Good morning, everyone. I’m going to be splitting my time today with my very energetic parliamentary assistant, the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, otherwise known as the Yak.

I rise today to begin third reading of Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024. To start, I think we need to talk about why this bill is so timely. We know that families across Ontario, right across our province, are dealing with some tough challenges these days. My colleagues and I talk about it every day in question period, with question after question about the punitive carbon tax. All families, not just those here in Ontario, but across Canada, are being hit every day by the terrible Liberal carbon tax, which is driving up the price of everything—but not just that; they’re also dealing with the impacts of high inflation, and they’re dealing with high interest rates right now. That means higher costs at the grocery store, and it means higher costs at the gasoline pump. As you’re fuelling up your vehicle, it means less money to put away for a rainy day, and it means higher mortgage costs.

Let me tell you, Speaker, the last point is really a sore spot for so many families, including those who don’t even own a home yet. So many people are striving for that dream of home ownership. They’ve saved up for a down payment in many cases, they’ve had their eye on a new house, and they’ve done everything right. But they’re dealing with a government in Ottawa that just continues to raise the price of living, which makes it all feel out of reach—and they’re doing it every April 1. That’s no April Fool’s joke. It’s causing a lot of pain for families right across our country.

That’s why we’re doing things differently here in Ontario than the way the federal government is operating in Ottawa. What we’re doing here includes things like Bill 165, which, if passed, will help keep housing and energy costs down and provide some real relief for Ontario families.

Speaker, as you probably know, one of the biggest drivers of Ontario’s increasing demand for energy is our government’s plan to build 1.5 million new homes by 2031. It’s critical that new homeowners have options available to them, including for affordable home heating. For some families, that will be electric or hybrid heating, where you pair your natural gas furnace with an electric heat pump, just like our Clean Home Heating Initiative has done in communities across the province. But for many others, they’re looking for the reliability and affordability of natural gas. I don’t think that should come as any surprise, because natural gas is already the primary heating source for about 70% of households in Ontario. Seven out of 10 homes are heated by natural gas in our province. With affordability already a top concern for the people of Ontario, we can’t make a family who’s accessing their preferred home heating option pay even more.

That’s why I was extremely disappointed in the Ontario Energy Board’s decision from December of last year that would have effectively increased the cost of new homes. Under this decision, they—and apparently the NDP and the Liberals, based on their votes at second reading in the Legislature, anyway—would like to see families pay 100% of the cost to connect to the natural gas grid upfront. That would lead to thousands of dollars being added to the cost of new homes. Those are costs that, today, are currently spread out over 40 years—just like a mortgage, amortizing it over 40 years, making it much more manageable for families buying their first home or moving to a bigger place as their kids grow up. In fact, according to the OEB’s own decision, the cost of a new home would increase by about $4,400, on average, across the province, and it would cost significantly more than that—in the tens of thousands of dollars—for those in rural Ontario, on farms and residences in more rural and remote parts of northern Ontario, in particular. That type of change wouldn’t just be a huge departure from the realities of our energy system, but it’s also a huge departure from the historical practice which has been in place since 1998.

This bill, Bill 165, would keep costs down by allowing these costs to be paid over 40 years instead of all up front. Going from 40 to zero was the decision of the OEB, which is far from rational and pragmatic. What we’re doing is, for the time being, going back to the 40-year amortization period. That’s a win for the taxpayer. It’s a win for the business owner. It’s a win for the farmer. It’s a win for the homebuyer. It’s a win for everyone in Ontario.

Ontario, like the rest of Canada, is already grappling with high interest rates and inflationary pressures, along with the impact of this terrible federal carbon tax. So how can we, in good conscience, take any action that would raise prices on the backs of first-time homebuyers and moms and dads who are looking for a bigger space for their growing families? As a government elected with a mandate to rebuild Ontario’s economy, keep costs down for people and businesses and build the homes our growing province needs, we simply can’t and won’t stand for this. We definitely can’t stand for it when we’ve had well over 200 requests from Ontario municipalities to expand access to natural gas in their communities. I want to say that again, because that’s almost half of the municipalities in Ontario that are actively calling for more natural gas in their communities.

Bill 165 would allow us to reverse this decision, to protect future homebuyers and keep shovels in the ground. But reversing the decision alone isn’t enough if we don’t address the issues that got us here in the first place.

While the Ontario Energy Board makes hundreds of decisions every year, this particular decision raised concerns instantly about public engagement in the decision-making process. In fact, in the decision, one commissioner noted that the decision on natural gas connection costs was reached without input from a number of key stakeholders. Home builders, contractors, farmers—the people and businesses who actually build the homes and feed our province—weren’t able to provide input on a decision that affects their industry drastically. That same commissioner also noted that this split decision, despite having a significant impact on electricity demand, was reached—this is really important—without input from the province’s Independent Electricity System Operator, the system manager for our electricity grid in the entire province. To quote that dissenting commissioner: “Is the scenario of no-new-gas-connections, replaced by construction of all-electric developments, feasible? For example, would electricity generators, transmitters, distributors and the IESO be able to meet Ontario’s energy demands in 2025? I don’t know,” was the answer.

As Ontario’s Minister of Energy, I find it extremely concerning to read that quote, especially when our government is focused on a pragmatic approach to supporting the electrification of home heating, transportation and manufacturing, with a focus on keeping costs down and our energy reliable so we can keep the lights on in our province and continue to see the record investment that we’ve seen in our province.

Part of our pragmatic approach—and we started this a number of years ago—was the establishment of an Electrification and Energy Transition Panel. This panel was put together to advise our government, our ministry, on the highest-value short-, medium- and long-term opportunities for the energy sector to help Ontario’s economy prepare for electrification and the energy transition. While the OEB was aware that the panel’s report was to be released around the same time of their decision, they decided to go beyond their role as an energy regulator and make a major energy policy decision without waiting for the government’s response stemming from that panel’s report. The final report, as I say, was due around the same time as the decision was made, just before Christmas. It’s unfortunate, because the panel’s recommendations and our government’s response will have a significant impact on the sector and Ontario’s planning decisions going forward.

Ultimately, more than 200 stakeholders, Indigenous partners and communities, government departments and agencies, and members of the public provided input to that panel. So all of the stakeholders that you would want participated in that panel’s discussions and deliberations. In the end, all that work resulted in serious and some very well-thought-out recommendations for the ministry and our government to consider.

For example, one of the key recommendations of the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel’s report, Ontario’s Clean Energy Opportunity, was for the government to issue a natural gas policy statement, providing clear direction for the long-term role of natural gas in Ontario. As laid out in the report, natural gas will continue to play a critical role as a source of energy in the province for a number of years to come. That recognizes the fact that any major shift away from this fuel source would require a significant build-out of our grid that could not be accomplished quickly.

We’re in the process of building new nuclear facilities at Bruce Power; small modular reactors at Darlington and other new non-emitting generation through competitive processes through the Independent Electricity System Operator; and battery storage facilities procured competitively through the IESO to ensure that those renewables that we have on the grid now and those that we will add in the future are able to provide electricity to the grid in an efficient manner and provide stability for electricity customers around the province.

No one would think that going from a 40-year period to zero years and adding thousands of dollars to the price of a home during a housing crisis is a pragmatic or responsible approach, which is the way that we’ve taken on the energy file. Even one of the OEB commissioners recommended only reducing the horizon to 20 years. When talking about the horizon, they mean the revenue horizon for paying for these pipelines.

Given these concerns, our government saw an opportunity to continue our work, originally started back in our first mandate, to modernize the Ontario Energy Board. In 2019, my predecessor, the member for Kenora–Rainy River and the Minister of Northern Development, took steps to enhance trust and transparency in Ontario’s energy sector by restructuring the OEB’s governance and operational framework. That was part of our work under the Fixing the Hydro Mess Act.

As you will recall, this government was largely elected in 2018 to a massive majority government because of the failed energy policies of the previous Liberal government. Everyone remembers the tripling price of electricity during their 10 years in power.

Today, we’re continuing to fix the hydro mess that was left to us. We’re continuing that work. And we’re responding to the concerns raised in the December 2023 decision by proposing legislative changes that would ensure major OEB decisions with far-reaching implications on our constituents, like on natural gas connection costs, don’t happen again without adequate stakeholder consultation and without all the facts about government policy priorities.

Specifically, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act requires the Ontario Energy Board to conduct broader engagements when conducting both natural gas and electricity hearings.

If passed, Bill 165 also gives the government the authority to introduce regulations that require the OEB to notify and invite participation of testimony from specific stakeholders or economic sectors. For example, if we know a decision is going to have a major impact on a particular sector, like transit operators, low-income service providers, the construction industry or a particular government agency like the Independent Electricity System Operator, we would require, or could require, the OEB to notify them and invite their participation in the hearing.

These changes would also provide the government, through the Minister of Energy, with the authority to require a separate hearing, more formally known as a generic hearing, on any matter of public interest that could arise during an OEB proceeding. This would further ensure that Ontarians’ voices are heard on matters that will affect their families, businesses and communities. That was a change that was very much welcomed during the committee hearings that were held here at the Legislature last month.

Just take the comments of the president of the Ontario Greenhouse Alliance, Jan VanderHout—he was here last night; I saw him with TOGA. He presented on behalf of Flowers Canada. It’s amazing—my goodness—the success that Flowers Canada is having, with something like $325 million worth of flowers exported to the US last year. It’s a growing industry. Maybe my parliamentary assistant should buy some for his wife. He probably hasn’t done that in a while.

Jan VanderHout from Flowers Canada said, “This legislation will ensure that Ontario’s energy transition is practical and inclusive of a broader range of economic and social impact considerations. The consideration was poorly given to many of the rural areas, and like my colleague at OFA,” the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, “we were also not consulted—not to my knowledge, certainly—before this OEB decision was made.” He went on to say, “It really becomes important that they understand the nuances of the various aspects of industry and agriculture in the province and, certainly, I think that was entirely missed, because the dynamics of the high-rise buildings here in downtown Toronto are significantly different than the challenges that we face in rural Ontario, which is a large area.”

Jan, as usual, is absolutely right. If the OEB is making a decision that’s going to have an outsized impact on families and businesses in rural Ontario, then they need to make the effort to hear from those stakeholders in rural parts of Ontario.

But it’s not just rural versus urban—representatives from the OFA, the Ontario Home Builders’ Association, the Association of Power Producers of Ontario and more also highlighted the importance of broad consultation to ensure decisions don’t have unintended consequences, especially on government priorities, including getting more affordable homes built. It’s also important to keep other priorities in mind, including making Ontario an attractive place to do business, and access to affordable and reliable energy is also a critical part of our sales pitch.

That’s why to further protect consumers, we’re also proposing to make regulatory changes that would prohibit customers from being required to financially contribute to the construction of certain gas transmission projects. These proposed changes would preserve the historical treatment of natural gas transmission projects under OEB jurisdiction when those projects are specified by government direction. Maintaining the current approach, where customers are not required to make upfront payments, will ensure Ontario continues to attract critical investments in sectors like the greenhouse and automotive industries in southwestern Ontario.

Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, doesn’t stop there. It also proposes to streamline the leave-to-construct process for small energy projects, making reliable and affordable energy options available to communities, homes and businesses in a more cost-effective and timely manner. Today, anyone looking to connect a new home or business to Ontario’s natural gas system with a pipeline must obtain leave-to-construct approval from the OEB if the expected cost of the project will be $2 million or greater. The OEB reviews the application and grants leave to carry out the project if it’s deemed to be in the public interest to do so.

Over the past couple of years, we’ve heard concerns from mayors and councils and agricultural organizations at places like the Rural Ontario Municipal Association and AMO conferences from all across the province on this leave-to-construct issue, and they’re frustrated that the $2-million threshold for small pipeline projects that was first set back in 2003 hasn’t been updated to reflect inflation and increased construction costs, like the ones we talked about earlier. They’re concerned that even the smallest projects to connect something like a new housing development would no longer receive the exemption, as was the original intent. The changes we’re proposing would allow the government to prescribe conditions in regulation to exempt small projects from leave to construct, while also maintaining the crown’s obligations related to rights-based consultation with Indigenous communities, ensuring opportunities remain for their input into proposed new projects.

Through Bill 165, if passed, the government intends to introduce regulations to streamline the leave-to-construct process by exempting small pipeline projects that cost between $2 million and $10 million, provided the crown’s duty-to-consult obligations with Indigenous communities have been met.

I want to stress that both the government of Ontario and the OEB are ensuring that Indigenous communities have a continued opportunity to bring their views forward and to inform any decisions that may impact their rights or their interests. These changes would improve the timelines for pipeline construction and expansion by cutting red tape and expediting the installation of natural gas to rural, remote and underserved communities while also helping to support a reliable and cost-effective provincial energy supply. Project applicants would continue to contact the Ministry of Energy early in the planning process and provide the ministry with a description of the proposed project, including the need for the project, its terminal points, characteristics such as the length and diameter of the pipeline, and the proposed route. Along with any additional information requested, the Ministry of Energy will assess whether the proposed project triggers the duty to consult. Where it is triggered, the OEB would then determine whether the crown has adequately discharged its duty to consult prior to granting such applications.

I also want to be clear that for all projects, whether there is a leave-to-construct proceeding or not, proponents will continue to require authorizations from Ontario ministries and municipalities. This will include permits and other approvals relating to technical, safety and environmental requirements needed to support the construction of the pipeline.

All of this work is going to build on the important action that we have taken to move Ontario forward as a leader in economic growth and clean energy, including:

—cutting the gas tax through December of this year;

—saving families an additional $312 a year through our Ontario Electricity Rebate;

—investing an additional $50 million in the Ontario Electricity Support Program, which is delivered by the OEB, to help those who need help the most;

—launching the Clean Home Heating Initiative, with incentives of up to $4,500 per household to roll out electric air-source heat pumps paired with existing natural gas furnaces;

—scrapping the previous Liberal government’s cap-and-trade carbon tax that punished people and businesses; and

—introducing legislation to protect the people of Ontario from any future carbon tax, and a whole lot more.

All of this has made us increasingly attractive to business and industry, with companies and investment surging into our province at a record rate. It brings us so many benefits.

Just take the Honda announcement from two weeks ago that was landed following a lot of work by Minister Fedeli and Premier Ford and other members of our team: This $15-billion investment will create the country’s first comprehensive electric vehicle supply chain, and it’s all going to be located right here within our provincial boundaries. That includes four new manufacturing plants—not one, but four: a new stand-alone battery plant at Alliston, a new EV vehicle assembly plant, a new cathode active material and processing plant, and a new separator plant, as well. This investment, which was a number of years in the making, represents a vote of confidence in Ontario’s status as a leading jurisdiction in the global production and development of electric vehicles, batteries and battery materials.

It’s just one example of the growth that we’re experiencing in Ontario. In addition to Honda, Ontario is already working, as you know, with Stellantis in Windsor, Volkswagen in St. Thomas, Umicore in Loyalist township, all of whom are making great progress on their multi-billion dollar investments.

We’re also seeing major investments in green steelmaking in places like Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie, with Dofasco and Algoma Steel. While the traditional steelmaking process uses coal, one of the largest sources of emissions in the province, our government is working with the federal government and the steel industry to end coal use and electrify their operations to support the production of green steel, fuelling our growing automotive sector.

As a result of these investments and our housing goal that I mentioned earlier, for the very first time since 2005, almost 20 years ago, Ontario’s electricity demand is on the rise. For almost 20 years, we’ve either seen electricity demand stay the same or even diminish as manufacturing jobs fled the province for other jurisdictions. In fact, an expert analysis from the IESO, our system operator, shows that electricity demand could more than double by 2050 if we stay on the rate that we’re on right now. That’s why we’re taking action now—actually, it’s why we took action a couple of years ago to ensure that we have the energy that we know we’re going to need down the road.

Last summer, I released the comprehensive Powering Ontario’s Growth plan. This plan lays out our road map to provide families and industries with the reliable, low-cost and clean power that we need to power Ontario’s future. Powering Ontario’s Growth builds on the key strengths of our system, including our diverse supply mix made up of nuclear, hydro, natural gas, other non-emitting resources like renewables and, soon, batteries that are currently being built across the province. It also builds on the significant action our government has already taken to meet demand through the end of the decade with major projects and procurements, including a $342-million expansion of our energy efficiency programs that are offered through IESO and, as I mentioned, energy storage procurement, which is actually the largest such procurement in Canada’s history and one of the largest in North America.

This plan also builds on Ontario’s international leadership on nuclear power and small modular reactor development. It builds on our legacy as the birthplace of the Candu reactor—which is still among the safest, most reliable reactors in the world today—and our reputation as a world-leading source of life-saving, cancer-fighting medical isotopes, which are harvested from our Candu reactors at the same time that they’re producing almost 60% of the province’s electricity every day. It’s an amazing success story—part of our nuclear advantage.

Nuclear power, as I mentioned, makes up more than half of our current electricity supply in Ontario. It’s a source of affordable and clean power. Nuclear energy is why Ontario is able to maintain one of the cleanest electricity grids in the entire world. That’s why expanding our province’s nuclear fleet is a key component of our plan to meet future demand. That includes innovative new solutions like the SMR, as I mentioned, that’s currently under construction at the Darlington OPG site. In fact, we’re making progress on developing the country’s first commercial-grid-scale SMR at that Darlington nuclear site. It’s not just Canada’s first; it’s not just North America’s first; this will be the first SMR producing electricity on the grid in the entire G7 or the Western world.

As a result, we’re attracting incredible interest from around the world, helping us open new export opportunities for our province.

I had the opportunity yesterday morning, down at the Invest Ontario offices at the Eaton Centre, working alongside our former colleague Bill Walker, who’s now the head of the OCNI, the Ontario coalition of nuclear industries—I was thinking “Canada” was in there. They had a group in from Brazil. They’re looking at our SMR and our expertise in nuclear to deploy in their jurisdiction.

But we didn’t stop there. Through Powering Ontario’s Growth, we’ve also begun the planning and licensing for three additional SMRs at the Darlington site, to bring that total to four. Speaker, 1.2 gigs of clean, reliable, affordable electricity is on its way, supporting the 65,000 people who work in our nuclear sector in Ontario.

In addition to our SMR expansion, we’re working with Bruce Power to begin pre-development work for the province’s first large-scale nuclear station build in more than 30 years. This new supply will complement the extensive work that’s already going on in the sector, including the significant progress that’s being made on the refurbishments and major component replacements that are happening right now, ahead of schedule and on budget, at Darlington and also at Bruce Power. The refurbishment of Candu reactors at Darlington and Bruce represent the largest clean energy projects in Ontario, securing a steady supply of clean baseload power through our province.

Our government is supporting OPG’s plan to proceed with the next steps toward refurbishing Pickering nuclear station’s B units. That plant is operating at an incredible rate right now. It’s because of the expertise from the skilled trades, our power workers, and those who work in our nuclear sector.

I’m not exaggerating when I say that Canada, and Ontario in particular, is an international leader, a powerhouse, when it comes to nuclear power. Nations around the world are looking to our province to leverage our expertise as they make decisions on their own SMR deployment to help them achieve energy independence and meet their climate goals. That was apparent during my recent nuclear trade mission to Dubai. I attended COP28. I attended the World Nuclear Exhibition in Paris, France, as well and met with folks in the United Kingdom, in London, who are also looking to our expertise on the SMR as they build out their plans for small modular reactor deployment in the UK.

Beyond nuclear energy, Powering Ontario’s Growth is also continuing our competitive approach to procuring a diverse set of resources to meet our growing capacity and energy needs. Just like with home heating, natural gas generation is part of our pragmatic approach to keeping the lights on. It’s our insurance policy, an approach that has been reinforced by the Independent Electricity System Operator, whose natural gas phase-out study stated that natural gas generation plays a crucial role in the reliability of the electricity grid and provides a range of services that no other resource today can provide on its own.

In short, while most of the time Ontario can meet its electricity generation with nuclear and hydroelectric—which we’re also investing in refurbishing—and bioenergy and renewables, we need to face the reality. We need a pragmatic approach, one that keeps energy affordable, keeps the heat on and helps families afford their first home.

Interjection.

Good morning. Let us pray.

Prayers.

Mr. Todd Smith moved third 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.

It is the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries—what did I say? I don’t know. Anyway, thank you. I’d like to correct my record. I see the good people of Hansard looking me straight in the eye. OCNI is the Organization of Canadian Nuclear Industries.

I can’t finish by correcting myself. I have to talk about the fact that we have one of the cleanest, most reliable electricity grids in the entire world, something that we should be very proud of as we continue to invest. It’s going to take us a while to get those refurbishments done at places like Bruce and at OPG in Darlington, and then at the Pickering plant, where we’re refurbishing the B units there. It’s going to take us some time to build those battery storage facilities. They should be on the grid by mid-to-late next year. We’ll roll out more non-emitting resources after we get those storage facilities built in the province to ensure that our system operates more efficiently.

As a result of this pragmatic approach—and industry is seeing it, the people of Ontario are seeing it, and our farmers and agricultural sector are seeing it. They’re able to make investments in their business, in their homes, in their farms because of stable energy policy. It’s finally come back to Ontario after 15 years of skyrocketing electricity bills, uncertainty with things like the global adjustment. We brought that certainty back to Ontario.

Bill 165 builds on that certainty for people looking to invest and buy new homes in our province.

With that, I’ll turn it over to my good friend my parliamentary assistant.

I recognize the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I didn’t mean to throw the minister off like that, but I didn’t want Bill Walker to hear about that. He’s a good friend to all of us.

It is a pleasure for me, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy as well as the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, to echo Minister Smith’s remarks on the importance of the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act and what it means for Ontario families and businesses across the province. After serving for years as the opposition energy critic, it is now my honour to serve as Minister Smith’s parliamentary assistant and to speak to third reading of this important bill.

I must preface by reminding people—some of them would have been here—of when the Liberals brought out the soon-to-be proven-disastrous Green Energy Act. It was passed in 2009. I was the critic at that time. We had a third-party assessment and analysis done of the Green Energy Act that concluded exactly what would happen and what it would mean to the province of Ontario and the people who call it home and have businesses here—how many would lose their jobs, how many businesses would leave the province because of what it did to electricity pricing, which, as the minister indicated, went up triple during the Liberals’ term. That is one of the prime reasons that this Liberal government ran out of runway. They couldn’t fool the people any longer when 2018 came along, and the people said, “Hey, no. It’s time for you to go.” We have to remember that from 2009 on, the NDP supported that Green Energy Act that turned out to be such a disaster, and we’re seeing the effects of that still today.

I’m going to confine my remarks mainly to this prepared speech that has been given to me—but it is critical to Ontario, and critical, certainly, to Ontario’s municipalities.

In particular, Bill 165 proposes to streamline the leave-to-construct process for small energy projects, making reliable and affordable energy options available to communities, homes and businesses in a more cost-effective and timely manner.

This is all about building Ontario. I do want to say—I’m going to digress a little bit here.

Bill 165—I was there, of course, for the hearings on the bill and the clause-by-clause, and one of the things that we kept hearing from the official opposition was that they were absolutely opposed to the minister intervening to change a decision that was made by the Ontario Energy Board. Well, the Ontario Energy Board is there for a very important purpose. In fact, it was our old Premier, Bill Davis, who brought in the Ontario Energy Board. It serves a very, very important role here in the province of Ontario, but its role is not to write or rewrite government policy. That’s a critical difference, and that’s where they strayed off, out of their lane. The minister, to his credit, moved swiftly to correct that error so that we could continue to build homes.

I say to the honourable member the critic on the opposite side, who I respect very much—I actually quite have a liking for him. He is very passionate, but he is wrong about many of these decisions. This one here, about wanting each and every homeowner to be responsible for the cost of bringing that natural gas to their home, would have been a disaster not only just in urban Ontario, but an absolute, critical disaster in rural Ontario, where obviously you’ve got more gas lines to build in order to serve those homes.

On one hand, they keep telling us that we need to build more homes; on the other hand, they’re standing in the way of things that will actually lead to building more homes. I don’t understand the conflict that they’re living within themselves on that issue. Building more homes means all hands on deck and doing everything we can to get that done.

I want to talk about the leave to construct. Bill 165 proposes to streamline the leave-to-construct process for small energy projects, making reliable and affordable energy options available to communities, homes and businesses in a more cost-effective and timely manner. I just repeated that.

As it currently stands, anyone looking to build a new home or business and connect it to Ontario’s reliable and affordable natural gas supply must get a leave-to-construct approval from the Ontario Energy Board if the expected cost of the pipeline will be over $2 million. The Ontario Energy Board reviews the application and grants leave to carry out the project if it is deemed to be in the public interest to do so. However, the existing exemption of $2 million, which has been in place for more than 20 years, is causing major delays for cities and towns all across Ontario. This is especially true for rural communities, like my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Like Minister Smith and many other MPPs across the province, I have heard concerns from municipal leaders who want to build new housing and who want to get their constituents off more expensive and emitting forms of energy, like home heating oil. This includes communities in my own riding that still do not have access to natural gas. These leaders are as frustrated as our government is, since the $2-million threshold for small pipeline projects, which was first set in 2003, has not been updated to reflect inflation and increased construction costs. These municipal leaders are concerned that even the smallest projects will no longer receive the exemption that was originally intended. These projects can include something as small as connecting a new home, which should receive an exemption, especially during a housing crisis. As a result, they have put forward clear asks specifically in support of raising the current leave-to-construct cost threshold.

The changes we are proposing would allow the government to prescribe conditions in regulation to exempt small projects from the leave-to-construct process, while maintaining the crown’s obligations related to rights-based consultation with Indigenous communities, ensuring opportunities remain for their input into proposed new projects. Specifically, if Bill 165 is passed, the government intends to introduce regulations to streamline the leave-to-construct process by exempting small pipeline projects that cost between $2 million and $10 million, provided the crown’s duty-to-consult obligations with Indigenous communities have been met.

I want to be clear: Whether there’s a leave-to-construct proceeding or not, proponents will continue to require authorizations from Ontario ministries and municipalities, including permits and other approvals relating to technical, safety and environmental requirements needed to support the construction.

These changes would improve the timelines for pipeline construction and expansion by cutting red tape and expediting the installation of natural gas to rural, remote and underserviced communities, and helping to support a reliable and cost-effective provincial energy supply.

It is well known that natural gas in Ontario is more affordable for home heating than other sources of energy, such as oil or propane. Expanding this access makes the cost of living more affordable for all constituents, but specifically for rural residents, especially those in northern Ontario, where even high-efficiency heat pumps may not be an option on the coldest days of the year. Not only is natural gas more affordable, but expanding it will also increase economic development and job opportunities within communities.

I want to make it very clear: Natural gas plays an important role in meeting Ontario’s energy needs. If you look broadly at our province’s entire energy needs, natural gas currently meets 39% of demand, while electricity only meets 21%.

When you look at home heating, natural gas plays an even bigger role. It is the primary heating source for approximately 70% of the homes in the province, or about 3.8 million homes. While our government understands that some households will choose new options, such as a switch to hybrid electric heating systems, we need to ensure that all Ontarians have access to all forms of heating, including natural gas.

Expanding natural gas makes the cost of living more affordable for all constituents, but especially those in rural and northern Ontario. Just take Quebec, which uses mostly electric heating: Over the past few years, Ontario has had to step up to supply electricity from our natural gas generating stations on the coldest days of the year to keep the heat on for Quebec’s homes and businesses.

Maintaining access to natural gas ensures reliable access to heat on those coldest days. In fact, natural gas will need to continue to play an important role in meeting Ontario’s energy demands for the near to medium future.

The changes to the leave-to-construct process will make it easier to develop and connect to natural gas pipeline projects, which is not only essential for heating, but it also contributes to overall energy efficiency and improving the quality of life for residents.

To give members an idea of how desperately Ontario needs the leave-to-construct threshold increase, I’m going to speak to what the Minister of Energy’s office has heard from municipal leaders.

The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus, which represents my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, is the voice for 103 rural municipalities, representing about 800,000 residents. They expressed their concern with the current exemptions. Renfrew county, of course, is within the region, and this region spans 50,000 square kilometres. To give you an idea of that expanse, it’s about the size of Nova Scotia. We continue to see significant growth throughout this region, which brings with it increased pressure to develop the gas pipeline network. Under the current leave-to-construct threshold, municipalities represented by the EOWC are seeing significant delays in getting natural gas to development sites.

It’s just a fact that gas pipeline costs in Ontario have significantly increased due to higher labour and materials costs over the past 20 years, just like they have across Canada, and $2 million is no longer a meaningful threshold. Ontario is constantly growing, and we need to ensure that every sector in this great province stays modern so that we can continue to keep shovels in the ground and create those all-important jobs.

Meredith Staveley-Watson, who is the manager of government relations and policy for the EOWC, reached out to the Minister of Energy’s office directly to highlight the importance of modernizing the leave-to-construct threshold. She stated: “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 continue to expand existing jobs—“transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments, connections for low-carbon fuel blending ( ... natural gas, hydrogen), as well as residential and business customer connections.” She’s absolutely right.

Our government understands how important this modernization is to Ontario’s families and businesses. And to help modernize Ontario even further, if passed, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act would allow for the development of regulations to exempt small pipelines that cost between $2 million and $10 million from the leave-to-construct process.

The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus also made the point that increasing the cost threshold to $10 million in Ontario would more closely align with the situation in other Canadian jurisdictions. For example, the thresholds in British Columbia are $15 million for electricity and $20 million for natural gas.

The South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corp. has also expressed their frustration with the current leave-to-construct threshold. SCOR is a not-for-profit corporation owned by the counties of Brant, Elgin, Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford, and represents just under one million residents in southwestern Ontario. This group of municipalities supports our government’s direction in modernizing the leave-to-construct process and recognizes that the $2-million cost threshold established in regulation in 2003 is outdated and does not reflect the current costs associated with infrastructure projects.

The steps we’re proposing in Bill 165 will update this threshold and support our government’s objective of building 1.5 million homes across Ontario, helping to expand transit, cut red tape, and lower the cost of access to our affordable, reliable and resilient natural gas system.

The delegation from the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus also expressed support for an increase in the leave-to-construct threshold. The Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus is a not-for-profit organization representing 15 municipalities, 300 communities, 250,000 businesses and 1.5 million constituents across rural western Ontario. This group aims to enhance prosperity and overall well-being of rural and small urban communities across the region, which have seen significant growth in the past decade—once again, bringing additional pressure to build out the gas pipeline network.

Speaker, much like the previous organizations I have just mentioned, the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus recognized that Ontario’s outdated regulations are causing the current leave-to-construct threshold to apply far more broadly than intended when it was established more than two decades ago.

In fact, the Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus expressed concern that rural western Ontario could lose out on significant opportunities for economic development in their regions, due in part to the current threshold, which was never updated by the previous government. It’s unbelievable that they did all that with the Green Energy Act, which just about bankrupted the province, but they couldn’t update the leave to construct.

Our government understands that these lost economic opportunities are simply unacceptable. This is why Ontario needs to act now to modernize the Ontario Energy Board’s leave-to-construct process in order to bring reliable and affordable energy options to communities, homes and businesses in a more cost-effective and timely manner. We simply cannot lose any more jobs and economic opportunities in Ontario.

The leave-to-construct changes proposed in the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act will help to promote and protect economic development and job creation opportunities, especially in rural municipalities across the province.

The united counties of Leeds and Grenville have also expressed how their municipalities are facing delays and problems in ensuring natural gas expansion into commercial and industrial parks, as well as some residential areas. There are significant economic development implications to these delays, as you can understand, Speaker. It goes without saying. Of course, we know the only real solution is to improve the necessary infrastructure.

Like many rural communities, economic development in eastern Ontario and the united counties of Leeds and Grenville has been historically driven by a competitive tax structure, the availability of serviced land, and an educated workforce. However, we know that today’s economic development efforts require a more comprehensive and collaborative strategy, particularly in our post-pandemic era.

That’s why our government is focused on supporting a broader regional network of infrastructure to reflect and support the reality of business, industry supply chains and trade. This is true in all rural communities across Ontario, like the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, that are constantly in competition with larger urban markets for commercial and industrial business.

Not only is natural gas more affordable; expanding access to natural gas would help to increase economic development and job opportunities within communities.

Ontario’s natural gas expansion initiatives, like the natural gas expansion program, have helped to bring natural gas to a number of underserviced rural communities. For example, the township of Huron-Kinloss expressed that the expansion has provided residential and commercial ratepayers in Huron-Kinloss with more choice in how they meet their energy needs. The clerk from Huron-Kinloss stated: “The township has benefited from natural gas expansion initiatives of the province, making it affordable to bring natural gas to underserviced rural areas. This has provided residential and commercial ratepayers with choices in how they meet their energy needs in an affordable manner, and helps to provide heat sources, during even the worst winter storms.”

Our government understands that it’s more challenging for rural customers to transition to natural gas as it currently stands. That’s why Ontario is focused on bringing regulations forward that would allow equal opportunity to natural gas supply that is built in a sustainable manner. And it truly spans across the map.

The municipality of Red Lake, up there with Mayor Fred Mota—which is in northwestern Ontario, not far from the Manitoba-Ontario border—expressed their need for the threshold increase. This small community is poised for significant economic growth over the next decade as a result of several nearby mining projects—another thing, that our government has turned Ontario into a mining powerhouse again, after languishing under the former Liberal government. However, they do not currently have the capacity to provide the needed natural gas and electrical power service to support these projects or support the additional housing and services that will be required with the influx of workers and new residents who will be coming to their community.

Similar natural gas concerns were brought forth by the municipality of Oliver Paipoonge, where other energy sources like wood, electricity and propane are very expensive for heating. The municipality expressed concern that their residents are experiencing issues with insurance companies becoming increasingly reluctant to insure properties that use wood for heating.

These are just some of the municipalities and municipal organizations that have voiced their concerns to our government. Similar concerns were shared during last year’s Association of Municipalities of Ontario conference. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Our government knows that the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act is a step in the right direction to preserve customer energy choices by ensuring that natural gas remains an available and affordable option for all Ontarians. Our government understands that supporting new projects in municipalities is critical not only to help communities grow, succeed and thrive, but for Ontario’s economy to prosper as well.

A streamlined leave-to-construct process that exempts small pipeline projects, while maintaining rights-based consultation opportunities with Indigenous communities, will help get small pipeline projects that support new housing and new jobs built by cutting unnecessary red tape and putting shovels in the ground faster.

Speaker, I want to stress that both the government of Ontario and the OEB will ensure that Indigenous communities will continue to have an opportunity to bring their views forward and to inform any decisions that may impact their rights or interests.

Project applicants would continue to contact the Ministry of Energy early in the planning process and provide the ministry with a description of the proposed project, including the need for the project, its terminal points, characteristics such as the length and diameter of the pipeline, and the proposed route. Along with any additional information requested, the Ministry of Energy will assess whether the proposed project triggers the duty to consult. Where it is triggered, the OEB would then determine whether the crown has adequately discharged its duty to consult prior to granting such applications.

The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act builds on Powering Ontario’s Growth and the work we are already doing to ensure we have affordable, reliable and clean energy for all Ontarians and to ensure this province remains an attractive place for businesses to invest and families to call home. The changes we’re proposing in Bill 165, including increasing the leave-to-construct threshold, would cut red tape and get housing and energy connections built faster while controlling costs for new gas customers.

In addition, Bill 165, if passed, would improve Ontario Energy Board processes, building on the work of OEB modernization started back in 2018. They will ensure that the entire energy sector and other impacted sectors have more input into OEB decisions, and that future OEB decisions take into account government policy priorities, including protecting ratepayers.

As we plan for a prosperous future for our province, we must ensure we have an energy system that can deliver reliable and affordable power for all Ontarians, including those in smaller, rural communities, including the ones I have talked about today, and particularly in my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Making life easier and more affordable for Ontario families and businesses is at the heart of the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act—as well as in every decision we make.

As energy demand continues to grow across Ontario, we will continue to work hard to ensure a reliable supply of energy continues to be available for all Ontarians, now and in the future.

I urge the members of this House to think of every Ontarian across our great province and support the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act.

Speaker, I don’t have a lot of time left, but I do want to reiterate how important this entire act is.

When we think of many years ago, when they were building an electricity system across the province, a distribution and transmission system across the province—this is where I differ greatly with the position of the New Democrats.

By the way, spreading the cost of gas pipeline expansion has been the way we’ve done it in the province since 1998. I never recall in my time here the NDP ever bringing forth a motion in the House to change the way that that was done, and I don’t ever recall them having that in one of their election platforms. But all of a sudden now, this was the biggest issue for them in this bill. How critically wrong they are.

When we had the energy expansion across the province of Ontario many decades ago, do you think we would have actually gotten electricity to parts of Ontario like where I live, in Renfrew county, in a big way—other than the small little local generators—if we didn’t have a program that provided that Ontario saw the importance of getting electricity to as many people and communities as possible and built out the transmission grid to supply all across Ontario? That was done so that those communities would have electricity without having to bear all of those costs, and each homeowner didn’t have to bear the costs of building those wires all across the province.

The same thing happened with the Bell telephone system. All across Canada, the people made sure that people would have access to those services. Yes, it was a little slower in coming. Some people may remember what they called “party lines” in rural Ontario—you might remember, Speaker; I remember. Those changes were made—

Interjection.

It is now time for questions and answers.

Since day one, our government has delivered policies to keep costs down. I’d like the Minister of Energy to cite some of those examples, please—through you, Speaker.

The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, Associate Minister of Housing—he remembers that.

Sometimes you have to do things for the good of all. This program that we have in Bill 165 to continue that is absolutely necessary to continue to build those 1.5 million homes. That’s why I say to our colleagues across the floor, don’t get caught up in your old ideology. Think about what is important for the future. Building 1.5 million homes is the highest priority we have in this province today. Don’t get caught up in your own ideology. Support this bill. It is good for the province.

Madam Speaker, if you want an example of how the NDP simply don’t understand energy policy, exhibit A was the question that we just experienced from the member opposite.

This change in policy reverts back to the policy that was in place five months ago. This is a policy that is going to ensure that we can build homes in Ontario at a lower cost for the people of Ontario. That’s why we brought forward Bill 165—to ensure that the people who wanted to get a home in our province wouldn’t have to pay more to do so.

And if they had bothered to read the commissioner’s opinion, it says right in there that it will drive up the cost of building new homes in our province.

The NDP are ideological. They listen to folks like Environmental Defence. They’re not listening to the folks who are building homes or those who are buying them.

Our government has done a lot to reduce the cost of living in Ontario. While the feds have implemented this punitive carbon tax on the people of Canada, we have reduced the price of living in Ontario, reducing red tape—the Minister of Economic Development talks about it all the time—by $8 billion, the cost of doing business in Ontario. For those who drive, the gas tax—10.7 cents a litre. Eliminating that very, very costly Drive Clean program—you will remember what a scam that was. We ended that. The member is from the Durham region. We eliminated the tolls in the Durham region. There are folks in Durham and across Ontario who take transit—implementing One Fare, which is going to save the people of Ontario $1,600 a year. At every step, we’re considering the people of Ontario and their ability to pay. That’s the difference between our PC government, under the leadership of Premier Ford, and Justin Trudeau and the federal Liberals.

Under the previous Liberal government—I know the member will remember this—they referred to the north as “no man’s land.”

We believe that northern Ontario is a land of opportunity for forestry, for mining—ensuring that we get clean electricity to these jurisdictions.

Absolutely, we’re working with those who are investing in our biomass sector in places like Atikokan and Hearst; the Calstock facilities; Kapuskasing; also, in Thunder Bay, at the former Resolute facility there. We’re re-signing all of these contracts—Hornepayne; I can’t leave them out. We’re re-contracting all of these biomass facilities, and we’re continuing to talk with the folks in the forestry sector about how we can ensure that they are a viable industry for our province moving forward.

And I love the axe. It was great.

Not only are our nuclear facilities ensuring that we have clean air in our province—the single largest greenhouse gas emissions accomplishment in North America, in eliminating coal-fired power with nuclear power—but these medical isotopes are an enormous opportunity for us to save people’s lives, not just in this country and across North America, but around the world. We are one of the superpowers when it comes to medical isotopes.

Things like cobalt-60—we provide almost 50% of the world’s cobalt-60 from our Candu facilities here in Ontario, from places like Bruce and Darlington, and soon in Pickering. Lutetium, molybdenum-99, yttrium-90—all of these medical isotopes are going to be sent around the world to help cure cancer. It’s an unbelievable story—all part of our nuclear energy advantage in Ontario.

My question is to the minister.

We were at OFIA last week—and by the way, I really enjoyed your comments about the Premier and the axe; I think it was very funny. What was interesting was hearing from Finland and what they do with biomass, and the huge potential that we could have here in northern Ontario.

I know GreenFirst in Kapuskasing is working on a project to build a co-gen to reduce their costs, have electricity, heat and everything. My question: Will you work with the community and move this forward—because that will be the difference between maybe seeing other mills go down. That will be also a solution, maybe, for Terrace Bay, so that we can take that biomass and save—maybe take this mill that sits idling and could be more profitable—

I want to thank the member for his comments this morning.

This government will never miss an opportunity to shovel some more of our tax dollars into their corporate donors’ pockets—but this time, it’s not our tax dollars; this time, it’s the fees that we pay as consumers of Enbridge Gas in this province. This government is going to be shovelling our bills over to Enbridge to maximize their profit margins, so that we will be subsidizing the laying out of new pipelines or new gas infrastructure—

So my question to the member is, instead of subsidizing Enbridge’s profit margins, why aren’t you subsidizing heat pumps, which are a green alternative to expanding natural gas?

Natural gas is a really important component of all of our energy utilization in Ontario, but my favourite has to be nuclear energy, not only because it’s clean and green energy, but also because the by-product is medical isotopes.

I think this is our best-kept secret: Ontario actually produces close to 50% of the world’s supply of medical isotopes.

Can the minister tell us a little bit more about how Ontario is the leading force in medical isotope production?

It’s a terrible thing to do.

I received an email from London West constituent Sue Fotheringham, who shared her grave concerns about the minister’s decision to reverse the OEB ruling, which, of course, is an independent regulator in this province. She said that pushing the cost of natural gas installation onto current homeowners is absurd, given the struggles that Ontarians are facing in finding affordable housing and putting groceries on the table.

Why is the government siding with Enbridge to increase their profits and legislating increased costs for existing natural gas consumers when the OEB has determined that this is not in the public interest?

I hope that the member’s constituent will understand that nothing new is happening here. We’re reverting back to the way it was prior to December 2023, five months ago. The same process that was in place for 40 years is in place again until we can get a new decision from the Ontario Energy Board, after we set a natural gas policy statement for them to consider.

The one thing that is clear from the commissioner’s report is that they didn’t hear from the necessary stakeholders in this process. That’s why we had to step in. They didn’t consider the impact that it would have on our electricity grid and the ability to bring the electricity to keep people warm in the wintertime. That’s why we stepped in—and to ensure that people can get into the new home market.

Natural gas in the home heating sector keeps people warm.

Natural gas in the electricity sector makes sure that we can keep the lights on, our elevators running, our traffic lights running, and our manufacturing facilities operating, and we need it. It’s our insurance policy to keep the lights on in Ontario.

Last Friday, I attended the second annual Accessibility Awards at the Abilities Centre in Whitby. The winners this year were Luca Demontis, Trevor Smith, Allison Hector-Alexander, Julie Grant and Lorin MacDonald. Each of the award recipients have demonstrated their dedication to making communities more accessible and inclusive, and to ensuring that everyone, regardless of ability, has the chance to live happy lives of purpose and dignity.

Through its innovative initiatives, the Abilities Centre has become a beacon of hope and progress, empowering individuals of all abilities to thrive.

Over the last two years, our government has provided $8 million in support of the Abilities Centre. The staff at the centre provide important supports for our loved ones in Whitby who have varying levels of ability. It is an excellent example of how a local facility can help create a strong community of inclusion.

Our government is committed to building an Ontario where individuals with varying ability have the opportunity to fully engage in their communities and live the lives they choose.

I want to thank the minister for his excellent comments this morning. I also want to highlight the fact that his Trenton Golden Hawks were playing off against the Collingwood Junior A Blues in the Buckland Cup. It was a tough series. Congratulations to the Golden Hawks, but Collingwood came out on top.

My quick question for the minister is—to just make sure that people in this House and across Ontario understand the difference between natural gas in the heating sector versus natural gas in the energy generation sector.

We have time for one quick question.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

On Tuesday, April 30, I was so proud to tour Victor Lauriston Public School in Chatham to observe their initiatives for elementary students in STEM learning, literacy and coding in every classroom from senior kindergarten to grade 8. Principal Eryn Smit and his staff are fully committed to ensuring all students have a strong focus on the study of science, technology, engineering and math, including cross-curricular and integrative study, and the application of those subjects in real-world contexts.

Victor Lauriston Public School was built in 1948 and is neatly situated in an urban Chatham neighbourhood, with a school population of around 380 students. The school is maintained immaculately and boasts high morale, low employee turnover and high staff seniority, with several staff having been students there themselves.

I was thrilled to see senior kindergarten students in action, participating in applied coding exercises, and grade 5 and grade 6 students using specialized invention kits—also known as Makey Makeys—with circuit boards, alligator clips and USB cables to create a closed-loop electrical signal to literally create music and phrases from hand drawings.

Most inspiring was the school’s nutrition program, led by parent volunteers, that provides every student with fresh, healthy food offerings every day—like the expansive salad bar I helped to serve.

Thank you to Principal Smit and everyone at Victor Lauriston school for your commitment to excellence.

Go Lions!

Last month, I held a meeting where I informed my community about fraud and the abuse of a type of lien against a property called a notice of security interest, or NOSI for short.

As you know, people across our province, especially seniors and vulnerable members of our communities, have been victimized by unscrupulous door-to-door salespeople who have used every trick in the book to try to scam them into a bad contract. Many of these scams involve NOSIs without the knowledge of the victim. So these liens sit unnoticed until the time comes to sell, take out a loan, or refinance your home. During this stressful time, the victims are extorted to pay large amounts to have the lien removed, or spend loads of time and money in the courts trying to reverse this vexatious registration. These liens are often in the tens of thousands. A family in my riding had over a dozen NOSIs placed on their home—a dozen.

In many cases, the personal banking and identification of these victims are trafficked and used to commit other types of fraud. In extreme cases, the victims are tricked into signing reverse mortgages in an attempt for the thieves to steal their homes.

At my town hall, residents couldn’t believe that the government hasn’t put an end to this yet. I let my residents know about our private members’ bill to ban NOSIs, and they all insisted that it be passed immediately.

Once again, I call on this government to ban NOSIs in Ontario and to notify all Ontarians who have a NOSI on their property, free of charge.