probe had to say: “The Ontario Energy Board was clear, correctly in my opinion, that the energy transition is under way and there’s uncertainty about the future of natural gas use in the province.”

Also: “As far as I know, the government has never intervened this directly in trying to alter an OEB regulatory decision, and that should be concerning to everyone.”

There’s a lot of people in Ontario who work in the electricity industry who are pretty concerned about what this government is doing. They’re concerned about the meddling in an independent decision. They’re also concerned about this government’s move to side with Enbridge over the costs of gas prices and energy prices in Ontario. It’s pretty concerning.

Now, I’m going to go a little bit into the details of the bill and provide some further analysis. As I mentioned, this bill is in response to a December 21, 2023, decision and order by the Ontario Energy Board with respect to Enbridge Gas’s ongoing 2024-28 rate-setting proceedings. The Ontario Energy Board set some of the principles governing who should pay what during the transition from fossil fuel heating to net-zero sources.

Currently, existing gas consumers absorb the capital costs of new natural gas connections based on the premise that these costs will be recovered from the new customer over the subsequent 40 years. Since Canada has mandated a phase-down of natural gas heating to reach carbon net zero by 2050, the Ontario Energy Board determined that it was too risky for existing consumers to front the costs of new gas connections that might become stranded assets.

It ordered Enbridge to reduce its revenue horizon from 40 years to zero, meaning that new gas customers or developers making the choice on behalf of a future new home buyer would need to pay for their own gas connection up front if they chose to install gas. It almost gives you less choice instead of more choice.

The Ontario Energy Board noted that reducing the revenue horizon would not only reduce costs and risks for existing gas consumers; it would make the cost of natural gas connections visible to developers and new home buyers who might be better served by choosing an electric heat pump, whose lifetime operational costs are lower than that of a gas furnace. We have been proposing to the Ontario government that they move forward with bringing in the heat pump option for a low cost or no cost to consumers so that we can transition away from fossil fuel use into a cleaner energy system. It is what other provinces are doing, and it is what we should be doing here in Ontario as well.

Either way, the Ontario Energy Board decision ensures that the cost of installing a new gas connection would be paid by those who benefit from that choice and not by other consumers who don’t benefit. That makes a lot of sense to me.

The next day, the Minister of Energy, probably under some heavy lobbying by Enbridge, announced that he would overturn the Ontario Energy Board decision, arguing that it would drive up cost of new homes by an average of $4,400 per gas connection where the developer has chosen natural gas heating.

Let’s also point out the Minister of Energy’s chief of staff is a former lobbyist for Enbridge. It’s useful to point that out. Nothing weird happening there, no backroom deals happening there—

Interjection: Nothing to see here.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Nothing to see here. You could make a decision that benefits four million Ontarians, or you could make a decision that benefits Enbridge, especially when your chief of staff is talking to you every single day and used to work Enbridge and now works for you—very interesting; no conflict of interest whatsoever there.

The minister’s decision will shift those upfront costs onto existing gas consumers, forcing them to pay over $1 billion in additional costs over four years, costs that the Ontario Energy Board believes they should not have to pay.

So it’s very interesting. There must be some people in the Ontario government, the Conservative government, right now who don’t like this bill. Some of you must not like this bill. You must be getting some calls from some of your constituents who are like, “You want me to pay even more for energy than I’m currently paying?” I bet you’re getting calls. And when they find out and their energy bills go up, you’re going to be getting more calls; I know it.

There are other ways in which Bill 165 would allow the Ontario government to force gas consumers to pay costs that the Ontario Energy Board would otherwise disallow. Currently, no one may construct a new gas pipeline in Ontario unless the Ontario Energy Board determines this expenditure is in the public interest and grants leave to construct. That makes sense. You just don’t want Enbridge deciding where to build gas without there being an independent regulator deciding that it’s in the public interest. That makes a lot of sense.

This rule seeks to ensure that expenditures are properly scrutinized so gas customers are not forced to pay for costly and uneconomical projects. By allowing politicians to decide whether or not a gas pipeline is in the public interest, instead of an independent regulator, there is a risk of politicizing the energy planning process and forcing consumers to pay for costly, lobbyist-driven projects they do not benefit from.

The former Liberal government did this with electricity system planning, and hydro bills skyrocketed. With Bill 165, it looks like it’s heading down the same trajectory as what we have seen with the previous government. We are very concerned that this would allow the government to do the same thing with the natural gas system.

The provision allowing the minister to bypass the hearing for a gas pipeline or overturn a refusal where the OEB deemed a project not in the public interest may be related to Enbridge’s Panhandle Regional Expansion Project in southwestern Ontario. The government might be claiming that Bill 165 is necessary for these economic priorities to proceed, but we don’t think that this is the case.

Another thing that this bill does is it establishes the concept of a generic hearing on matters affecting multiple stakeholders. The minister, with the LG in C’s approval—that’s the government—may direct the Ontario Energy Board to hold a generic hearing, including on matters that are the subject of an ongoing Ontario Energy Board proceeding.

This bill would also allow the government to prescribe additional persons who shall or may be represented during certain Ontario Energy Board proceedings—not just consumers, generators, distributors, or transmitters etc. For example, developers and the IESO have reportedly asked to participate in Enbridge’s ongoing rate application.

In essence, overall, I have a lot of concerns with this bill. I have concerns with this bill because it is not going to be keeping energy costs down; it’s going to be driving energy costs up. And this government should take note, because the previous Liberal government—one of the main reasons why they lost their election in 2018 was because of energy prices and energy decisions and people no longer having faith that decisions around electricity and energy were being made in the best interests of Ontarians.

You would hope that this government would not want to head down the same path, and I fear that Bill 165 is doing that. Because how we read it is, it looks like this bill benefits Enbridge, and it doesn’t benefit the four million consumers who are going to see their energy bills go up and they’re not going to get any direct benefit.

And what also concerns me is that the decision to further invest in gas infrastructure at a time when countries, provinces and states all around the world are moving to a different energy mix means that we could be locking ourselves into stranded assets that are no longer useful within a very short period of time.

We already have ways to generate energy and heat and cool people’s homes that don’t require gas. Heat pumps are a very cost-effective source of heating and cooling that many countries across Europe and provinces across Canada are adopting. We have alternatives that we should be investing in that are better for the environment, are better for consumers and are better for Ontario. I would much prefer to be debating a bill about that than a bill that is going to lock us into fossil fuels in and is going to lock us into assets which, if we’re heading in right direction, are not going to be needed. They’re just not going to be needed.

Thank you so much for your time.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Point of order?

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): I recognize the member from Oshawa for a point of order.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m seeking unanimous consent for members to wear vintage Ed Broadbent buttons during my member’s statement.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): The member for Oshawa is asking for unanimous consent to wear a vintage button for Ed Broadbent during her member’s statement. Agreed? Agreed.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Thank you.

We’re going to move to questions.

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Meegwetch to the member for the presentation on Bill 165. I know the member spoke about the OEB reversal and talked about Enbridge Gas. Can you perhaps elaborate again on why this government did the reversal on the OEB decision that was made?

Ms. Jessica Bell: The Ontario board made the right decision, based on evidence, to lower our energy bills. The Ontario government has made the decision, based on maybe backroom lobbying, to raise our energy bills in order to give Enbridge Gas a continued subsidy. Four million customers are going to see their energy bills go up so that Enbridge can continue to have their infrastructure investment subsidized. I think that is the wrong direction that we should be going in Ontario, and I urge this government to rethink this bill.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question.

Ms. Laura Smith: I listened respectfully through her submissions, and I appreciate the member’s statement. Our government has been working pretty hard every day to keep the costs down for the people of Ontario. Approximately 3.8 million households in Ontario currently use natural gas for home heating. That’s two thirds of all households in Ontario, and that includes households that are represented by members in the House, Cochrane or—let me just see; there are a few others that have applied for it—James Bay. They’ve applied for the natural gas expansion program to the ministry. So obviously, they want to take advantage of this option.

I guess my question to the member is, will you commit to voting for this act so their constituents can get more access to the reliable and affordable energy that they’ve asked for?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you for the question. Let’s be really clear: The Ontario Energy Board made a decision—and I believe it was the right decision, based on evidence—to lower the cost of energy bills for nearly four million customers. This government has made the decision that they’re A-okay with increasing energy costs. They’re A-okay with it. That’s what this bill means. There must be some Conservative members on the other side who are thinking, “Why have we put this bill forward?” Because it is just going to make our affordability crisis worse.

The Acting Speaker (M me Lucille Collard): Next question.

Mr. John Fraser: I enjoyed the member’s presentation very much. There are kind of two separate things there. There’s the problem with the mechanics of the bill and with the long-term implications of the minister’s intervention in OEB decisions, which is something that I think everybody on both sides of the House needs to be concerned about. But what I’m hearing here, and I’ve heard from the member from Danforth, is that it’s going to drive up four million people’s energy bills.

The OEB decision: They made this decision based on keeping people’s energy bills lower. But on the other side, what they’re saying is, “Well, it’s actually driving up the cost of housing.” As members here, how do we square that? That’s the question that I have. I understand the long-term implications of the bill; they’re not good. I’d like to understand where you stand on those two things.

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you for that question. I do want to once again refer to the Ontario Energy Board’s decision, because they do factor in these various competing interests around how we make sure that our energy system works for everyone and is cost-effective. They made the decision, based on evidence, that it was wise for us not to continue to subsidize Enbridge’s expansion but to keep energy costs lower for four million customers.

We also know that it really doesn’t work when we have politicians coming in and meddling with decisions that should be made by experts and independent electricity regulators. They have made the decision. It was a wise one. We support it. And instead, this government is heading down the path of listening to the Minister of Energy’s chief of staff, a former lobbyist for Enbridge, a staff person for Enbridge, and they are giving Enbridge what looks like a sweetheart deal. I have a lot of concerns with that.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Questions?

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone, and thank you for that informative and interesting speech from the member from University–Rosedale.

What do you think of the audacity of this government, thinking they can just swoop in and meddle with an independent regulatory body that is supposed to be at arm’s length, and they just swoop in and think rules don’t apply to them? They’re just going to meddle away with this regulatory body who has made this tough decision, forward-thinking and thinking of Ontarians. Does it worry you that they’re going to do this with other independent bodies like the FAO, the AG, the Auditor General—thoughts on that?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the member for Beaches–East York. This government has a long track record of moving very quickly, breaking things, and then realizing they have made a mistake, they’ve gone too far, the public pressure is too intense and then they back track.

We have seen that with their decision to bring in strong-mayor powers and undo hundreds of years of tradition with parliamentary democracy where it is majority rule. We saw them move forward with opening up the greenbelt, even though all parties here supported the greenbelt when it was developed. We have seen them try and sabotage collective bargaining and say that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms doesn’t apply here in Ontario.

But what we also see is that when people stand up, and say, “Enough. This is not acceptable. This is not the kind of Ontario we want,” this government backs down, and I hope that this government backs down on this bill as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Next, the member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: I want to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her excellent presentation. And I have to say, I agree.

The Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator whose mandate is to protect the interests of consumers, and with this decision, the OEB could not be more clear. They have told Enbridge that they cannot pass the cost down to the consumers and we cannot lock Ontarians to relying on fossil fuels for the next 40 years.

My question to the member is, we know that it is important to have faith in an independent regulator, and the government overturning the decision undermines it. We know that if this moves forward, it will harm the environment and it will hurt Ontarians. Could the member expand a little bit on what it means for tenants and homeowners at the end of the day if this bill goes through, in the context of the affordability crisis?

Ms. Jessica Bell: Thank you to the member for Parkdale–High Park for that question. We have an affordability crisis in Ontario. I see no good reason why we would want to increase the energy costs for over four million consumers when things are so expensive.

You go to the supermarket; food has never been more pricey. You pay your rent; we are at record high levels of rent. And the cost of buying a home and then paying off the mortgage has never been higher. It is a huge problem and that is why I am urging this government to rethink this bill and listen to the Ontario Energy Board and respect the decision that they have made.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you. I think there is insufficient time to have another question and response.

Further debate—oh, I’m sorry. It being 10:15 of the clock, it is now time to go to members’ statements.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

Members’ Statements

Members’ safety

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise today to talk about something that we don’t discuss often in the public but needs to be discussed here in this chamber, in chambers across Canada and in our city council chambers.

Last week, when the mayor of Gatineau announced that she was going to resign her seat effective immediately, citing mental health issues and a death threat, it hit home to me. It hit home to me, because I have been here for 18 years, watching a variety of different protests occur at people’s homes, like at Sam Oosterhoff’s, at Kathleen Wynne’s, at Doug Ford’s, at Christine Elliott’s and of course, at Stephen Lecce’s. I have seen my colleagues see their constituency offices vandalized, like the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock, Laurie Scott, or the leader of His Majesty’s loyal opposition, Marit Stiles.

I, too, have had my share of private security, legislative security and of course, OPP and Ottawa police protection, as someone was incarcerated not once but three times in her uttering of death threats against me. Of course, it came with a significant toll for my mental health.

I think we must have a national conversation, and I think we have to talk about misogyny in politics, radicalization in politics and international influence in politics as it pertains to the safety and security of everyone, from a municipal councillor to a staffer that’s at the front lines, to a federal parliamentarian. I’m pleased that I was able to write an op-ed for iPolitics, and I’ll continue to do this advocacy and this important work.

Northern cost of living

Mr. Sol Mamakwa: Remarks in Anishininiimowin. Speaker, life has become very unaffordable for people across Ontario, for working people, for people on fixed incomes. The lack of competition lets big corporations like the North West Co. control the cost of goods with no consequence.

When we talk about affordability in northern towns and First Nations, it is not comparable to the rest of Ontario. A case of water that costs $3 here in Toronto, costs $30 or more in Kiiwetinoong. Gas prices in Webequie last summer were $4.60 per litre.

Speaker, families need to be able to afford the necessities of life, but how do we fix it in the north? All of us need to work together: leadership, businesses, First Nations, municipalities. We can all work together to ensure people don’t have to choose between buying food or gas because they can’t afford both. We can work together to ensure that there is an affordable, nutritious supply of food available across the north.

We must find these answers because the health and the wellness of the north depends on it. Meegwetch.

Taxation

Mr. Graham McGregor: Look, Speaker, I have some news today that will dismay members of this House. Believe it or not, on April 1, the federal Liberal government is set to increase the carbon tax. I wish I could tell you this was an April Fool’s joke, but it’s not.

Speaker, the carbon tax makes life way more expensive for families across Canada. It’s a tax on driving your car to work and a tax on driving your kids to school. It’s a tax on heating your home and a tax on the groceries you need to provide for your family. It’s a tax that does absolutely nothing for our environment, because for communities across the country, driving your car, heating your home and buying groceries is not a luxury; it is a necessity.

Look, Speaker, I can appreciate why the wise minds of Canadian academia thought this might be a good idea when it was first conceptualized. But the carbon tax has clearly not worked. It has clearly punished families for living their lives.

I am pleading with the federal Liberal government not to increase the carbon tax on April 1. Families in Ontario could really use a break. Please give us one. This April Fools’ Day, let’s leave the jokes to the kids, and let’s finally scrap this ridiculous tax.

Ed Broadbent

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Ed Broadbent was born and raised in Oshawa. From early on, by all accounts, he was a leader. Ed was elected in 1968 and served as the member of Parliament for Whitby–Oshawa, then Oshawa, until 1990. He was the federal leader of the New Democratic Party from 1975 until 1989 and served again as the MP for Ottawa Centre from 2004 until 2006. He was always tremendously well liked and respected, even by many who didn’t agree with his politics. Ed passed away on January 11 of this year and was 87.

Ed Broadbent shaped so much of what it means to be Canadian. He championed human rights and principles of social democracy. Few politicians have stood as tall or cared with such principled commitment about the betterment of society for all Canadians. In Oshawa, we also mourn the loss of a friend, leader and neighbour who cherished his deep local roots. Across party lines, Ed’s legacy endures and will long inspire us to care and work for a better, kinder society.

At the opening of the Ed Broadbent Waterfront Park, Ed did not reflect on his accomplishments but instead on the community volunteers and caring adults who had helped to guide and inspire him. Ed always saw value in all people. He had hope for a life and a fairer path that was filled with opportunity for everyone.

Personally, I’m grateful for each warm and inspirational opportunity I had to learn from him. I remember being a fangirl the first time I met Ed Broadbent. It was shortly after being elected in 2014 and winning the seat back for the NDP. I’ve been proud to call him through the years with good news or to steal a quick selfie and a laugh in between important engagements.

We offer heartfelt condolences to his family. There are so many who worked with Ed, learned from him, and countless folks who will miss him tremendously. I will continue to work for the vision of society and country that Ed Broadbent championed throughout his career. He wanted us to be better and make the world better.

Thank you, Ed Broadbent, and we miss you.

Applause.

Lunar new year

Mr. Billy Pang: Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to return to Queen’s Park after a productive winter break. I’m grateful for this opportunity today to share my recent engagements with stakeholders and constituents in Markham–Unionville during the lunar new year festivities.

The lunar new year holds profound significance for the Chinese, Vietnamese and Korean communities across Canada. To celebrate this cherished tradition, I hosted a meet-and-greet event and attended different celebrations in the community, which were met with great enthusiasm and participation from local families. Witnessing the community come together to embrace ancient customs and celebrate familial bonds was truly heartwarming.

I want to extend my sincere appreciation to Premier Ford, Minister Dunlop, Minister Lecce, Minister Parsa, Minister Williams, as well as my fellow MPPs Wai, Kanapathi and Smith for gracing us with their presence at the celebration at First Markham Place. Together, we shared warm wishes and distributed red packets to families and friends.

This year marks the Year of the Dragon in the lunar calendar. The dragon symbolizes strength and vitality. As we embrace the spirit of renewal and embark on new beginnings, let’s face the opportunities ahead with courage, resilience and unity. May the Year of the Dragon bring strength, vitality and abundance to Ontarians.

Tibet

Ms. Bhutila Karpoche: March 10 this year marks the 65th anniversary of the Tibetan people’s uprising against China’s illegal occupation of Tibet in 1959. Today, Tibet remains an occupied territory under tight military surveillance.

Since 2008, over 160 Tibetans have self-immolated to protest China’s repressive policies. UN experts have raised alarms about the forced separation of one million Tibetan children from their families for assimilation into Chinese colonial boarding schools.

Just recently, more than a thousand Tibetans were arrested in one day in Derge county, as there were unprecedented protests against the construction of a hydroelectric dam on the Drichu River by the Chinese government which would force the displacement of thousands. This proposed dam would also cause significant environmental harm and destroy six monasteries, including submerging the Wontod monastery, founded in the 14th century, which has one of the finest examples of Tibetan Buddhist murals, and is of great historical and cultural significance.

Tibetans inside Tibet have shown extraordinary courage. Language, culture, history and identity is under threat in Tibet, but resistance is as strong as ever.

I strongly condemn the brutal crackdown and urge the international community to call on China to free the protesters and halt the construction of the dam.

Nicholas Nembhard

Ms. Aislinn Clancy: Speaker, I want to take a moment to express my deep condolences to the family and friends of Nicholas Nembhard. He was a young Black man who struggled with mental health. He was in a crisis, and was shot and killed by the Waterloo Regional Police Service last week.

Nicholas’s family called for help. Unfortunately, Nicholas didn’t get the intervention that would’ve kept him healthy, safe and alive.

I know many in our Kitchener community are deep in grief, anger and pain right now. I share that grief and I share your need for answers.

Yes, we must demand accountability from the SIU process, but we must also acknowledge a bigger systemic issue in our justice system. We need a response that acknowledges anti-Black racism and mental health stigma that exists in our community and across the province. People experiencing a mental health crisis need help from mental health professionals.

I hope that, as provincial leaders, we can learn from this horrific loss and take action to end the cycle of violence, starting by giving mental health professionals the resources they need to do wellness checks and distress calls at all hours of the day, across the province, using an anti-oppressive lens.

Rest in peace, Nicholas. My heart is with you and your family.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I got the rotation mixed up, so we have three Conservatives in a row now.

Bon Soo Winter Carnival

Mr. Ross Romano: The 61st annual Bon Soo Winter Carnival was held from February 2 to February 9, 2024, in beautiful Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada.

Incredible events were planned, including the opening ceremony fireworks, the Polar Bear Dip, the Polar Rush Obstacle Course, the EDM Sno Bath dance party, the Fire and Ice hot sauce challenge, concert with Canadian country singer Brett Kissel and so many more. Nine days of family fun in the Soo were held at the Canal District, Northern Superior Tap Room, the Canadian Bushplane Heritage Centre, Searchmont Resort and others.

The Bon Soo festival has been going on—just to speak a little bit freely about this, Mr. Speaker—all of my life. I remember going there as a kid, participating as a kid. It’s changed a lot over the years. It’s fun to be able to bring my own children there. Unfortunately, this year was a bit of a tougher year with the snow not being around and us having a very green Christmas—yes, even in Sault Ste. Marie, not a lot of snow—so things like our bum slides, snow sculptures, things like this, had to be removed. Well, we lost the snow sculptures quite a number of years ago.

I would also like to say though I’m really not that disappointed about one piece. Unfortunately, the day of the polar bear swim, I was encouraged to attend and take a dip in the icy cold waters of the St. Marys River, which I have done once before. This year, unfortunately/fortunately, I had to be out of the community with my children at another event and wasn’t able to jump in the icy cold St. Marys River. Perhaps another time, Mr. Speaker.

Glenn Arthur

Mr. John Yakabuski: The town of Arnprior lost one of its most respected and loved citizens this past Friday. On Sunday, a crowd of over 700 in the appropriately named Glenn Arthur Arena said goodbye to Glenn Arthur. The fact that Glenn’s tribute was held in an arena named after him speaks of the affection the community had for him. Glenn was Arnprior’s recreation director for over 36 years. During that time, he earned a reputation not only in his own community but throughout the entire valley as one of the best in the business.

Glenn was already a legend when I was elected here some 20 years ago. And from the first time I met him, I knew I was in the presence of someone truly special, someone who was not only immensely talented but also absolutely committed to getting the job done. Glenn was a miracle worker navigating through the maze of government bureaucracy, ensuring Arnprior got its fair share of funding. He would follow that up by delivering results. Every single interaction I had with Glenn, whether in his professional life or after his retirement, was one that always left me feeling how blessed we are to know someone like Glenn Arthur.

His passing leaves a hole in the Arnprior community that will be felt for years to come. Our condolences go out to his dear wife, Kathy; their children, Erin, Shane and Amanda; and their families.

And while Glenn never got to see the Leafs win another Stanley Cup, perhaps they could fulfill that wish this year as a parting gift to their number one fan.

Rest well, my friend. You will be missed.

UBC Millwright Union Local 1916

Ms. Donna Skelly: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. It’s my pleasure to rise today to highlight an organization in my riding that is a recipient of the Skills Development Fund.

This month, I visited the UBC Millwright Local 1916 training centre in Stoney Creek to tour their new facilities and to hear about how they are using their funding to enhance operations. The training centre, which was originally built in 2015, was extended with two new shops in 2022. This extension allowed the training centre to be successful with their Skills Development Fund stream 2 application.

They received over $400,000, which they used to fund the equipment purchase for their welding shop. With this shop and through the Canadian Welding Bureau, they train and certify members on four different weld processes, as well as carbon arc gouging and torches. Any funding the organization receives leads directly to employment. All their training is industry relevant and will create employability for its members.

I would like to extend a special thank you to UBC Millwright Local 1916 training centre for the tour earlier this month and for all of their hard work throughout the years.

Introduction of Visitors

M. Guy Bourgouin: Je voudrais souhaiter la bienvenue à la délégation des jeunes de La Passerelle-I.D. É. pour leur journée parlementaire à Queen’s Park. On a eu une très belle session ce matin. Comme je vous ai dit, vous êtes les bienvenus chez nous. N’hésitez pas à nous contacter, mais je voulais vous dire bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Byers: It’s my pleasure to welcome members of the Canadian Propane Association to the House today. It’s great to see you here. All members, MPPs and staff are invited to a reception hosted by the propane association after question period in rooms 228 and 230. Thank you, and welcome to your House.

Mrs. Daisy Wai: I’d like to welcome the people who came and shared with us about the Homeward Bound program from WoodGreen community centre. I’d like to welcome Dorothy Quon, VP of community; Yordanka Petrova, senior manager of Homeward Bound Toronto; Jennifer Ernewein, manager from Homeward Bound Toronto; and Maisie Watson, Homeward Bound Peterborough.

Ms. Jessica Bell: I would like to introduce people who are here on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. They include Lynn Fergusson, Brooks Barnett, Jackie Isada, Harvey Cooper, Allyson Schmidt, Hope Lee, Zachary Day and Jonathan Tsao.

Welcome to your House. I hear you are having a reception at 5 p.m. today in the dining room. I look forward to attending.

Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon: Good morning, everyone. I, too, am echoing my colleague’s introduction on Habitat for Humanity, an amazing group that helps us with our housing crisis: Ene Underwood—I don’t know if she was mentioned—Brooks Barnett, Eden Grodzinski and Jonathan Tsao, my old colleague.

Mr. Mike Harris: Not to belabour the point, but I would also like to welcome the folks from Habitat for Humanity, especially Jonathan Tsao, who I see up in the gallery. I look forward to meeting with him later today.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It is my great pleasure to introduce my friend Fiona Coughlin, who is the ED and the CEO at Habitat for Humanity in Windsor-Essex. Welcome to Queen’s Park for the first time.

Ms. Effie J. Triantafilopoulos: I’m honoured today to welcome to Queen’s Park, along with my colleague the Minister of Children, Community and Social Services, the team from WoodGreen’s Homeward Bound program. They’re here with us in the gallery: Yordanka Petrova, Maisie Watson, Eric Mariglia, Danielle Mulima, Sonya Goldman, Azfar Islam; as well, from Halton region’s Home Suite Hope, Sara Cumming and Catherine Villasenor. Welcome.

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’d like to welcome Mark Carl and Harvey Cooper from Habitat for Humanity. The CEO of Niagara is Mark. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I’m looking forward to our meeting later today.

Hon. Nina Tangri: I’d like to welcome Dan Tisch and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce for their advocacy day here at Queen’s Park. I think many members on all sides are having meetings with them.

I’d also like to welcome Saroj Gandhi from my office, who is here together with the Ontario Homeopathic Medical Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I recognize the member for Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it’s not often we catch ourselves outside of our seats, so that was a great transition.

I also, on behalf of the official opposition, want to welcome WoodGreen Community Services to the Legislature, and a special shout-out to their president and CEO, Anne Babcock. I’m looking forward to continuing conversations with you. Thank you for being here.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): There are more members who wish to introduce guests. Unless there are objections, I shall continue.

The member for Oakville.

Mr. Stephen Crawford: In the members’ gallery, it’s an honour for me today to welcome, from my riding of Oakville, Evangeline Chima, the founder and CEO of Black Mentorship Inc.; volunteers Pricillia Oyiri and Taiwo Ayinde; graduation coach Akiesha Newton-Williams; staff member Lisa Raposo; students and parents from St. Thomas Aquinas Catholic Secondary School, just down the street from my office; and students and parents from St. Francis Xavier Catholic Secondary School in Milton. Thank you, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chris Glover: I’d like to extend my welcome as well to WoodGreen and Habitat for Humanity. Also, bienvenue à la délégation des jeunes de La Passerelle-I.D.É. pour leur journée parlementaire à Queen’s Park. J’ai apprécié nos conversations ce matin.

M me Natalia Kusendova-Bashta: Au nom du gouvernement et de la ministre des Affaires francophones, j’aimerais aussi souhaiter la bienvenue aux jeunes délégués de La Passerelle et du réseau des jeunes parlementaires. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: They haven’t arrived yet, but we had a great discussion this morning: grade 10 students from Patrick Fogarty Catholic Secondary School from my riding in Simcoe North. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. George Pirie: I’d like to welcome two constituents all the way from the great riding of Timmins: my great friends Mr. Tom Faught, who serves on the board of the Timmins Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Kraymr Grenke, who is vice-chair of Timmins and District Hospital, a member of the Timmins Police Services Board, a board member of the Timmins Economic Development Corp. and a board member for the Timmins Chamber of Commerce. Welcome to your House.

Mr. David Smith: I rise today to welcome members from WoodGreen: Eric Mariglia, Danielle Mulima, Yordanka Petrova and Sonya Goldman. Welcome to your House today. I’m looking forward to speaking more with all of you.

Mr. Andrew Dowie: I’d like to echo my colleague in welcoming Fiona Coughlin from Habitat for Humanity Windsor–Essex, as well as Greg Fryer from Habitat for Humanity Grey Bruce. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I believe that concludes our introduction of visitors for this morning.

Question Period

University and college funding

Ms. Marit Stiles: The post-secondary sector is at a breaking point, with decades of chronic underfunding. Now, as we all know, Ontario’s colleges and universities are bracing for the impact of a 50% reduction in international student permits. Under this government, provincial operating grants have been cut by 30%, and at least 10 universities are projecting dramatic deficits. At the same time, international student recruitment has shot up. It has been outpacing, unfortunately, supports and housing. That’s happened since this Premier took office.

This government’s plan seems to be to always break it and then privatize it, and it’s us who pay for it. This time, it’s the international students too. To the Premier: Wasn’t it the government’s strategy all along to underfund colleges and universities, and rely on the exploitation of international student tuition to make up the difference?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To respond, the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: Let’s do a little bit of contrast here: under Liberal leadership, continued to increase tuition in this province so that it was the highest in Canada; under the leadership of Premier Ford, in 2019, decreased tuition by 10%. Look at the NDP government: voted against those measures.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday’s historic announcement: $1.3 billion in new funding for post-secondary education in this province, and not on the backs of our students. We will continue to make tuition affordable for every student in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: The minister knows perfectly well that that is just half of what colleges and universities need.

These aren’t just numbers. These students came to Ontario with the promise of a better future, with good jobs and a safe place to live. We need those skilled workers here, but they were sold a bill of goods and given false hope by this government. What does the Premier have to say to those students who have had their dreams dashed because of this government’s terrible decisions?

Hon. Jill Dunlop: You know what this Premier said? He said $1.3 billion in new funding for post-secondary education.

We are going to ensure that students in this province have access and affordability in post-secondary education. We can all agree there’s an affordability crisis in this province and across Canada. It’s expensive to heat, to eat, for gas, and we acknowledge that.

I see OUSA in the crowd with us today; thank you for your support.

This is why we are doing this. We want to ensure affordability in tuition in this province. Thank you to the Premier for his strong leadership in ensuring that will continue for another three years.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Final supplementary.

Ms. Marit Stiles: The students know what this means. The government has left our post-secondary sector broken. Schools are struggling under the weight of deficits, students are buried under the weight of tuition and housing and an increased cost of living, but still this government refuses to properly fund post-secondary. For every dollar spent on colleges in other provinces, we are spending 44 cents. For every dollar spent on universities, we are spending just 57 cents.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Government side, come to order.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, back to the Premier: Will the Premier face the facts here, that he broke the system so that a select few could make a profit and our students, our economy are suffering because of it?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. The member for Essex will come to order. The member for Sault Ste. Marie will come to order.

Start the clock. Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Jill Dunlop: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition: Is she in favour of increasing tuition, just like the leader of the Liberal Party is? She’ll hike taxes; she’ll hike tuition. What we are hearing from students—and I want to thank Vivian Chiem from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance for this quote: “The decision to maintain the domestic tuition freeze for the next three years is very welcoming news to students.

Amid a cost-of-living crisis and limited opportunities for income, this move will help with post-secondary affordability and allow students to put money towards basic necessities like rent and food. We appreciate the ministry’s consideration of this and look forward to having more conversations about other wraparound and sustainable avenues to support students.”

Mr. Speaker, yesterday we announced the largest investment in post-secondary education in more than a decade: $1.3 billion, and not on the backs of our students.

Justice system

Ms. Marit Stiles: The Premier has made some pretty shocking statements about his intention to politicize the judicial appointments process. On Friday, the Premier said he intentionally placed former staffers on the judicial appointments committee to select Conservative judges. The Premier’s office then tried to quickly walk back the comments, but yesterday in this chamber, he doubled down, saying he plans to personally interfere in the process to ensure that like-minded people are appointed. These statements are being widely condemned as disgraceful and dangerous.

So my question is for the Attorney General: Do you endorse the Premier’s comments on who gets appointed to the judicial appointments committee?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And to reply for the government, the Premier.

Hon. Doug Ford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to double down; I’m tripling down now. We’re going to triple down on making sure communities are safe. We’re going to triple down on getting judges that believe in throwing someone in jail when they kick the doors in, put a gun to people’s heads, terrorizing their kids, terrorizing the parents to the point that the kids don’t want to stay at home anymore. They’re terrorizing communities, and guess what, Mr. Speaker? They’re letting them out, not going out on bail once, not twice, not three times, not four times—up to eight times.

Put little Johnny back on the street, give him a gun until he can kick the next door in and put the gun to the next person’s head and hand over the keys.

I’m sick and tired of judges letting these people out on bail. We’re going to hire tough judges, tough JPs. That’s what we’re doing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will please take their seats. Order.

Restart the clock. Supplementary question?

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, I will remind the Premier that it is his government that has overseen the complete collapse of our court system in this province. This is not just my opinion. The Federation of Ontario Law Associations has called the Premier’s comments a “juvenile misapprehension,” saying that the implication is irresponsible, harmful and dangerous to our democracy. They say that the Premier’s comments have put the Attorney General in a “position of disrepute.”

My question, back to the Attorney General—maybe the Premier will let him answer the question: Does he stand behind this Premier’s undemocratic agenda or will he stand up for the integrity of our legal system?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

The Attorney General can reply.

Hon. Doug Downey: There sure is a lot of finger-wagging about how the system works or should work, Mr. Speaker. But there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what judicial independence is. It’s not appointing the judges. They are not to be appointing their own. We are democratically elected to select judges, and then they have their independence. So I’ll take no lectures from the NDP on how this system should work.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is true that there’s a group: it’s called an advisory committee, and they are free to do their work. A quarter of that group are judges. They do good work. We take their advice. We don’t meddle with them.

But Howard Hampton, the NDP Attorney General in 1992, did meddle with the committee. You can google it. There’s a court case on it. I’ll read in my supplementary his experience as Attorney General with the meddling in the Bob Rae days.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. I’ll remind the members that we do not use props in the chamber.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order. Order.

Start the clock. Final supplementary?

Ms. Marit Stiles: I’ll remind the Attorney General again, the Federation of Ontario Law Associations called the Premier’s comments a “juvenile misapprehension.” He has placed two former staffers on the committee to advance a political agenda in our courts.

The Advocates’ Society has sent the Premier a letter saying that his approach poses “a substantial threat to the independence of ... judges” and “the administration of justice” here in the province of Ontario. They may not like it, but that’s what they’re saying.

Speaker, back to the Attorney General again: He must make clear right here and right now, is he going to move forward on this, or will he show some integrity and condemn the Premier’s comments?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Put the book down.

Hon. Doug Downey: Mr. Speaker, I—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Put the book down.

Hon. Doug Downey: I’m going to read, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Put the book down.

The Attorney General.

Hon. Doug Downey: [ Inaudible ] Mr. Speaker, and I hope I have enough time. Maybe I’ll talk about how, in 2011, the Liberals appointed 12 judges; in 2012, they did 10; in 2013, they did 12; and in 2014, they did 27. And guess what 2014 was? It was an election year.

I had a look at some of the donors in their years, and in a period in 2008 to 2010, one third were multiple donors to the Liberal Party and to nobody else. So we can talk about their record and we can be sanctimonious about how the system should work.

Mr. Speaker, Howard Hampton said that there was—he didn’t get along with the Toronto left-wing bar. Their hope was that whoever had the AG’s job would be someone close, someone they knew, someone they felt comfortable with. Many in the Toronto left-wing bar did, in fact, have an agenda. I’m happy to have the debate later on.

Government accountability

Ms. Marit Stiles: Speaker, it is chilling to hear—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Okay. The member for Essex will come to order. The member for Sault Ste. Marie will come to order. If you ignore the Chair’s requests to come to order, we will move to warnings very quickly.

Start the clock. Leader of the Opposition.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Thank you, Speaker. I understand why they’re so shaken: These are chilling comments coming from the Attorney General of this province.

I’m going to shift here a little. I’d like to get some clarity on the questions that I asked yesterday. After getting caught giving misleading testimony to the Integrity Commissioner under oath, the Premier’s former policy adviser and his former Minister for Public and Business Service Delivery both changed their testimony before resigning.

To the Premier, my question is, has Mr. Sackville or any other official in the Premier’s office changed their testimony to the Integrity Commissioner?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’m going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw her unparliamentary comment.

Ms. Marit Stiles: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, government House leader and Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: The Leader of the Opposition has uncovered

section 219 of the Integrity Commissioner’s report, so great investigative work on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. Had they read beyond 218, they would have seen the consistency of both of the chiefs of staff.

But look, Mr. Speaker, what we’re doing in the province of Ontario is continuing to support the people of the province of Ontario, building more homes across Ontario. For 15 years, they supported the Liberal government that put obstacles in the way of building homes. We are systematically removing every single one of those obstacles so that the people of the province of Ontario can share in the dream of home ownership, a dream that the Liberals took away.

The Liberals have gone so far as to elect a leader who has the worst record in building new homes across the entire province, for crying out loud. In fact, Mississauga is so bad that the population of the province is growing while Mississauga’s population decreased. And that’s what happens when you raise taxes and when you put obstacles in the way: people find other places to go. Thankfully, they’ve got a government here that is doing the job and getting it done for the people—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And the supplementary question.

Ms. Marit Stiles: That makes three times since yesterday that we’ve been told there were no inconsistencies in Mr. Sackville’s sworn testimony. But there was an inconsistency. Mr. Sackville said under oath that he did not discuss greenbelt removal criteria before being briefed for the first time on October 27, 2022. In fact, we now know that he was briefed on greenbelt removal criteria 10 days earlier. A whole lot can happen in 10 days. We have the email. There’s evidence in writing. It was sent to Mr. Sackville’s personal account.

So back to the Premier: How can people trust this government when top staff in the Premier’s office are repeatedly giving conflicting information about the greenbelt under oath, and what will the Premier do about it?

Hon. Paul Calandra: Again, the Leader of the Opposition and the great investigative work has uncovered

section 219 of the Integrity Commissioner’s report. But look, having said that, we’re going to continue doing what we’ve done since the beginning. Since 2018, we’ve been focusing on building a bigger, better province of Ontario.

You look at a guy like George, who went to the GO train station today in Mississauga. He got on the GO train and went to work in Toronto. For the first time, he doesn’t have to pay to get on the subway. Do you know what he said? He said he’s actually making money before he even gets to his new job in a new long-term-care home that wasn’t there before this government came to office. Do you know how he got that job? Because of the support that the Minister of Colleges and Universities put in play to allow him to get that job.

When he gets home, he’s saying to himself: I wish I could live closer to the GO train station, but because of a NIMBY mayor in Mississauga, he couldn’t. But thankfully the licence plate sticker and his fees have been frozen because of this government.

We’re getting the job done for the people of the province of Ontario. We’ll continue to do that for all people because it’s the right thing to do.

Public transit

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation. Across our province, many seniors are currently struggling to stretch their income. The cost of food as well as everyday goods and services keep rising. For seniors with limited income, transit fares add onto the financial burden that they are already experiencing. They should not have to struggle to pay for the things they need in their everyday life. That’s why our government must continue to protect seniors and reduce transit fees.

Speaker, can the minister please tell the House what steps our government is taking to make transit more affordable for seniors in Ontario?

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Lakeshore for that question and for his advocacy for one fare.

I have heard from many seniors across the GTHA who tell me that costs continue to rise. Unlike the Liberals and the NDP, we are the only party focused on making life more affordable.

Mr. Speaker, the successful rollout of the new one-fare program is putting money back into the pockets of seniors as double fares are now gone. On average, this saves commuters $1,600 a year, which goes a long way for seniors who travel across the region.

The Liberals couldn’t do it. The NDP and Liberals were against one fare. Under this Premier, Premier Ford, we got it done.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto: Thank you to the associate minister for that response. It is encouraging to see our government providing tangible financial relief for seniors. Seniors in my riding of Mississauga–Lakeshore will be pleased to know that they can save money while travelling within the transit network.

Speaker, the minister also raised an important point: Not only did the previous Liberal government not remove double fares, but both the Liberals and NDP voted against our one-fare program. That is unacceptable.

Unlike the members opposite, our government is putting more money back into people’s pockets, where it belongs.

Can the minister explain how one fare makes life more affordable for the people of Ontario?

Mr. Vijay Thanigasalam: Speaker, Bonnie Crombie hiked the monthly pass for seniors by 10% in her first year as Mississauga mayor. Over her 10 years as Mississauga mayor, she raised transit fares and raised taxes, making life unaffordable for people.

We are eliminating double fares so people, including seniors, can visit the places they love and see the people they love. We are the only party, under the leadership of Premier Ford and Minister Sarkaria, that has eliminated double fares and that puts money—$1,600—back into people’s pockets.

Teachers

Ms. Chandra Pasma: For years, this government has been doing everything it can to drive teachers out of our education system: massively underfunding schools and driving up class sizes, refusing to address the rising crisis of violence, suppressing wages with Bill 124, attacking the dedicated professionals who support our children every single day.

Now that the Minister of Education has finally admitted that Ontario has a teacher recruitment and retention problem, what is his plan to reverse the damage his government has caused?

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Mr. Speaker, we are looking forward and planning for changes to demographics as educators retire and as the population rises. That’s a responsible action of government. It’s a wake-up call to the NDP.

This government started, three years ago, to cut certification times for new educators by 50%, which the members opposite opposed.

We hired 2,000 net new teachers this year. The members opposite, supported by the Liberals, opposed that effort as well.

We also created a transitional certificate to allow teacher candidates to work in schools, but that was opposed as well.

We have been systematic in reducing red tape, increasing access to certified, qualified educators, which is why we abolished regulation 274. That allows the best educator to get the job—not those based on seniority.

By the member’s logic, if the Premier is responsible for this change, then I suppose in your supplementary you’ll condemn the BC NDP Premier. In their province, the teachers’ federation calls it a crisis of teacher—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): I’ll remind the members to make their comments through the Chair.

Supplementary question.

Ms. Chandra Pasma: Six years in power, and this government has only managed to make the teacher shortage worse. That’s quite a record.

Teachers and education workers have been raising concerns about the labour shortage for years and have offered to meet with the government to identify meaningful solutions that will address the real reasons why workers are leaving our education system.

Will the minister commit today to actually sitting down with teachers and education workers, listening to their concerns, and consulting on solutions before they are announced?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Members will please take their seats.

Minister of Education.

Hon. Stephen Lecce: Unlike in Quebec or in NDP BC, we do not have a teacher crisis like the provinces east and west. We have been determined to plan ahead, hire more educators and reduce certification times by 50% for the next generation of teachers.

Mr. Speaker, every effort we have taken has been opposed by the Liberals and the New Democrats, and that seems inconsistent with our collective responsibility to ensuring qualified educators.

If the logic of the members opposite is that government is responsible for the exodus of individuals from the workforce, then they will condemn the NDP Premier of BC. In their province, the teachers’ federation called it a crisis. The Liberal government in Newfoundland and Labrador is “scrambling” to fill dozens of teacher vacancies. It’s a national challenge, but this province, unlike the rest of the country, has a plan. Perhaps you should support it.

Taxation

Ms. Laura Smith: My question is to the Minister of Transportation.

At a time when costs continue to rise, the federal government has increased the carbon tax five times. Since the implementation of this punitive tax, the people of Ontario have been paying more and more every single day for food, for services and for transportation. Even worse, the federal Liberals are planning an additional seven increases by 2030.

So the carbon tax is making life more expensive for everyone, including the trucking industry, which plays a critical role in transporting the goods we need in our daily lives. Speaker, can the minister please further explain the impact of the federal carbon tax on Ontario’s trucking industry?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: This government is proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our truckers all across this province, Mr. Speaker. Whether it’s about making sure our grocery shelves are stocked, whether it’s our hospitals that get the equipment that they need or the manufacturers that get their parts that they need to build Ontario-made products, this government has always stood with truckers and we have always stood against the carbon tax.

We know that the carbon tax makes life more unaffordable, Mr. Speaker. For a long-haul truck driver, the Ontario Trucking Association estimates the 17.4-cents-per-litre fuel costs at $15,000 to $20,000 per truck every single year, Mr. Speaker. That’s a hard-working truck driver that could spend that $15,000 on their family, on their child, putting them in hockey or extracurriculars, but the failed policies that are supported by Bonnie Crombie and the NDP and the federal minister of—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Thank you.

The supplementary question.

Ms. Laura Smith: Thank you to the minister for his response and his dedicated work for the people of Ontario.

It’s the hard-working men and women in our trucking industry who deliver the goods that keep Ontario moving. But, Speaker, the impact of the carbon tax on the trucking industry ultimately affects all families and businesses in every corner of our province. The cost to fuel the trucks to transport the goods is passed on to consumers as they purchase the daily necessities.

Unfortunately, the Liberal members are ignoring their constituents’ concerns about the rising cost of living. Our government must continue to stand behind the people of this province and call on our federal counterparts to do the same.

Speaker, can the minister please explain how the carbon tax impacts the trucking industry and all Ontarians?

Hon. Prabmeet Singh Sarkaria: Mr. Speaker, $15,000 to $20,000 every year is taken out of the pockets of hard-working truckers in this province—money that could have gone to their families. Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is a tax on hard-working families that need to fill up their cars, keep their homes and rely on truckers.

But, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has not listened to our request to make life more affordable. In fact, they’ve doubled down. Their federal environment minister said he’s not going to invest in any more roads or highways, Mr. Speaker, and that’s absolutely ridiculous. That’s why I invited him to join me to drive on the DVP, to drive on the Gardiner Expressway, the 427 and 410, to see how out of touch they are with the realities of the people that live in the GTA and Ontario and all across Canada. We call on the federal government to drop the carbon tax and to build more roads and highways all across Ontario.

Municipal finances

Mr. Jeff Burch: Through you to the Premier: While housing starts fell 7% in Ontario, in British Columbia, where that government actually implemented many of the Ontario housing task force recommendations, housing starts rose 11%. This province ignored the advice of their own experts, then took over $3 billion in development revenue away from municipalities with Bill 23. Many of them are now facing double-digit tax increases. This Premier broke his promise to return lost revenue and make municipalities whole. Homeowners are now paying for this government’s broken promise.

When will this government follow the advice of its own task force, stop stealing revenue from Ontario cities and start treating municipalities as true partners in—

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Okay. That’s intemperate language. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the government House leader.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It shows you just how out of touch the NDP are. So, the member is getting up in his place today, on a day when we have Habitat for Humanity in the gallery—he’s getting up in his place and saying that municipalities should charge people like Habitat for Humanity for building homes through development charges.

Do you know what we’ve done? We’ve alleviated those development charges for affordable housing. Do you know why we’ve done that? Because we’ve got more homes in the ground in this province over the last three years than at any other time in the province’s history. Do you know why? Because we’re removing obstacles, not putting them in the way.

In the member’s own community last week, they just voted against building another 120 new affordable homes on a highway, for crying out loud. That is who the member supports; that is who he protects. Do you know who we support and protect? Those people who want to build homes, who want to give people a dream, who want that dream to come true, like Habitat for Humanity, who do not have to pay development charges on their properties. Do you know why? Because we made the changes, and we’re going to continue to support organized—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Supplementary question.

Mr. Jeff Burch: Speaker, through you: In a recent op-ed, AMO’s executive director stated, “Provincial-municipal financial arrangements are not working for communities, businesses, industries, property taxpayers and the homeless.... With Bill 23 constraints on development charges, municipalities are turning to their only available options. They are hiking property taxes and user fees to increase revenue, or cutting services, to fund essential infrastructure investments.”

Speaker, 24 municipalities have now failed to qualify for this government’s failed Building Faster Fund, because this Premier and minister can’t seem to figure out that a municipality is responsible for issuing approvals, not putting shovels in the ground. When will this government end this incompetence and return this lost revenue to our municipal partners, as they promised?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Paul Calandra: It’s really amazing, right? It just shows how completely irrelevant the NDP have become in the day-to-day lives of the people of the province of Ontario, that he gets in his place and tries to defend taxing the people of the province of Ontario more, taxing people who want to build homes, taxing people who want to move into the homes, taxing a dream. That is the NDP.

We’ve seen what happens when you do that, Mr. Speaker. Do you know what happens? They did it in Mississauga, and do you know what happened in Mississauga? People left Mississauga. Do you know why? Because in Mississauga, the mayor of Mississauga, who’s now the leader of the Liberal Party, put obstacle after obstacle after obstacle in the way, and while the rest of the province was growing, people were leaving Mississauga.

Now, George, who I talked about earlier, who got a job, used to be in manufacturing, and do you know what George said? He left manufacturing—because it’s a hallmark of Liberal policies. When he was in, they left. When Conservatives are in, manufacturing is back and strong.

The Liberals ruined Ontario. The NDP are completely irrelevant in the province of Ontario. The only one that stands up for the people of the province of Ontario, gives you the dream of home ownership and gives you a key is the people in this caucus over here, and it is this Premier. Conservatives will always—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Stop the clock. Members will please take their seats.

Restart the clock. The next question.

Government spending

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Ontarians have been subject to a bombardment of government self-praise in recent weeks. The government spent taxpayer dollars on one of the most expensive advertising spots you can buy, a Super Bowl ad, to give themselves a pat on the back. To make matters worse, they won’t tell Ontarians how much of their money was spent. Last week, the Minister of Finance said he would get back to us with that number; we’re still waiting. I wonder if he checked under all the brown envelopes in the Premier’s office. It’s just one more example of this government’s irresponsible spending and refusal to be transparent.

Super Bowl ads and foreign spas—while universities beg for help, 2.2 million Ontarians don’t have a doctor, cities declare opioid crises and Ontarians use their credit cards to access health care. When will the Premier tell Ontarians how much of their money he spent on a Super Bowl ad while failing to deliver for the people of this province?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): And to reply, the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Peter Bethlenfalvy: Thank you to the member opposite for the opportunity to answer this question.

Mr. Speaker, who is against promoting Ontario? Anyone in this House? It seems like the Liberals are. Well, maybe they would promote the fact that they drove 300,000 jobs out of this province. This government has supported the conditions so that 700,000 new jobs were created in this province. That’s the party that hasn’t seen a tax or a fee that they didn’t want to increase. It’s this government that’s got the backs of business and people and workers in this province.

We’re reducing the cost of everything, including cutting gas taxes, reducing fees, making it easier, tuition freezes etc., so that the people of this province can have the best province in all of North America and, may I say, the whole world.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): The supplementary question.

Ms. Stephanie Bowman: Ontarians know all is not well, despite this government’s desperate and expensive attempts to change the channel. Do the minister and Premier know that, since July, 300,000 full-time jobs disappeared in Ontario, all while he’s been doling out taxpayer money to his friends?

The Premier is looking for a way to hide from the $8.3-billion greenbelt scandal, the backroom deal to give away Ontario Place to a foreign spa for 95 years and lucrative sole-sourced contracts he gave to large American companies at the expense of small Ontario business owners. The Premier needs to remember he isn’t spending his own money; it’s the people’s money, and they have a right to know how it’s being spent.

Speaker, back to the Premier: How does he justify spending millions of taxpayer dollars to pat himself on the back when business confidence is at historic lows, unemployment is rising and he’s nowhere close to building 1.5 million homes?

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): To reply, the Minister of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade.

Hon. Victor Fedeli: Let’s talk about a few numbers. As of this morning, since this Premier was elected, we have 700,000 new jobs created in the province of Ontario. Last year alone, 180,000 jobs were created here in Ontario. We said it yesterday, and we said it last week, but we’ll say it again: In 2023, Ontario created more manufacturing jobs than all 50 US states combined. Last month, Ontario led the nation in job creation. Nearly 24,000 new jobs were added in our economy just in the month of January; 9,700 of them were in construction. Ontario accounted for 65% of all jobs created in this country. We are leading the nation in job creation.

Public transit

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation. There are families and individuals in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora who rely on public transit as their main form of travel, but they have told me that they are concerned that steep transit costs are adding further pressure to their household budgets. Commuters are looking to our government for solutions that will make travelling easier and more affordable. We must continue to deliver on our commitment to bring financial relief to transit users.

Speaker, can the minister highlight what our government is doing to keep costs down for commuters across the GTA?

Hon. Vijay Thanigasalam: Thank you to the member from Newmarket–Aurora for that question and for her advocacy for one fare.

Mr. Speaker, as we have many young people in the gallery today: Because of one fare and the leadership of Premier Doug Ford, students like them, when they commute five days a week to school, save $1,600. That is why we implemented one fare, a fully funded initiative by this government. This is going to be a game-changer not just for students but for their parents, for seniors as well.

When I graduated, right after university, my first job was in Mississauga, so I used to commute from Scarborough to Mississauga, paying a double fare, triple fare every day. I understand the struggle. This government understands. This Premier understands the struggle. Our caucus members understand the struggle. But Bonnie Crombie doesn’t understand the needs of everyday—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Ted Arnott): Order.

The supplementary question?

M me Dawn Gallagher Murphy: Thank you to the associate minister for that reassuring response.

Speaker, there are people in my riding who rely on public transit to go to