Legislative Assembly of Ontario · Committee
Standing Committee on Public Accounts
The official transcript of the meeting, from Hansard, by heading. Ministers, officials and witnesses appear as the transcript names them; committees have no live transcript, so the record appears once the Assembly publishes it.
Read from the beginning of the meeting
Mr. Alex Wood
Sure. Alex Wood, I’m the assistant deputy minister for the climate change and resiliency division in the Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks.
The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Thushitha Kobikrishna)
Alex Wood, do you solemnly affirm that the evidence you shall give to this committee touching the subject of the present inquiry shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Alex Wood
Maybe to pick up on a couple of points that you’ve made, I think it’s important to distinguish between the existing plan and a new plan. The deputy’s earlier answer, I think, is in relation to government decision-making around a future plan, given the uncertain context that we find ourselves in. But we continue to deliver on the existing plan, and a lot of the measures—for my ministry to track and my division to deliver on—are tied to that 2018 plan, which continues to be the plan that we deliver on. Insofar as it comes to reporting progress on that, as part of the answer that was provided earlier in the deputy’s introductory remarks, we are part of an exercise that is national in scope. The federal government issues its national inventory report every year that reports on the state of emissions in the country, but also breaks down provincially what those emissions look like. And so our reporting is usually a reflection of what the federal exercise has generated. All of the numbers that you have seen described in terms of our reductions—absolute reductions, percentage reductions—are a reflection of those federal numbers, that NIR. That process will continue. We will have a new NIR at some point this year showing Ontario’s emissions, and that’s the reporting framework that we’ll continue to use.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
But it is fair to say that the government basically has made a choice, though, not to have any targets—certainly not targets beyond 2030. They’ve repealed the legislation that requires them to have a plan and to set those targets, which some would argue maybe signals the level of priority that this has for them as a government.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Yes, but it is true, right, that this is what has happened? We’ve cancelled the legislation that would actually create responsibility for the government to be clear on what their ongoing targets will be. Many other provinces have targets that go out to 2040—that was in the report as well. My biggest concern, I think, with this whole report and the response to it is that the government doesn’t seem to have any commitment, actually, to making sure that we’re going to continue to reach those targets.
Mr. Alex Wood
I would just point to the delivery of the existing programs that we have in place. One of the programs my division manages—you mentioned performance programs—so this is an industrial carbon pricing program that we have in place. It continues to do some heavy lifting when it comes to the reduction of emissions from the industrial sector, one of the important emission sources in the province. It is a program that has been identified by independent entities, like the Canadian Climate Institute, as probably the most important instrument in use in Canada, across Canada—whether provincially or federally—to reduce emissions. The government is committed to that program and continues to deliver on that program. The deputy and some of the other deputies spoke to some of the existing initiatives and investments that the government continues to implement.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Given the government has moved towards, though, the elimination of GHG emission targets and reporting altogether, was that recommendation put forward to them by the public sector, to actually remove that requirement?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Member, we’re not at liberty to speak to the advice that we give the minister in making cabinet-related decisions, but we understood that the minister was looking to explore a number of considerations, and that was among information that was provided by the public service.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
That was among the options that were given, to stop—okay. Was there a scientific rationale behind the decision to not do it, to not continue to set targets.
Mr. Alex Wood
I guess I would point out, to maybe quibble a bit, the fact that those particular sections of the act have been repealed does not mean the government cannot set targets for GHG reductions. It continues to be committed to the targets that it has already set for itself, and so that distinction is important to point out.
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Okay. If it is possible, I would like to request any documentation the committee can get on what led to the decision to repeal the legislation and to no longer have targets in place. Can I make that request through the Chair?
The Chair (Mr. Tom Rakocevic)
I mean, the committee has to agree to it, but we can come back to that—
Ms. Lee Fairclough
Okay. That’s great. And I guess I would just ask maybe the last question, and then I’m going to turn it to my colleague. Is it your perspective that in removing these targets, Ontario will be better equipped to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Do you think targets are useful to make sure that we keep our eye on that reduction?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
I’ll begin by just saying that I don’t think the presence of targets predetermines whether or not emissions will be reduced. The government remains committed, the ministry is looking for opportunities through our partners, and in the presence or without the presence of targets, that remains the commitment of the government.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Thank you for coming in today and sharing your—what shall I say—I guess stance with us. So, first off, to Deputy Minister Sarah Harrison: You mentioned that Ontario is basically a leader in greenhouse gas reductions across Canada. That’s what I surmised. I wonder how much of that is attributed to the closure of the coal plants.
Mr. Alex Wood
Yes. Well, as I think the deputy mentioned or others mentioned—maybe Deputy Laaksonen-Craig—Ontario has always been very public and proud about the substantial reductions that were achieved by the closure of the coal plants. The numbers around that are between 20 and 25 megatonnes of reductions. But right now, we’re at a total reduction for the province, since 2005, of 43 megatonnes. The basic math is maybe half of those reductions come from that single—
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Then why wouldn’t you want to report on that, and why—I think Sarah Harrison mentioned about being transparent. So do you not think that annual reporting on that to the public is transparent?
Mr. Alex Wood
Reporting of what nature? One of the methodological nuances here in terms of reporting is those reductions are essentially counted in our baseline now, right? We don’t stack those on top of what emissions would have been if we hadn’t closed the coal plants. They are now part of the business as usual in Ontario, and so we measure against that.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Well, the Auditor General has asked you to report, and you have said no. Do you not think the public deserves to hear from you? I mean, how often is it that an Auditor General takes all the time to do a report and then not one of the recommendations, basically, are accepted?
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Okay, so one. My question is, specifically, Deputy Minister Sarah Harrison, do you believe in climate change?
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Thank you. And do you believe there is a high cost to inaction and not acting on putting forth any climate action?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
While I appreciate the nature of the member’s question, I think my personal beliefs and views are outside of the interests of the committee today, talking about the Auditor General’s responses and recommendations, and our responses to them. So, I respectfully think that I’d ask the Chair whether or not that question falls within the scope of today’s proceedings.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Well, the Financial Accountability Officer is very concerned about the high cost of inaction—and he has put a price tag on that—so I thought you might be as well. I’ll go on to Tamara Gilbert. Do you believe a strong investment in physically separated cycling infrastructure would lead to a reduction in greenhouse gases?
Ms. Tamara Gilbert
Similar to Deputy Harrison, I think my personal views are not the matter of interest for the committee.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Okay. What is your ministry doing to that end, for cycling infrastructure? Because we actually know it reduces greenhouse gases. I didn’t hear that in your introduction.
Ms. Tamara Gilbert
Thank you for the question. There is one statistic that I find very useful: As of 2025, approximately 2,100 kilometres of bike routes on provincial rights-of-way have been established since 2018, as one example of the ministry’s efforts in this regard.
Ms. Tamara Gilbert
These are on provincial rights-of-way. I believe the member is referring to the dialogue with the city of Toronto over the revised approach to the bike lanes along Bloor, Avenue and Yonge. You might be familiar that there haven’t been any bike lanes which have been removed or ripped out per that exercise as of this time.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
As of yet, right. I love all the transit investment; it’s great. I’d like it to be quicker than 15 years, but hopefully it will going forward. Just wondering about last mile and first mile and what your ministry is doing.
Ms. Tamara Gilbert
I appreciate the question. A couple of initiatives to highlight: You might have noticed the ministry’s recent announcement around a rideshare pilot framework for the north, for Northlander communities that will be connected through the ONTC train that is about to be re-established in operations. That’s an important first-mile/last-mile initiative. Currently, the ministry is undertaking very, very significant consultations to get advice around what should be in that rideshare pilot framework—which, again, the intention is to have that in place for the establishment of the Northlander train. That’s one initiative. I also point to the ministry’s very strong efforts around the One Fare program, which of course is intended to support integration of public transit across the number of municipal systems that feed into GO, just as an example.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Great. Anything pertaining to bike share around mobility hubs in urban centres or cycling infrastructure?
Ms. Tamara Gilbert
The ministry, you might be aware, also has a number of pilots that take into account biking opportunities, but I might go back to my original response.
Ms. Mary-Margaret McMahon
Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, you mentioned that the ministry is not beholden to any one energy source, essentially, and I just wondered what you’re doing to invest in renewables, and also for conservation, education and awareness campaigns.
Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig
Thank you for that question. At the high level reflected in my opening remarks, we, for example, are right now in the middle of a long-term second procurement through IESO, and that is a procurement that is looking at both a mix of different renewable energy sources, as well as, then, it can be storage capacity. We had a very successful procurement for our storage earlier through IESO, so there are a number of different ways at how ministry and government are looking at ensuring that we have that diverse mix of electricity. Through those competitive procurements, government is really looking at getting that affordable price, so that ratepayers can still continue to enjoy the affordable electricity while we have significant components of renewables, hydro and nuclear as part of that total mix, going forward. As I noted, all these procurements are going to continue to drive—whether it’s nuclear or renewables—the emissions on the electricity sector toward near zero by 2050.
The Chair (Mr. Tom Rakocevic)
Now we move to the official opposition. MPP Bell, you have 20 minutes.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you so much for coming in here today. Some of my questions are going to be fairly similar to the questions that were raised by the Liberal MPPs here. The first thing I do want to say is that when I read the Auditor General’s report on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I read it with dismay and alarm. I read it with alarm because, based on all credible evidence, we’re on track toward a future where our living standards are lower, our life expectancy is shorter, our economy is struggling and we are inundated with more frequent extreme weather events: extreme wildfires, extreme heat events, extreme flooding, heavy rain. I think that this is our reality whether we like it or not. That’s what all the science is telling us. I also think, as government and as ministry officials, we have a responsibility to do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and prepare our government infrastructure, our economy, our social services, for extreme weather and a hotter climate. It’s our responsibility. We’re meant to think beyond two weeks. We’re meant to think five years, 10 years, 50 years ahead. When I read this report, it looks to me like the Conservatives have abandoned any pretense to insulate ourselves from climate change and its impact on our children and on future generations. It screams of this mentality of, “Let’s take what we can get now and leave the future to burn.” I also think that we have a responsibility and a moral obligation—I can imagine, as public servants, you share this responsibility—to do what we can to ensure that future generations have a quality of life that’s as good as ours. To do that I think it’s pretty safe to say that we need to respond to climate change with everything we’ve got. That means reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and also preparing our infrastructure and our economy and our society—our health care systems, our emergency responses—for extreme weather. It’s this thinking that is driving some of the questions that I have today. The first questions that I have are around the GHG emission calculations. When I read this report, it became pretty clear to me that the calculations that the ministries have used to assess what the emissions reductions are going to be—which is, quite frankly, wrong—the AG concluded that the government did not use sound evidence to assess emissions reductions. They gave quite a few examples. The big ones included assuming the full impact of federal programs, even though they’ve been scrapped; double-counting emissions reductions; and assuming that GHG emissions reductions from the farming sector are going down, but providing no explanation on why that assumption is justified. There were many examples throughout the report. My question to you is, why did the ministry release a report that did not accurately assess GHG emissions reductions. What happened?
Mr. Alex Wood
I’m going to focus my answer based on an assumption that it is largely about a recommendation for, in the AG’s report, having to do with how we conduct our analytical work, the tools that we use and the assumptions that we use. I want to distinguish here between what are essentially forecast versus reports that are backward-looking. As the deputy mentioned in her introductory remarks, we, as a matter of practice over the last six, seven years, have used essentially the best model in Canada to determine and forecast emissions from a number of inputs, and there are two things to be said there. One is that exercise simulates some kind of certainty around what emissions will be in the future. But any kind of practical examination of that and experience with that kind of exercise shows that it is a far from perfect exercise to try to estimate what emissions are going to be like in five years, 10 years—
Ms. Jessica Bell
All right. I’m going to take back my time. Straight up, the examples I gave were examples that you would expect an undergraduate to get right. For instance, you have instances where reductions were double counted. That is pretty common sense when you’re looking at doing an assessment of GHG emissions reductions. What I guess is that no effort was put into updating the plan, and it was just submitted to the Auditor General—that’s what I sense—and that it reflects a real lack of care about action on climate. So I’m going to ask the question again: Why was a report submitted that had such, quite frankly, gross inaccuracies for assessing climate reductions and the policies that were going to be used to achieve those climate reductions? What happened?
Mr. Alex Wood
I can tell you, the exercise of engaging with the AG’s office in terms of describing to them, working with them through the modelling platform that we have, explaining our use of assumptions—a very complicated math exists within those models. I would take issue with the idea that we were double-counting emissions because that is something that was identified in a previous AG report back in 2019, but that the ministry has taken great efforts at addressing through its modelling work ever since.
Ms. Jessica Bell
I have many questions. I only get 40 minutes, so we will be following up with your ministry. The second question I have—and in some ways this is more important. There were some errors in the calculating of greenhouse gas emissions. Can this ministry confirm that in the draft reports you have written or in future reports that you might release, you will make a commitment to ensure these kinds of mistakes do not happen again? And when I’m talking about mistakes, I’m talking about factoring in the impact of a policy that has already been scrapped, or not engaging in double counting.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Member, just for a matter of clarification—I don’t want to speak on behalf of the auditor, who I know is present here and would be happy to correct, but I think the auditor is being misquoted—not intentionally, member. But I think it’s not unimportant to note here that the auditor recognized that the emissions were mainly due to policy changes that happened after those projections were calculated and developed. So I think it’s not unimportant to talk about this as being also a connection back to sequencing. So recognizing your point, there was no deliberate effort on behalf of the ministry.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Just to clarify—I am taking back my time—my question is around what is this ministry going to do in the future to ensure that the plans that you release use accurate accounting? That’s my question: looking forward. We’re not going back now; we’re looking forward.
Mr. Alex Wood
Right. I can categorically assert that we—as a matter of policy, as a matter of course, as a matter of practice—are in the business of constantly updating our model with the assumptions that come in to us. I will make the other point that many of those assumptions are not assumptions that we generate, as an example. We have to, in our model to forecast emissions in the province, have an estimate of what GDP growth is going to be in the province. We do not generate that GDP growth forecast; we rely on our colleagues in the Ministry of Finance to do so. There are any number of like assumptions that we use as a matter of course, and it is, again, a matter of practice in the ministry to update, on an annual basis, the model based on whatever new assumptions have come in. That includes any changes in policy, particularly federal policy.
Ms. Jessica Bell
So I recall in the Auditor General’s report there is a draft report on calculated GHG emission reductions, 2025. Is that correct? There is a draft report—an internal draft report?
Ms. Jessica Bell
Great. What is the projected emissions reduction in that internal draft report?
Mr. Alex Wood
I’ll have to get back to you on that one—the exact number. Like I said, if we’re talking about a forecast here, there will be a number attached to it, but it will almost certainly have been—if I were to run that model for you again, it would end up at a different number. These things are constantly changing, especially in the current, very uncertain environment that we exist in. But I can get back to you with that number.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you. I appreciate that. My request is that that draft report is released publicly. Can your ministry release that draft report?
Mr. Alex Wood
Maybe we can get some clarity on exactly the product that you’re talking about.
Ms. Jessica Bell
My second questions are focused on just the overall plan. What we have heard from the Auditor General’s report and also from the presentations that you’ve given is that the government has made a decision to no longer have GHG emissions reductions targets post 2030, even though nearly every other province and territory has emissions reductions targets post 2030. My question to you is this—and it’s just straight up and it’s already been asked but it’s so important. This is probably the most important question that needs to be asked. Can this ministry develop and release a credible and accurate public plan to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels? Yes or no?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Member, thank you again for the question. As we’ve answered previously, the ministry is in a position with so many uncertainties that you’re asking for something that we have only some ability to predict, and the prediction itself inherently leads to some inaccuracy. You’ve asked us both for a plan and a certainty of accuracy, which the ministry is not able to provide for you. The presence of a plan is not the sole determinant of whether the minister and the government of Ontario continue to make commitments towards climate change reduction and decarbonization, which the government has remained committed to, and you’ve seen a number of investments throughout the other ministries. Our ministry acts as a partner only in this respect. I think, maybe on an earlier point in your preamble, you talked about the importance of this, and I’d say that nothing is a better understanding of the importance of climate change than the evolution of how we do climate change planning in the government of Ontario. It’s not exclusively the domain of the MECP. It’s actually a responsibility of all our partner ministries, and adaptation and resiliency are inherent in all of the work that’s done on a policy basis.
Ms. Jessica Bell
We’ll get to that. Help me out here. You agree that having a climate change plan is important, right?
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Member, I appreciate this, but my view on whether or not there’s a plan is outside of the scope of this discussion. The government is not committed to making a plan on climate change, respectful that that is a recommendation of the auditor but not a recommendation that the ministry is accepting.
Ms. Jessica Bell
So just to be clear, the government is not committed to making a plan to address climate change. The government is not committed to doing that.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
I’m not predicting what the future intention of the government is. It’s causing me to speculate to do that, which is outside of my purview as a public servant. The government, at this time, has not asked for a climate change plan.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Well, that is a pity. I want to talk a little bit about the consequences of inaction. Has your ministry—or ministries—done an assessment on the social and economic cost of not having a comprehensive plan with clear greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets? Is there an internal assessment on the impact of not acting?
Mr. Alex Wood
What I’ll point to in answer to that is the exercise undertaken by the province to create a Provincial Climate Change Impact Assessment. That is a public document, a public plan, that was released two or three years ago now. It’s the first of its kind in Ontario, describing what the expected impacts of climate change—physical impacts largely—would be in Ontario. That plan does exist and it is, in fact, public.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Going into the specifics of that, talking about the consequences of extreme heat events, has the ministry—or ministries—done any assessment on the economic and social impact of extreme heat events, and if so, what have you found?
Mr. Alex Wood
On that front, I would point to essentially the work that my ministry does to take the expertise that we represent in terms of understanding what those impacts will look like and then working with our partner ministries on the implications of those findings, of those conclusions—
Mr. Alex Wood
We are continuing to work with some of our ministry colleagues where that work exists in terms of—
Ms. Jessica Bell
And what have you found in terms of economic cost and social costs? What have you found so far?
Mr. Alex Wood
I don’t think we have hard conclusions, hard numbers that we could point to at this point.
Ms. Jessica Bell
All right. What we do know, though, is that heat events do and can cost a lot of money. To give you an example: The heat dome in BC was classified as the costliest disaster in BC’s history. It resulted in 600 people dying, and the Canadian Climate Institute estimates the cost of not responding to this extreme heat event cost BC about $12 billion a year. It’s a lot of money. The reason I’m raising this is because there are economic consequences to not having a plan, and that’s just one example. Have you got any financial estimate on what it would cost if we had a similar heat dome event here in Ontario?
Ms. Jessica Bell
Okay. All right. Now I want to get into the impact of climate change on infrastructure. Institutions have had a look at assessing the impact of climate change on public infrastructure. We’re talking roads, the electricity grid, sewer systems, and whether they can withstand extreme heat and flooding, extreme rainfall, hurricanes and more. Assessments are showing that, quite frankly, we’re not prepared, our infrastructure is not ready, and we should be spending money to upgrade our infrastructure and get our infrastructure ready for more extreme weather events. My question is this: Have the ministries or government done any assessment on the impact of climate change on our infrastructure and the costs of upgrading our infrastructure or not upgrading our infrastructure when we’re looking at climate change? Have you done that kind of assessment?
Mr. Alex Wood
Our ministry has not, but the member opposite earlier mentioned some work by the Financial Accountability Officer and that exercise was looking at exactly that question.
Ms. Jessica Bell
All right. It doesn’t seem like this is very sensible long-term planning, especially when we’re talking about the economy, if we’re not preparing for inevitable extreme heat events and we’re not preparing to improve and upgrade our infrastructure so it’s ready for the inevitable flood, the inevitable extreme rain, the inevitable extreme events that we’re going to have. It raises some concerns.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
Member, to my earlier comment—I appreciate your comment, but I’ll speak again to the fact that not all climate change planning is done by MECP. We’re not an infrastructure ministry and much of that planning is done by our partner ministries who are our infrastructure leads, and so in segments—
Ms. Jessica Bell
Thank you. That’s the reason why I said ministries and government. We’ll make sure to follow up to see if there is some additional work being done by other ministries on not just reducing greenhouse gas emissions but also mitigating and adapting. So I can follow up on that. I want to move to questions—
Ms. Jessica Bell
This will be my final question related to whether the ministry or ministries or government have done any assessment on the impact of wildfire—the increased likelihood of extreme wildfire and the increased chances that it could affect urban environments similar to what happened in LA and recently in New York. Has your ministry—or ministries—done any assessment on the impact of extreme wildfire on Ontario—its economic cost, social costs.
Ms. Sarah Harrison
I appreciate the question, member. Again, my colleague from the Ministry of Natural Resources who’s responsible for the wildfire management plan is not part of the panel today. I’m not able to speak on their behalf, but again, I wouldn’t presume that my not having the information within MECP is a determinant that the government of Ontario has not undertaken that research.
Ms. Jessica Bell
Okay. So we can follow up maybe with a recommendation around the need to have a climate change plan that addresses greenhouse gas emissions reductions and also some public clarity on how we are preparing Ontario for our future. Overall, the assessment that I’m getting, asking you questions, is that there is a reluctance to share information that affects every single Ontarian around how we respond to climate change. I’m aware that there are specific policies that are being moved forward on transportation and on the energy grid, but there is a real need for Ontario’s plan to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to be public, to be open to public consultation and to really be focused on excellence and accuracy, and I’m not seeing that today. Thank you.
The Chair (Mr. Tom Rakocevic)
Okay, we’re at time. We now move to our government members. You have 20 minutes, beginning with MPP Dixon.
Ms. Jess Dixon
Having read the Auditor General’s report, I’m trying to place their findings in the broader context that the entire government is working in. We have, obviously, challenging economic conditions. We have infrastructure growth and other sector realities. Also, I’m looking at what has been achieved and is being achieved in other provinces and territories across the country. Can you talk a little bit more about how Ontario’s emissions reductions to date compare to results across Canada?
Mr. Alex Wood
Yes. Thanks for the question. As has been mentioned by the deputy earlier, Ontario has already made significant progress to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 2005. Ontario’s emissions reductions, 43.7 megatonnes, surpass those of any other province or territory. In addition, Ontario has the second-lowest emissions intensity of any province in Canada, with a 42% emission intensity decrease between those same dates of 2005 and 2023, the largest improvement of the five highest-emitting provinces. Then our per capita emissions, emissions per average person, have declined by 37% since 2005, ranking us the third-lowest among provinces, behind only Quebec and Prince Edward Island. Putting that in the context of some economic comparators, while Ontario represents about 39% of Canada’s population and GDP, its 2023 emissions account for only 23% of Canada’s total emissions. To make that point even more salient, I think, Ontario is successfully growing its economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions, so this concept of decoupling what has been a growing GDP, which has grown 34% while greenhouse gas emissions have fallen by 21.6%, is something to be pointed out. Just again, as a comparator, Canada’s overall reductions during that same time period have been 8.5% of emissions reductions. Just to tell a bit more of a story from a time-horizon perspective, despite a slight increase in 2023 from the ongoing economic rebound following COVID-19, Ontario ranks first in absolute emissions reductions, second in greenhouse gas emission intensity and third-lowest in per capita emissions in the country. These emissions reductions have been achieved through an approach that is responsive to the opportunities, challenges and circumstances of Ontario’s economy and job creators. Ontario has taken significant actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions moving forward and build an economy that is more resilient and self-reliant. Let me review some of those actions: —establishing the Ontario Emissions Performance Standards Program and its associated funding program, the Emissions Performance Program, which provides incentives and supports to industrial facilities, making investments that lower their emissions and help make them more competitive; —investing over $24 billion in green bonds to help finance public transit initiatives, extreme weather-resistant infrastructure and energy-efficiency and conservation projects, and Ontario is currently the largest issuer of Canadian-dollar green bonds; —making gasoline cleaner and reducing emissions by requiring fuel suppliers to gradually increase renewable content, such as ethanol, in regular gasoline to 15% by 2030; —supporting the adoption and production of zero-emission vehicles to lower our transportation emissions and revolutionize our automotive sector while investing over $180 million to support the installation of public electric vehicle chargers; —undertaking the largest nuclear build-out on the continent while continuing to invest in energy-efficiency, electricity generation, storage and distribution to help Ontario achieve a more than 99% zero emission electricity by 2050; —developing a provincial carbon management framework that would accelerate the use of new technologies that reduce industry’s carbon footprint, while supporting the growth of a strong carbon management sector in the province and opening the door to new export markets and attracting investments; —launching a new round of the Hydrogen Innovation Fund, investing $30 million to unlock hydrogen’s potential to drive economic growth, create jobs and support the province’s position as a leader in the clean energy economy. The Ontario government previously invested $13.8 million in 13 projects through the Hydrogen Innovation Fund; and finally —supporting both electricity and natural gas energy-efficiency programs to help families reduce GHG emissions. In January 2025 Ontario announced a 12-year energy-efficiency framework for new and expanded electricity energy-efficiency programs, with a total budget of $10.9 billion. Ontario is committed to long-term decarbonization, and the investments noted above are helping Ontario build a competitive low-carbon economy while protecting communities and the environment. Thank you for your question again.