Speaker, you heard it. I heard it. You could hear it.

Great idea.

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.

Later today, I’ll be welcoming students from Whitney Public School in my riding—their first visit to Queen’s Park. I’m looking forward to meeting with them. But what is really remarkable is that I actually spent one day as a supply teacher at Whitney Public School many years ago—

Interjections.

I want to thank the great member from Flamborough–Glanbrook for that question.

Speaker, Chrystia Freeland is more interested in photo ops and getting a new pair of shoes than she is in helping the people of Canada and Ontario.

We’re focused on relief for the people of Ontario. We are cutting the gas tax, cutting the tolls on the 412 and 418, and we’re keeping electricity costs down. But the federal government continues to work against us. The whopping 23% increase in the carbon tax on April 1 raises the price of everything, including the prices in grocery and shoe stores, and heating bills.

I’m asking the Liberal members on the other side to join us in telling your federal counterparts the carbon tax is punitive and is hurting families all across this province. Stand up with us. Ask them to scrap the tax.

It is my pleasure this morning to welcome to the Legislature Jennifer Lachance, who is the mother of page Emily Charbonneau. Emily, in addition to doing a tremendous job here, today is going to be acting as page captain, so congratulations, Emily, and welcome, Jennifer.

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.

It’s Christmas parade season, and all across the valley, communities are getting together to do something that everybody loves.

In my riding, each and every parade is a special experience that speaks in a very visual way about the people, the organizations, the businesses, and their expressions of community spirit. This past weekend, I was able to attend parades in both Cobden and Pembroke.

The Cobden parade is a daytime parade that brings out people from all around the area and sends out the message that Christmas is near. As the first parade of the season, that is most appropriate. I even had the opportunity to entertain the crowd with my rendition of the Burl Ives classic, Have a Holly Jolly Christmas.

The Pembroke parade is an evening event, and this year’s edition was truly spectacular. Over 100 floats took part in the parade, witnessed by the biggest crowd I’ve ever seen. The floats and the work that goes into them is something to appreciate. My hat goes off to all those who work so hard to make these parades so very special.

What really is the most wonderful part of the Christmas/Santa Claus parades is the joy and excitement shown by the children as they anxiously await the arrival of the jolly old elf.

As I move along the route, exchanging greetings with so many people, it is the reactions of the children that leave the most lasting impression. The joy of children; isn’t that what it’s all about?

I look forward to experiencing more of it this weekend.

I appreciate the comments from my colleague Mr. Leardi from—

What a challenging debate to be part of in this Legislature—that we have to actually be doing this here in this august chamber, calling for the censure of one of our colleagues. Why? “From the river to the sea”—I’m uttering those words, but not as part of a protest or my belief; I’m uttering them as a repetition of what we’ve heard so many times and from the member from Hamilton Centre. You cannot utter those words, “From the river to the sea,” unless you are an anti-Semite, because those very words require that the nation of Israel disappear and, along with it, the Jewish state. So if you use those words in protest or for any other reason, you cannot call yourself anything but an anti-Semite.

Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre is an anti-Semite. She can deny it. Her leader can deny it. But her life mission has shown that before she got here, she was an anti-Semite, and she has continued to practise that since being elected.

Speaker, there are anti-Semites among us everywhere in this country. Anti-Semitism is a cancer out there that seems to be part of almost every community, unfortunately and shamefully.

It’s our duty, in this Legislature, to root out and rid this province, this country, this world of all forms of hate, be they anti-Semitism, be they Islamophobia, be they homophobia or any other form of hate. It is our sworn duty to rid this world and therefore all parts of it from them and any other form of hate. But we don’t make—it’s not a requirement of citizenship or a requirement of living in this country or anywhere else or any part of this country. We know that it’s out there, and we see evidence of it every day. I don’t think there’s—I will speak more on it further in my remarks, I’m sure, if I have time.

We see so much evidence of anti-Semitism all around—and it’s daily. We’ll talk about our universities and how sad it is that the leaders of tomorrow believe that the Jewish state should be eliminated. Many of the leaders of tomorrow believe that, and they’re financed by the dues of other students.

Even if you hold those views, there’s one thing that I believe absolutely: that when you are sworn in here as a member of this chamber—there are only 124 of us who are honoured to serve the people of Ontario in this way, 124 out of approximately 15 million—

Interjection.

When you are sworn in here as a member, in my opinion, even if you are an anti-Semite, as the member has demonstrated repeatedly throughout her life, you check that at the door. Once you become a member here, you have to take on a different persona. You are a representative of this historic chamber. You no longer have the right to espouse your hateful views once you take a seat in this chamber, and you have to accept that as a condition of signing that oath, that you will relinquish your right, your privilege, to act in those ways any longer. It would appear to me that that is a reasonable restriction—if you want to call it that; I don’t even want to call it a “restriction.” It’s a reasonable compromise for accepting of the will of the people that you would represent them here.

But what does the member for Hamilton Centre do, as my colleague from Essex has pointed out? She used her first statements to politicize everything she does here through her own tainted lens. This could have been a great opportunity for the member from Hamilton Centre to actually show that there’s been some growth, not some deterioration and some further rot—that there was actually further growth since she became a member here and that she understands what our grave responsibility is to serve everyone and to protect every vulnerable person. But she chose to put out that vile tweet—I still call them “tweets.” I don’t know, do you still call them “tweets” or “X” or whatever? To put that out, and she was immediately called out for it.

There, Speaker, is where the big failure comes, because her leader called for her to withdraw that and apologize. What we got from the member for Hamilton Centre was this pitiful, pathetic, fake apology that I don’t believe for one minute had a scintilla of sincerity. It was done because her leader requested it, but the request included withdrawal and taking down of the original post. And, sadly, instead of the member from Hamilton Centre removing the post, the leader has turtled and gone into hiding on that issue—retreated to her cave, her burrow, whatever you want to call it—and doesn’t want to talk about it. In fact, the leader of the NDP shamefully, disgustingly, has said that members on this side of the House—and I’ll paraphrase it because I don’t have the exact quote in front of me—are trying to take away the rights of a Muslim woman to speak on behalf of her constituents. That’s a paraphrase. How shameful. On one hand, she’s saying this is a divisive thing. Yes, what has been done is tremendously divisive, and the way to bring people together is to have a full-throated apology for that. But no, she fosters greater division by making that kind of a statement.

This is not about Muslim or Jew. This is about hatred. This is about hatred and using the platform of you, as an MPP—the platform that we have as the privilege of sitting here. We would not have it otherwise, the platform that we have to get a message out. Whether correct or incorrect, it doesn’t matter; it’s our message to get out. So using this vehicle to espouse that kind of vitriolic hatred is wrong, and the right and just thing to do for this Legislature is to stand against it.

If we don’t stand against it today, we better not try to stand against it tomorrow. You don’t get a mulligan on these kinds of things. You must act, and you must act decisively. That’s exactly what our government is doing—acting, and acting decisively. You think it’s easy? I’m not saying that to you directly, Speaker. I mean that in the broad sense. No, it’s not easy when you have—only once in my tenure here did we call a member for censure, and that was the former member for Lanark–Frontenac–Kingston. It may have happened before me. It is a very rare step that is taken; indeed, one that is gut-wrenching to have to go through—to make that choice. We are now put in a position here in this chamber, here in our Parliament, that we must call a colleague to order for words that were both written and, on a repeated basis, spoken. This is not easy but is absolutely necessary.

What it has also shown—and this is truly regrettable—is the actions of the opposition in respect to this. They also could have done the right thing. Their leader could have stuck to her guns and said, “I’m sorry, but this is a condition”—and I will say this without any fear of being wrong, although everyone is entitled to an opinion. Should a member of this Progressive Conservative caucus have made statements either in writing or in any form of communications or media in a quantifiable way similar to those against any group, our leader, Premier Ford, would give you about 30 seconds to have an absolute and unequivocal apology issued or you’d find yourself—the door would be slammed on your backside, because you wouldn’t be a member of this caucus any longer. We couldn’t do anything about whether you sit in this chamber or not, but hopefully the people of Hamilton Centre have an opportunity to make a decision at some time as well—and hopefully in any riding, if that was the case, the people would make the right decision.

We live in a vast melting pot here in Canada, here in Ontario, where people from all over the world have come here because this is a bastion of freedom, of civil rights and privileges, and a place where freedom and freedom of speech reigns. But freedom of speech, as has been quoted by people a whole lot smarter than me, has its limitations, and when it either directly or indirectly calls for violence against others, then that privilege must be not only curtailed but removed. We do have laws with regard to hate crimes and hate speech in this country, but they tend to be pretty wishy-washy when it comes to anti-Semitism.

My father, as many people know—as everybody here would know by now because I’ve said it many times—was a World War II veteran who fought overseas. While he was not the division or the battalion that liberated places like Auschwitz and Treblinka, he understood absolutely the persecution that Jews had experienced in Nazi Germany and all around the world.

They lost their homeland—the homeland that was theirs, millennia ago. As a result of the Second World War and the absolute atrocities that were committed to Jewish people, the world rightfully—the free world and the new world, if you want to call it that, the post-Second-World-War world—decided that the Jewish people must have a homeland, and Israel was created. Ever since then, they have had to fight and battle and face tremendous discrimination in all corners of the world, but certainly in their corner of the world, where they are surrounded by hostiles. And then you wonder why Israel has felt it necessary to build a strong military to protect itself, because at any time of the day, of any time of a day, of any time of the week or the year, they could be subject to aggression.

This is what happened on October 7, Speaker. A terrorist attack of the most vile in nature, most abhorrent and hideous in nature, where young children were murdered and beheaded, women were raped, adults and children were killed and kidnapped. And Israel responded in the only way that it could. You have two choices: fight or flight. They have nowhere to go to. This is their homeland. There’s nowhere to go. They have to fight for it and they have to defend themselves when they’re faced with that kind of inhuman attack from the terrorists that make up Hamas.

And you will have the argument that, well, they shouldn’t be attacking back. But Hamas is a terrorist group that doesn’t care about human life, be it Jewish or Palestinian, so they set up their headquarters in apartment buildings, in hospitals, in schools. They have missile launchers among the people. They use their citizens. You see, Gaza is ruled by Hamas. Let’s be clear. They use their citizens as human shields and find them completely dispensable from the point of view of human life. They don’t care how many Palestinians are killed; they only care how many Jews they can kill. That’s the difference. The Jews, the Israelites don’t rush into the other countries and attack, but they’re constantly in a mode of defence. But when they are attacked, they must respond. They must respond.

I tell you, Speaker, that every drop of Palestinian blood that has been spilled in these last couple of weeks, almost, is on the hands of Hamas. They, because they don’t care about the loss of life, have put their citizens in grave danger, knowingly. Their actions were a deliberate attack, designed to kill as many Israeli Jews as possible. It wasn’t a defensive move; it was designed to inflict as much damage in a short period of time on as many Jewish citizens as possible.

And I tell you, Speaker, it’s the largest loss of human life among the Jewish people at any one time since the Holocaust. And we have a member of this chamber not only defending Hamas, but applauding them. How can we possibly do anything—

Thank you very much, Speaker. Your voice is so soft compared to mine, I didn’t hear you right off the bat. But I certainly appreciate the opportunity.

However, I do want to say, Speaker, because there’s so little time and I would prefer not to have my address today split in two, I’m going to move adjournment of the debate.

“It can’t be done”: Don’t bother using those words when speaking to an O’Brien. When folks told Del O’Brien some 50 years ago that establishing an airline in Pembroke wouldn’t work, he proved them wrong.

Well, his son Jason has done it again. Against conventional thinking that you couldn’t establish a vineyard in Renfrew county, he and his wife Lioutsia have done just that. On September 2, I had the honour of attending the official opening of WOW, the WhiteWater O’Brien Winery. Nestled on the shores of Lake Allumette, the vineyard stretches for a quarter of a kilometre and basks in the constant westerly breeze blowing off over eight kilometres of open water. The westerlies ward off late spring and early fall frost and act as air conditioning in the summer. This enhances the moderating effect of cool nights and hot days, which is similar to many of the great vineyard locations around the world.

The vineyard is part of the 700-acre O’Brien farm, which has been in the family since the 1830s and is one of the earliest and largest certified organic farms in the Ottawa Valley. WhiteWater O’Brien Winery is currently producing four varieties: two whites, one red and a rosé. Speaker, I can tell you they are all very, very good.

I want to congratulate the O’Briens on their grand opening and let everyone know that in addition to being available on site, an online delivery service is under development. Renfrew County’s WhiteWater O’Brien Winery is on the march and the O’Briens are leading the charge.

It’s a pleasure to stand in my place today.

Speaker, indulge me: On September 25, 1963, the Progressive Conservatives were elected to another majority government of the leader of Premier John Robarts. As part of that 27th Parliament, there was a young man, a 40-year-old man and father of 13, from the little village of Barry’s Bay, who was also elected and, in keeping with the theme of these speeches today, was the first person of Polish descent ever elected to this Legislature. That man happened to be my father, Paul Joseph Yakabuski, and today is the 60th anniversary of his election. I am so proud of the work that he did before me and how he served his people and he served us as our father. I know that none of the things that I’ve been able to do here—or even being able to get here—could have been accomplished without the work of my father before me. So, on the 25th of September, 2023, happy 60th anniversary, Dad. Thank you.

I want to thank the member from Windsor–Tecumseh for sharing his time with me, and I want to thank the Honourable Stephen Lecce, Minister of Education. From the moment he got here, even before he was the minister, he has been focused on one thing: making Ontario better. And in the education system, for him, it was ensuring that everything we did as a government had one goal in mind and that is to prepare our students in a better way for the future and what the future is going to bring.

We know we live in a tremendously changing world. I can remember when I was in school; I’m sure there are some teachers that try to forget. Having said that, it was mandatory to attend, so from time to time, I did show up. But I was also around when our children went through the school system, and now our grandchildren.

What I saw when I came here in 2003 was I saw the former Liberal government dissatisfied with the data that was coming from our schools with regard to student achievement. That a fair assessment. But what did they do? You see, here’s the difference, Speaker: On this side of the House, we take our direction from the parents of children when it comes to our education system. The people who have their children in the system are the best evaluators of the system itself. They understand what their children need and they understand if the system isn’t delivering it.

So when we got here in 2003, do you know what the Liberal Party’s and the Liberal government’s answer was to lower-than-desired test scores in our school system? You would think that if your problem is lower-than-desired test scores—do you know what you’re going to do? You’re going to say, “We need to do something to increase those test scores, so we’ve got to look at what we’re doing, what we’re delivering, and how we’re delivering it to those students.” In fact, they did do that, but their answer wasn’t to enrich and strengthen the curriculum so that our test scores were more in line with other jurisdictions. Do you know what the Liberals’ answer was? It was—they got their direction from the leaders of the teachers’ union. I say that because our daughter is a teacher and two of our daughters-in-law are teachers, but you know where the direction comes from: It comes from those people at the top of the scale, the leadership. And the direction from them was, “Well, water down the curriculum, make it easier and then the test scores will go up.”

Well, they did. If you determine that the race that used to be a mile was 5,280 feet and you say quietly, “We’re going to make a mile 4,740 feet,” do you know what? Those people who are running the mile are going to say, “Man, I’ll tell you, those times are good.” But you are not running the same mile.

When we got here, we realized something had to change. I’m going to tell you, in spite of the rhetoric coming from the other side, the attacks coming from the other side, Minister Lecce has stood there like a strong oak tree, focused on what we are going to deliver for the people of Ontario and their children: a better education system that prepares them for the world of tomorrow. The students who are in that system today—it’s not just about today. We know it’s about tomorrow.

Ladies and gentlemen, you talk about that oak tree standing stiff in the wind and not bending, not breaking, and then what happens? The minister gets faced with something that nobody saw coming, this COVID-19 pandemic that threw everything into chaos. But what did we do? We managed our school system. We took the children out of school when it was absolutely necessary, but as soon as possible to the benefit of them and to our system and everybody’s mental health and everything else, we’ve got them back in the class. When the medical people agreed that it was safe to do so, we got them back in the class.

Now we are faced with new challenges. Part of that is student achievement. Again, it has to be addressed. I talk to parents and I also talk to teachers and they say themselves that they can’t believe what’s going on sometimes in our school system. They really can’t believe that what we are doing today is challenging. We have wonderful students. We have 12 grandchildren. Obviously, I’m going to speak highly of them. But look at this group of pages here. You want to talk about the cream of the crop? The folks who come here, the young children who come here—not young children; I guess they’re middle children—come here to serve us as pages.

One of my brothers—my youngest brother, Konrad—was born in 1965. He was a page here in 1978. But the cream of crop is those children who come here as pages. I absolutely guarantee you—and I haven’t asked a single one of them this question—they want to be challenged in life. Because they want to make sure that when the stuff hits the fan, as they say, they are able to face it. We need to make sure that our school system is focusing on those needs. This focus on STEM in the school system today that Minister Lecce said is absolutely vital if we’re going to prepare the students for tomorrow: That’s what we are focusing on.

Now he is looking at other issues in our school system. One of the issues is governance and consistency. If you don’t have consistency, you’ve got a problem, because it’s like what’s good for the goose is not good for the gander. You know the old saying, “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander”? Well, we just have the situation in Ontario where we don’t have consistency; Minister Lecce is going to take care of it.

I see his parliamentary assistant here today as well. I know that MPP Barnes is maybe not listening closely to me, but she’s certainty listening to this entire debate, and she’s listening to parents across this province and what they want to see. Because if you’re a parent, what do you care about most? What do you care about most? As a parent and a grandparent, I know what you care about most: You care about your children. So what are you going to do? You’re going to do everything you can to do the best—you want their lives to be better. I know that my father wanted my life to be better than his. It wasn’t hard for mine to be better; I didn’t have to go fight a world war. But I also want my children’s life to be better than mine, and I want our grandchildren’s to be better yet. What do we do to make sure that happens? We make sure we start out with the right basis, with the foundation.

We talk about what’s important in this world and what’s important for us to deliver as a government, you know that right off the top it’s going to be health care. If you don’t have your health, you’ve got nothing. I don’t care if you’re a gazillionaire, if you haven’t got your health, you haven’t got anything. But what comes next is our education system, because our education system—I’ll be gone some day. Some people will be happy. I’ll be gone some day; every one of us in here will be gone some day. But the world is going to carry on, and we’ve got to make sure that the people who we have in charge of that world have been prepared in the best way possible, and a successful, challenging, top-notch education system is the way to go. We have the minister to do it.

On that, I would say, I move that the question be put.

Per year.

Well, they’re slow learners over there, Speaker.

I thank the member for Ottawa Centre for his address today. Math and literacy are two of the most important things we can be teaching our children. My children are all out of school, but we’ve got 12 grandchildren.

Today, we keep hearing from the NDP that they just like the status quo and they don’t really want to see improvements into the numbers that are not positive in our school system. I am thankful to Minister Lecce for bringing transformational change to our system.

You’ve read the bill. I know you’ve read the bill. You see what we’re talking about: thousands of teachers and leaders skilled in literacy and math to improve those test scores and the outcomes among our children and grandchildren in schools. I know you like the status quo over there, because you don’t like to make changes and you don’t like to ruffle the feathers of your friends. Believe me, there was lots on consultation, not with the NDP. We don’t consult with the NDP.

But are you going to sit there and tell me today that what we have brought forth in this bill will not lead to improved outcomes and scores from our children—

You will speak to the bill, right, because the NDP don’t speak to it.

I want to thank the member for that question. I want to make it very clear that the EA process is not in any way being compromised. The proposed legislative amendments are minor and will not have any impact on the existing class EAs or environmental protection. The EA process requires proponents to assess potential environmental impacts, identify mitigation measures and consult with Indigenous communities, the public and stakeholders before the project can proceed.

Again, this process is not affected. To be clear, the environmental assessment standards will remain in place.

What we’re doing here today is ensuring that when there’s an approval, there is no 30-day waiting period for municipalities—which are the number one proponents of most of these EAs and are the ones that are most involved in it. So there’s no requirement to wait 30 days while you’re twiddling your thumbs and contractors are waiting to get the job done. We can waive that period. It is now within the purview of the minister—and every situation will be judged by the minister, but the minister will have that opportunity and that authority to waive that 30-day waiting period should they choose, and that is going to move projects ahead more quickly, more effectively and perhaps even avoid the winter season to get a job done.

It’s a pleasure to join this discussion today on Bill 46, An Act to enact one Act and amend various other Acts. It’s the first red tape bill that our new Minister of Red Tape Reduction has brought forward, but I doubt very much that it will be the last, because it is something that we are absolutely seized on, on this side of the House.

And it didn’t start here. I’ve been around long enough to remember when former Premier Mike Harris was elected in 1995. He saw a province that had been governed by the party on the other side here for five years, and saw the absolute growth in red tape in the province of Ontario and what a constricting effect it was having on businesses and people in the province of Ontario.

I know they might get upset with me here, but socialists love red tape and bureaucracy. They absolutely love it. I’m not sure how they’re going to vote on this bill, but I’m sure they’re kind of conflicted because the people out there, they get it. Government is too big. It stands in the way of progress. Every time you talk to somebody on the street and you ask them, “How is this going?”—it could be their project to build a new home, it could be a project to build something in the community, it could be a public institution that’s going to be built in the community—the first thing they’ll say is, “I can’t believe the amount of regulations we’ve got to go through to get that done. It’s absolutely ridiculous.” You talk about other jurisdictions that get things done in a quarter of the time.

This bill is not going to fix all of it, but it does speak to the philosophy and the belief of this government and its members that we can do better. We can make Ontario much better by getting on with moving forward and not standing in the way.

I do want to appreciate the Oscar Wilde quote from the member for Kitchener South–Hespeler earlier today—I don’t have it in front of me—that the bureaucracy is expanding to serve the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. It may not be exactly the quote, but it certainly paraphrases it. That’s what happens as governments get bigger and bigger and bigger. The bureaucracy becomes more and more unwieldy, and the people aren’t even actually able to understand what a blockade it can be.

So you have to have a government that actually takes the position that we are going to remove some of that unnecessary regulation. I don’t know if there’s an actual definition out there, but to me, red tape should be defined as “unnecessary regulation that impedes the ability of society to move forward in a progressive and beneficial manner”—something to that effect; that’s my own definition.

But the members on the other side—while listening to this debate, I have to ask myself, do they really want to debate Bill 46, or do they want to regurgitate something else? Because I heard more about Bill 23 today than I heard about Bill 46. But there’s a news flash for you folks over there: We actually passed Bill 23. It’s now done. But I think youse are a bit conflicted on Bill 46. You actually barely want to speak to it.

With that in mind, Speaker, I move that the question now be put.

The bureaucracy is expanding to support the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

I want to thank the member for her address this morning.

I’ve been here for nearly 19 years, and this is probably the most egregious example of NDP fearmongering since I’ve been here.

Since I’ve been here, ALC patients have been a huge problem in this province. We’ve got our vulnerable seniors in a place where they shouldn’t be, but no capacity was built in long-term-care homes to accommodate those seniors who would be best cared for in a long-term-care home.

This government has acted expeditiously and quickly, since the election, to bring in the proper legislation so we can actually move those patients to a home—

Interjections.

And now we have the NDP inventing all kinds of voodoo scenarios that do not exist.

So I do ask the member, could you please stick to what the bill actually says? No one will be going to a home that they’re not consenting to. Stop with the fearmongering—