Tuesday, September 29, 2026

The committee met at 1001 in committee room 1.

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Good morning, members, Minister and everyone. The Standing Committee on the Interior will now come to order. The committee is set to begin consideration of the 2026-27 estimates. We will begin with the Ministry of Energy and Mines for a total of two hours. As a reminder, I will allow members to ask a wide range of questions pertaining to the estimates before the committee. However, it must be noted that the onus is on the members asking the questions to make sure the question is relevant to the estimates under consideration. For any ministry staff appearing today, when you are called to speak, please give your name and your title so that it may be accurately recorded in Hansard. Are there any questions from the members of the committee? Seeing none, I am now required to call vote 2901, which sets the review process in motion. We will begin with a statement of no more than 20 minutes from the Minister of Energy and Mines. The remaining time will be allotted for questions and answers in a rotation of 15 minutes for each of the recognized parties. Minister Lecce, the floor is yours. I will remind you at the 19-minute mark that you have one minute left. Go ahead.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, colleagues, for being with us today. Let me just recognize the deputy minister is with us and a series of public servants from the Ministry of Energy and Mines. I want to thank them for their hard work in the public service. I want to thank my political staff who are with me as well and thank all colleagues for joining us for a riveting morning today as we discuss, really, the future of Ontario’s energy build-out and how we are safeguarding our sovereignty and broader focus on affordability for the families we serve. I want to just recognize that this ministry really touches on some of the key themes and areas of industrial focus for the province as we respond and punch back and push back against some of the insane pronouncements and economic warfare from President Trump. We are at the forefront of this, and we feel very motivated in the service of standing up for our energy sovereignty. We recognize electricity powers our homes and our businesses; it’s an essential element of what fuels our industry and we know—with our minerals, too—it is foundational to building out an ethical supply chain for the world. And while there are a lot of individual files that fall within the ministry mandate, there’s really one story I want to build out today, in that Ontario has always been a province that builds with an element of ambition and with a renewed focus on speed. To understand where we’re going, I think it’s important to understand where we came from. More than a century ago, Ontario was already making bets on infrastructure and technology that had never been attempted before. In 1881, Canada’s first water-powered electricity generating station opened in Chaudière Falls in Ottawa. Just a few years later, in 1885, Ottawa became the first city in the world to have all of its street lights illuminated by electricity. In 1962, the then-Premier made a determination to invest in nuclear technology. The nuclear power demonstration reactor at Rolphton became Canada’s first nuclear generating station powered by Candu technology. None of that had been done before, but the people of Ontario found a way of optimism, and more importantly, to focus on the innovations of our province and country. The generations before us decided that Ontario could do big things. Those decisions gave us the electricity system that powers our province today and laid the foundation, I think, that has established Ontario as a global leader for engineering, for manufacturing, innovation in medical isotopes and so much more, and helped make us a tier-one nuclear nation with one of the most advanced nuclear programs in the world. This story is still being written, and this is part of our collective journey here today. We are home to 16 of Canada’s 17 operating nuclear reactors, with the province’s nuclear sector employing 90,000 jobs and people across the province, supporting hundreds of companies directly and hundreds more indirectly. Just down the road, Darlington here in Ontario is advancing Canada’s first grid-scale small modular reactor, positioning the province at the forefront of the next generation of global nuclear technology. So when we talk about our energy advantage, we’re not talking about something that appeared overnight. We’re talking about decades of decisions, of investments—decisions that ultimately were made by people who understood that if you want a stronger economy tomorrow, you have to build the infrastructure today, and that really brings us to the moment we’re in today. The Independent Electricity Systems Operator has provided their latest outlook on forecasted electricity demand, which is said to grow at the high of 90% between now and 2050, effectively, in the worst case, almost doubling the grid in the next 25 years, in part due to electrification, data centres, greenhouse expansions and, of course, population intensification. But we cannot wait for that demand to arrive before we build the infrastructure we need today. As President Trump takes direct aim at our economy, we must, above all, ensure our energy system is self-reliant, that it’s ready to power tomorrow’s growth. That was the philosophy behind Energy for Generations. This is Ontario’s first integrated energy plan, a long-term economic road map which we unveiled to the people of Ontario to create certainty, predictability and, frankly, to instill confidence in the market that we have a plan of action to generate, to transmit, to store power across the province. That’s why the government is doing what Ontario has always done, going back to the thesis, which is building: building big, building with ambition and speed, doing things that I think will leave our children better off. To protect Ontario, we must first protect the nuclear assets that generations before us helped sustain for our province. If I may take a moment to infuse in this discussion a positive, a win that transcends politics as ratepayers, taxpayers, as Canadians, Ontario Power Generation refurbished and completed Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, the largest global refurbishment of its kind. That was achieved five months ahead of schedule and $150 million below budget, making it the largest of its kind on earth. It’s not just at OPG, though, because Bruce Power’s major component replacement for unit 3—that returned to service at a record we have not seen in the country or on the continent, completing that seven months ahead of schedule with another $150 million savings to the ratepayers of Ontario. These results tell us something important: We’re not simply maintaining that infrastructure; we’re proving that Ontario can successfully execute major, complex infrastructure projects on time and on budget and can use that expertise to build what comes next when it comes to our large-scale builds. Nowhere is that now more important than Pickering, ground zero for the latest nuclear refurb, a project that would have been closed by the previous government. For nearly 60 years, the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station has really been a core part of Ontario’s electricity expansion. We’re proud of that reactor. We’re proud of the thousands of workers who have made that one of the best heavy water reactors on earth. It has helped power millions of homes and businesses at the very time while this unit, unit 7 at Pickering, set a world record, operating for 894 continuous days. That has remained unchallenged for 22 years, the longest in-service, continuous operation. Now, we’re giving Pickering another chapter. We’re breathing new life into this incredible asset for another 38 years. We made this decision—the Premier actually campaigned on this commitment—to expand and extend the life of that asset, not just to protect the jobs in Durham, but fundamentally to maintain 2,000 essential megawatts when we need it more than ever. Through independent studies, the project will create 30,000-plus jobs. We often think in abstractions: “What did you do?” We come home to our families and discuss our days. Well, last Monday, we as a collective—and for all of us who were there, all the skilled unions who stood with us—made a decision to create 30,000 jobs for Canadians, and that construction project starts today. It started this fall. It started this September, in fact. It’s under way, and it really starts to peak in January as that refurbishment takes hold. A $41-billion gain to the national economy: I think that’s a huge achievement we should be proud of. And so, we were proud to be there to kick-start this construction, get this project going and really help deliver meaningful value to our economy for the next 40-odd years. I think that’s what it means to build on the legacy we inherited, across the parties, across the province, across regions. It’s not about any one individual; it’s a collective achievement for the benefit of Canada and the world. And we now have a duty to invest in those assets, maintain them, expand them and scale them for the next generation, and I think that’s in part why we’re here. But our plan does not stop with refurbs, because that alone will not get us the net new power we need. Going back to the problem I defined under the IESO, we need up to 90% of the power. The baseline was 65%. Even that is adding like three cities of Toronto to the grid by 2050. It’s a real, sobering challenge. We’ve got to build out and invest significantly just to keep up with demand. But we have a plan. That’s why the integrated energy plan really is the North Star for us. It’s codified, it’s timely and it’s transparent, exactly where we’re going as a province vis-à-vis our energy build-out. Now we are advancing early-stage planning for the next large-scale build and there are 14,800 net new megawatts—power for roughly 15 million homes, to convert that into sort of an understandable comparison. You look at Wesleyville—this is in Port Hope, Ontario—and Bruce C, which is in Bruce county. In both of those communities, we’re talking about some of the largest investments in nuclear in the world. In a moment when Canadians expect ambition, I think we are meeting this moment. We’re not building with incrementalism; we’re building the largest nuclear generator: up to 10,000 net new megawatts in Port Hope, a willing host community that has issued unanimous resolution of support for this. Active engagements with the First Nation—I mean, that’s meaningful progress. In Bruce, Bruce C, that next iteration of expansion will help make Bruce, that generating facility, the largest on earth, eclipsing even the South Koreans. That’s ambition. And 10,000 jobs in Bruce, another 10,000 jobs in Wesleyville: This is a massive lift for the economy and for the workforce, and so we’re proud of this and we’re proud to get these projects going. It’s a $235-billion gain over the lifespan for the Port Hope project alone, and for Bruce, it’s $217 billion of economic value, of GDP gain and, as I mentioned, approximately just shy of 10,000 jobs at that site alone. We also are advancing the Darlington nuclear project, building Canada’s first—really, actually, the Western world’s first—grid-scale commercial small modular reactor. We’re exploring new generation opportunities for nuclear in Lambton and in Nanticoke, where we have early resolutions of support from their municipalities and active engagement with the First Nations. My point, simply, colleagues, is that we are building with ambition. When you take this together, it’s 150,000 net new jobs. When people say, “Where is a jobs plan?”, that investment alone could put the city of Guelph to work. It’s 150,000 net new jobs for our children. These are long-term jobs—really, careers for life. They’re 80-year assets, and they’re the ideal job or vocation I know anyone would want their child to enter into. High wage, benefits, pensions—incredible jobs with dignity at the cutting edge of technology. These are the jobs of tomorrow. These are the cool jobs we want to encourage our kids to pursue. We’re proud of this. When you are adding three fourths of a trillion dollars of economic value, I think we can agree that meets the moment. But I don’t think it stops there. The innovation of Ontario’s nuclear sector is actually not just about civilian power that keeps the lights on today; it also saves lives, and I’d be remiss not to talk about the amazing work that the Candu reactors produce. One of the many benefits of this technology, as a by-product, is the ability to harvest medical isotopes—the production of medical isotopes. We are a leader in the world. All of us have been afflicted by cancer, and I often want to speak about this, because it really is a material advantage to our nuclear fleet. We don’t focus on it.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

It’s often more focused on the power side, but let’s be assured that when I announced as minister and our government announced the Nuclear Isotope Innovation Council of Ontario—NIICO, as I will refer to it henceforth—that was given a mandate to bring forth some of the best minds in science, engineering, technology and medicine into one space to build out and to double our isotope production. That was the mandate I gave them: Double it by 2030—which is a quick turnaround. I think it’s really important to reinforce our position as a global leader in nuclear medicine, when a quarter of a million Canadians this year will be diagnosed with cancer. We need to do everything humanly possible to support diagnosis and, obviously, treatments and the interventions that could extend or save lives. At McMaster Nuclear Reactor—I just want to use this as a case study. It was the first microreactor of its kind in Canada in a university. It’s a fabulous asset that they have carriage for. We decided, under the Minister of Colleges and Universities’ partnership and leadership, to fund that nuclear generator to generate and harvest isotopes 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We expanded its operations. The consequence of that, the result of that is we’re going to support treatments annually for 84,000 Canadians and create jobs in Hamilton. But more than anything else, this is about scale and impact at a time when, frankly, cancer rates are rising. The world has changed, and we recognize, from isotope production to nuclear generation, supply chains are under incredible levels of pressure. We see it on all sides of this portfolio, frankly. Trade relationships are being upended. Governments around the world are thinking more seriously about energy, economic sovereignty and the intersection of both. And so, for Ontario, that means we cannot take these inherited advantages—a legacy that we are blessed with, both in resources and the bounty of our resources and technology—for granted. And we will not. We have a serious duty as a caretaker, as a steward of that legacy, to build on it for future generations. We must strengthen these advantages. We must build on what we already do well and ensure that more of the economic benefits that we create stay in this province and in this country. More than 90% of our nuclear, well over 90% of our hydro fleet—these investments stay in Ontario. They stay in Canada. It’s an incredible Canadian industrial success story that I believe is one of the best stories to tell the world, when 95% of investment at Bruce Power—this is unprecedented domestication of their supply chains—is staying in Ontario and Canada. Even in a pre-Trump moment, that’s the right answer. But in today’s world, that is the only path forward, I think, really, to exercise value or to derive greatest value from the supply chain for our workers and for all the companies in Ontario that really could use support in the moment. It’s about the welders, the electricians, the engineers, the manufacturers, the apprentices, the small businesses—the entire supply chain that can now compete here at home and around the world. And I think that’s economic resilience. That’s what it looks like in practicality, because we’re not just about procuring electricity capacity that we absolutely need, as confirmed by the IESO. The question is not, you know, “Do we invest, or do we do nothing?” There’s no “do nothing” option, right? Governments, whoever is in this seat, will need to make investments and determinations of where is that firm baseload option. We’re opting for the Canadian path: large-scale nuclear; hydro expansion; of course, an all-of-the-above approach, which can include renewables, biomass and natural gas as the ultimate insurance policy, which we stand by today to maintain the viability of all commodities. And Chair, may I just do a time check? How are we doing?

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Three minutes and 27 seconds.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Okay. I do want to talk about the competitive procurements, as I attempt to wrap up here—of where we came from. We believe fundamentally creating competitive tension in the market is what has drawn down prices as we’ve re-contracted some of the most egregious contracts signed by the former Liberal government, often 10 cents above the market—offensive projects that we pay for today. We still have liability costs; we actually have had to create taxpayer subsidies to stabilize rates because of the insane, ideologically driven energy approach of the government of the past, which we are determined to never repeat again. And so, what does that mean? It means using the IESO, the Independent Electricity System Operator, to do a cadenced, intentional, competitive procurement, following the advice of the Auditor General of Ontario, who criticized the sole-sourcing of governments past when we paid well above the market. We launched a series of procurements for battery storage, the largest in Canada, 3,000 megawatts, the third-largest in North America, 1,000 already contracted, stabilizing the grid—a really powerful investment in all the above, a demonstration that we’re not focused on one resource; we’re leveraging them all, and we’re doing it at scale, the largest in Canada. We’re proud to share that 1,200 megawatts have already been connected in Napanee, in Hagersville, the Sanjgon battery facility. So many more will be announced in the days ahead, but we’re really excited about these investments, because it’s going to make a difference to help a constrained system have that flexibility and help to stabilize rates with low-cost power stored off-peak injected into the grid when we need it most. I want to talk about—beyond the generation, we have to speak about transmission. We’ve authorized nearly 2,000 kilometres of new transmission because we got to move the power; it’s balkanized. A lot of it is in Durham, a lot of it is in Bruce, because that’s where our large generating facilities are. We’ve got to move it to the province, and that means we need to have an intentional policy to move with speed. So I’ve accelerated every transmission line in my capacity as minister to build out our grid. More than 6,500 megawatts of additional capacity are being added because of these investments. Every single one of you—opposition, government members, everything in between—I can point to meaningful, large investments north, south, east and west that are going to help—

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

One minute.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

—build it, make the difference across the province. Mr. Chair, what I would simply say is, on the mines side, we are blessed with a vast bounty of resources, but we were challenged with the slowest permitting regime on earth—among them—in the industrialized world. We got to work; we introduced Bill 5. It cut the red tape and the permit timelines for a project designated under One Project, One Process by 50%, on average. We’ve emerged as one of the fastest. That’s ambition. It was a red tape reduction reform that has led to meaningful projects, $5 billion of projects to date, designated with First Nations, with partnerships, but more than anything else, boosting the sovereignty of Canada. I think about lithium. I think about nickel: Two projects profiled, they’re dominated by our adversaries. It’s good for Canada, for our jobs, for our ethics and for the supply chain of Ontario. We plan to go even further over the days ahead to further streamline, further accelerate our mineral deposits and to ensure we end the ripping and shipping of our resources by doing more domestic processing here at home. Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Thank you, Minister. The time is up. Now we move to the first round of questioning. We will start with the official opposition. MPP West, you have 15 minutes.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Thank you very much. Just give me one minute, because I always lose track of the time. You finished on mining and didn’t have a lot of time to speak about it, so I’ll start with my mining questions. I noticed that the mines and minerals program is estimated to cost $43 million less than was estimated last year. I’m just wondering, what’s the difference? Why are we $43 million? How come the estimate has dropped by $43 million? I see you looking at your book; sorry. It is on page 32.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

The program is called—

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Mines and minerals program.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Mines and minerals program—maybe I’ll start off, and then maybe for that specific program I may defer to the deputy. What I’d simply say is, we have increased support within our mineral programs, frankly, across the board: $500 million of investment have been allocated this year for the next three years for the Critical Minerals Processing Fund. That’s net new. That’s reflected in economic development estimates but is very much an input that we are leading into. We’ve already announced the first project. I would also say we’ve added additional resources to the Ontario Junior Exploration Program, the critical minerals innovation program since 2018. So there’s a series of investments to help unlock resource development in a responsible manner. On that specific program, if there’s anything the deputy may have—otherwise, I may just keep going, Jamie.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

No, it’s okay.

Official source

Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig

The decrease comes—

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Please identify yourself.

Official source

Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig

Sorry, I should know this better by now. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig, Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines. The decrease comes primarily from the two perspectives because there is also program funding included in that. One of the reductions is related to the Indigenous economic development aspect, which supports those initiatives like in the Ring of Fire. As the work has continued and the support for the EAs—as the EAs have come to a conclusion, also the dollars disappear from the budget.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Okay, I just saw it and I was thinking about all the Ring of Fire ads I saw during the World Series. I thought maybe the funding for that had been taken out of the budget; it was a lot of money, right? Let’s talk about the Ring of Fire because there was a lot of money spent on those ads, but also, I think the Ring of Fire is very exciting. We all agree on that. For at least 20 years, people have been talking about this. But the reality for the Ring of Fire is that you’ve got to construct a road to Eagle’s Nest. You’ve got to build Eagle’s Nest nickel mine. You’ve got to start getting ore out of Eagle’s Nest. You sell that ore to help pay for the road and then to pay for the construction of the road towards the chromium deposit and then you’ve got to build the mine of the chromium deposit. How far away is the Ring of Fire chromium deposit? How far away is completing the road, building the nickel mine, building the road to the next deposit and getting ore out of the chromium mine?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Part of that answer is predicated on the speed by which the project proponent will want to move, but we’re building the enabling infrastructure. I’ll walk through each of the roads and give you a sense of construction starting, when we plan to complete them—I will gladly provide that on the record. We have started three of the four links. To the member from Sudbury, I think the premise of your question is important. Mining is important to us both, and that region has been massively underleveraged and untapped. There has been a lot of rhetoric, over a generation of politicians saying they will get this project started. The difference is we have actually built a partnership agreement with First Nations to build roads, to build transmission, to build broadband. For example, the Webequie supply road: We started construction June of this year, the first time in the province we have actually initiated a road into the Ring of Fire. We did that with the completion date of November 2030, four years ahead of schedule. The Marten Falls community access road started construction August of this year. That will open November 2031, also four years ahead of schedule. Keep in mind that we petitioned the federal government to eliminate their duplicative EA and, after a long investment of time with them, they have accepted, which has allowed us to move a bit faster. The Anaconda and Painter Lake roads began in June of this year as well and they are scheduled to be completed in 2030, which is two years ahead of schedule. We are step-by-step unlocking new roads. The Northern Road Link is scheduled to start construction in 2028, with completion by 2031. That’s the final link, which would be five years ahead of schedule. My point, colleagues, is we’re building enabling infrastructure, we’re building transmission, we’re building broadband, but it does not negate the capacity of moving. The challenge of it, as you know, is that access to these roads is often restricted to winter, and so it removes the economics. Aerial options are not viable given the weight. We really have a duty to create the roads, which is why we have done—

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I’m just going to interrupt because I only have 15 minutes, but I appreciate—

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Okay, go ahead.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Federally, the Ring of Fire wasn’t listed as one of the Building Canada Act’s nation-building priority projects, but Crawford nickel was. Why do you think that is?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Look, the feds have taken a decision of continuously adding projects of national significance and consequence, so by no means are we at the end of this journey. We really are in the early days of them adding projects to that list, so it is very possible they may choose to do that. That would be a decision for the federal government. Before they make a designation, I think what we’re asking for is for them to deliver on the billion dollars that we have been asking for the feds to deliver to help build the roads. This is not a project of consequence to the north of Ontario or to all Ontarians; it’s a nationally significant resource deposit. It is the largest undiscovered multi-commodity region on earth, and we think they need to put skin in the game. They have helped us on reducing the EA duplication. That’s a positive; I’ll acknowledge that. But there’s still a billion dollars of funding. Should they make that determination, I would encourage them to consult with local communities as we have and for them to actually execute on the $1 billion that they owe the province.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Okay. My theory on this, and we’ve talked about this in the past, is that the Ring of Fire is a long-term project, a long-term investment. It’ll pay off years from now. You said, just the road itself, we’re looking at 2030-31—that’s the road. In previous debates, you’ve talked about how it takes too long to build a mine. You want to get it out in seven years, so we’re looking at several years before we open a nickel mine in the far north that can only access ore during the winter, like you said. Meanwhile, Crawford is so close to Timmins, I think they’re going to move the highway to get around it.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Yes.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I met with Vale about a month ago. They told me they have four brownfield projects that are ready to produce critical minerals within two years. I think that a lot of energy has gone to the Ring of Fire, a lot of advertising has gone to the Ring of Fire, but the reality is that’s a long-term thing. The threat of Donald Trump’s tariffs is short-term. So for context—and I’m going to talk about MIRARCO and Dr. Nadia Mykytczuk, who we’ve talked about in the past; I think there’s no time that I don’t—for my colleagues, tailings is a by-product of mining. If you finish processing everything, you end up with kind of a slurry called tailings. Basically, you’ve got to continue to build these large dams to hold it. There have been some notable disasters; I’ll just do three of them. Two happened in Brazil. In 2015, the Fundão dam buried a village. It killed 19 people. The pollution travelled down the Doce River. Interestingly, if you’re familiar with Vale, it used to be CVRD and the D stood for “Doce.” In 2019, there was another dam that failed in Brumadinho that killed hundreds of people. Canada has also had failures with dams. I don’t think anyone was killed, but environmental damage happened in Mount Polley, BC. Mount Polley is 400 kilometres from Vancouver, so it resonates with me because Sudbury is 400 kilometres from Toronto. But they released 24 million cubic metres of mine waste and water—so tailings. They can be dangerous. I want to assure my colleagues that in Ontario there’s a lot of work and effort and engineering to ensure that ours are safe, but they’re pretty expensive to store. Also in there are critical minerals; literally, there’s gold in them. There are hills and then there are ponds. There’s gold, silver, copper, cobalt and platinum-group metals. So you go to Sudbury, which is the original Ring of Fire—Nickel Belt, its name is because if you look at Sudbury, the belt looks like the Ring of Fire, but that’s what the impact is, and Sudbury’s the nickel capital of the world. Let’s talk about nickel in tailings ponds. Just in Sudbury, with Glencore and Vale, there is between 560,000 to 800,000 tons of nickel there: $8 billion to $10 billion, just in these ponds in one city. Dr. Mykytczuk—excuse me; I provided the spelling to Hansard earlier—is the president and CEO of MIRARCO Mining Innovation. She’s the executive director of Laurentian University’s Goodman School of Mines, and they’re using bioleaching to extract the minerals which also reduces their environmental impacts. I texted her, saying, “Good morning, Dr. Mykytczuk. I have mining estimates next week. Is there anything you’d like me to ask about the project?” She replied, “Thank you for thinking of us. Yes, we’re looking for funding to set up the centre for mine waste biotech for tailing reprocessing in the old Lactalis facility.” It’s a plant-based milk-product facility. “The stainless-steel infrastructure in the building is perfect for tailings. We’re looking to purchase and convert the 36,000-square-foot building to accelerate pilot- and demonstration-scale tech for metal recovery from different waste materials, and looking for $5 million to $10 million—total project, $20 million.” Interjection.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I’m getting to the question. I said, “Have you already received provincial funding? Perhaps I could thank the minister and let him know they’re ready for the next round”—so not for this current project. “We did get CMIF, Critical Minerals Innovation Fund—for the tech developers when Vale was partnered with them—and really could use a big grant. Also, NOHFC funded my research share in 2023, CMIF in 2024, but that’s it. We’re looking forward to a future announcement.” So my question is, in the estimates, could we be looking forward to a future announcement for this product, which would be bringing critical minerals just sitting on the surface already?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Look, I appreciate the question because it’s actually very relevant. What was yesterday’s waste has really become, for many mining companies, the reclamation of these tailing ponds and creating economic value—billions in Sudbury alone, billions across the province. So I agree with that as an opportunity for investment. It reduces the environmental, ecological footprint. It creates greater value. It’s a win-win-win. Everyone, I think, sees why we ought to be doing more of that. In my capacity as Minister of Mines, we never had a permitting regime for, essentially, reprocessing tailings. So I authorized the first permit—it was for Stellarix, if I’m not mistaken—for a project to essentially reprocess tailings. I think it’s a gold project where there is a significant amount of value for that company. That was the first; I think it’s been the only one among a very few that have been authorized. They may be the only one to date. It happened this year. But I think you should expect more of that, because it’s a smart way of effectively doubling down on sustainable practices within the mining sector. I’d welcome it with respect to the request for funding. This would be a first for me to be lobbied at estimates, but I respect the advocacy. Dr. Nadia is someone I have a lot of time for. So maybe you and I can talk offline about that, because Sudbury is an important—we talk about Rings of Fire in the future. It is an existing Ring of Fire, and it’s a blessing to have that geology in our province. We’ve got a great partnership with the mayor and council and First Nations. I’ll respect the outcome of the election, but just to simply say we really have a good partnership on the ground, so I want to scale that and I’m happy to work with you on that.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Thanks for that. I appreciate that. And just for my colleagues, the reason I’m pushing for this—also, it’s in Sudbury—but it’s cutting-edge technology, and if they don’t receive the funding, they’re going to look outside of Ontario for the funding. In the States they don’t really have nickel deposits. I think they have one mine.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

They have one.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Their primary source of nickel is recycling. If they can get this project and they can sell it around the world—because, you know, Brazil—the two disasters they had in Brazil—would want to do this as well. It’s very lucrative in the same way—we’ll get to SMRs in the next round of questioning, but in the same way that we invest in something and we own that in the future. So, that’s why I’m pushing for it. The other part is Talis opened this plant and I think like less than a year later, they closed the plant under threat of tariffs. So it would be a great way to elbows-up and show what we can do with the infrastructure we invested in.

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

One minute.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I want to ask you about the MLAS, the Mining Lands Administration System. What’s happening right now is that from anywhere around the world you can stake land claims. In the estimates, there was a statement that said, “The system continues to be updated and improved in response to stakeholder feedback, such as enabling online payment of mining lands rents and taxes ...” That’s great, but I think that’s for industry. I want to talk about First Nation treaty rights holders who are struggling under this, because as you stake these claims from around the world, they’re being overwhelmed. Many of our First Nation areas are looking at cleaning the water and providing housing and other things like that. So, I am wondering, in the estimates, is there an allocation of money to support First Nations so they can manage the amount of claims that are coming from MLAS?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

There was $70 million for the Indigenous opportunities fund which I know was transferred to IAFNER, but that was from our ministry. That supports capacity-building for First Nations with respect to just the journey on resource development, in which there are many complex legal and administrative requirements—

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Thank you very much Minister. The time is up. We move to the third party—Mr. Hsu, 15 minutes.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Thank you, Minister, for coming today. I wanted to start out with vote 2905 and the Ontario Electricity Rebate. The increase this year—it went from 13.1% to 23.5% to offset a 29% rate increase. The Ontario Electricity Rebate is now $3.03 billion this year. The rebate goes to every household regardless of income. I’m wondering if your ministry happens to know what part of this $3.03 billion will go to households in the top income quintile in 2026-27. Do you happen to know how it breaks down by income quintile or decile or however you’ve done it?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Thank you for the question. The short answer is we created the Ontario energy rebate in 2018 to help stabilize rates after they increased about $1,000 a year. We made that determination using taxpayers’ subsidy to reduce ratepayer bills. It is accessible to every ratepayer in the province. I don’t want to get ahead of your following questions, but you may be defining a problem of its universal application. I would welcome from you—and I mean this—and others of how do we bell-curve—as you notice in the estimates year over year, that $3.5 billion has been generally increasing, meaning we’re investing billions of tax dollars to reduce ratepayer bills.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I guess my question is, have you tried to even look at how the different income quintiles of households—what portion of this $3.03 billion would the highest 20% of households receive?

Official source

Ms. Susanna Laaksonen-Craig

How the data that is used to calculate—it’s based on consumption. It has no connection to people’s incomes. You can probably appreciate that that would require each local utility to have some kind of access to people’s tax information or some other information to be able to understand that here’s an individual with this level of electricity consumption but also this level of income. It gets very complicated and there are all kinds of privacy, transparency, all kinds of issues related to that.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I can appreciate that getting at a very highly detailed level might be hard, but we know, for example, if you go to Stat Can, you can get income by postal code and things like that. People with similar incomes tend to live together. I think it might be something that could be estimated. Let me do a follow up. We have the Ontario Electricity Support Program, which is meant to help low-income households when it comes to protecting against the cost of energy. Currently, it receives $226 million. Do you happen to know how much it might cost to fully protect low-income households? If you don’t know, do you have the capacity to figure out how could we fully protect, say, the lowest-income-quintile households? How much would it cost more than the $226 million in today’s estimates?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Sorry, could you repeat the question? You want to know the difference on if we were to expand that program to reach all low incomes?

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

If we were to expand that program to fully protect low-income households, to fully protect all households at the lowest quintile of income, is that something you look at? Maybe you don’t have the number handy.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

What I do have handy is there is an existing program for low-income families which we increased the eligible income threshold by $17,000 for an average family of four, $15,000 for a couple. We’ve tried to expand or enfranchise more low-income families, seniors, couples, to be eligible for the program by elevating the income threshold, which I thought was a very important step forward. We’re not talking about hundreds of dollars; it was a $17,000 and $15,000 increase relative to when we started in 2018. We have expanded energy savings programs, to your point, with a disproportionality of really trying to target those most in need. The largest energy savings program in Canadian history was unveiled by our government. It may be a bit counterintuitive but it was a $10.9-billion investment and the IESO believes it’s a 2-to-1 savings for every dollar we invest. We think that will help every family, particularly the lowest-income families. We’ve expanded the scope, we’ve expanded the eligibility, we’ve expanded the income threshold because I appreciate fully that for many families, particularly low-income, seniors, families etc., it is a very difficult economy.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Thank you, Minister. Related question: The OPG has asked to raise its regulated nuclear price of electricity from $78 per megawatt hour to about $110 per megawatt hour in 2027. If that’s approved, do you happen to know how much more the government will need to add to the Ontario Electricity Rebate and other programs in vote 2905 to keep the bills where they are? Has that been built into a fiscal plan? When will we see that in a budget?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

So the first part of your question dealt with the nuclear build-out and if that is going to increase the OER?

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Well, yes, the OPG has asked for an increase.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

It is true that they are undertaking a very large build-out to meet demand, and so we have to invest in the grid. We’ve done so by demonstrating large-scale investments for the people of Ontario, be it refurbishments or building—look, for nuclear or certainly for hydro, we can do so on time and on budget, including battery storage, which has often been completed ahead of schedule and below budget. So we have a great track record. The OEB will render a decision on that. So it would be imprudent, I think, just to essentially project what the OEB will determine is prudent or not.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

But is it your intention, if they approve it, to also increase the Ontario Electricity Rebate?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Look, it is my intention to come up with a thoughtful way to bell-curve that down. One of your colleagues from your party asked this question last year about the sustainability of the Ontario energy rebate. And I was honest; I could have just deflected. I said I accept the premise. It is on an unsustainable track. We need to free up those tax investments for other social programs, tax relief, whatever. So it is not our inclination to increase the OER, certainly, over time. We want to bell-curve it down. I would just say, broadly speaking, since 2018, we’ve targeted around inflation when it comes to energy rate increases. That’s generally been the target, plus or minus, but that’s been the average. And I think that’s a good thing. Very few commodities have been tied to that. I’m not suggesting that it will be the forever commitment, but we’re just trying to create some downward pressure on bills given the increasing challenges on families.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

So have you or your ministry told the Ontario Energy Board what it thinks and given it some direction and guidelines in that respect?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

We don’t direct the OEB. But we have committed government policy, which is to support an affordable energy build-out leveraging Canadian technology, which is why we have obviously doubled down on nuclear. But we’ve taken an all-of-the-above approach. They are very aware of our intention, but it would be government policy, not the OEB’s. If we decided to come up with a new policy on the OER, that would be for government to make, and the OEB would ultimately respect it and the utilities would be implemented.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I want to ask about the Darlington SMR project, which, in your opening remarks, you called “the next generation of Canada’s nuclear technology,” if I’ve got that quote correct. It’s budgeted at $20.9 billion. The first unit and the shared infrastructure between the four units is a substantial chunk—$7.7 billion. That makes sense. We expect the first unit to cost more, the second one to cost less and the third one to cost less than that. I think that when it comes to the commercial prospects for SMRs, international buyers want to see that the cost is coming down with every single one that’s built, and Ontarians want to know because we’re helping to pay for this. Would your government commit to publishing every six months going forward the project’s spending to date, the per cent complete and the forecast cost at completion? I want to think about this from the commercial point of view. Think of this from an international buyer who wants some transparent numbers to see that the cost per unit of something that they would buy is going to be reasonable. Would you commit to publishing these numbers every six months?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Look, in 2016-17, I believe, the former government actually started down a path of SMRs. The province then, our government, made a determination, based on a variety of negotiations to maximize value, with 80% of the investment we make in unit 1, 2, 3 and 4 and anything beyond staying in this province for our supply chain. You are right. First-of-its-kind technology comes with inherent risk, particularly for unit 1; it’s ground zero. We are doing something—just to contextualize, because I don’t want us to trivialize or make it seem like we’re on the precipice of doing some normal action. Other than China, in the Western democratic industrial world, there is no nation that has built a small modular reactor commercially, at a commercial scale. So I accept that unit 1 and the early development of a new technology, at least for the West, will be challenged.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

But you’ll publish the numbers so that you’ll get the attention of potential buyers. I mean, that’s what my question is.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Yes, I understand. OPG obviously has public undertakings with respect to the projects they lead, and I have confidence in OPG to execute those projects. But I think for us in the province, the take-away that Ontarians should be reflective on is how the project is adding broad value to the industrial supply chain of Canada. I think if people want an element of transparency on the companies being used to build them out, the Canadian businesses and components that are being leveraged to support that construction, the—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I don’t think that’s a good answer, because you could build Candu reactors and you could have a lot of industrial benefits and then benefits to the overall economy, because of the enormous domestic supply chain. If we don’t have customers in the end, this SMR project is—

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

That’s a good point. It’s a very important point.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

We don’t have enough customers in Canada.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

We need to build confidence. OPG does—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

If you don’t put out the numbers, people are going to wonder. There’s risk associated with not knowing the numbers. Couldn’t you commit to putting some numbers out every six months?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Every quarter, OPG does filings which reflect their project builds. I would just point you to the existing authorities that happen on an even faster tempo than biannually. OPG provides them as they’re required. But I do think your point, though, about building public confidence or global confidence is important, because at the end of the day, the reason why Ontario—the government of the past on the early exploration of this, and the current government when we doubled down—is because it secures the supply chain for Ontario. When Poland is procuring a significant amount of SMRs, it is Ontario’s supply chain given the first-mover’s advantage to build. I was in Paris and London 24 hours apiece—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I totally agree with that—

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

—and companies like Velan are building the components for every SMR being built—GE Hitachi—in Europe. Our supply chain builds first. That’s a massive advantage—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

And that is great, and that’s why the government is going into this. Let me ask a different question.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Okay.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Let’s get back to budgeting and the estimates. What’s the SMR project’s approved contingency, and how much of it has been used so far? It’s been budgeted for $20.9 billion. There might be some contingency in there. Have any contingency funds been used when things come up?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

The SMR project—through the normal quarterly reporting of OPG, they would provide that. You are right that there’s an allocation of a budget that has been set aside to build out units 1 through 4. You are also right that there’s an element of contingency. OPG is best positioned to speak to that execution, but I think broadly speaking, when we planned for unit 1, we understood at the front end, as with every government that has taken this path, there will be challenges along the way. I think we recognize that. But you mentioned Candu, and I just want to say that Candu is not building an SMR. I keep hearing this in the public discourse, as if there was an alternative that is Canadian. Could you name the Canadian SMR that we should have procured? Name me the company, because there isn’t one.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Well, there are other ones in development.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

There was one in New Brunswick, and it failed. I just feel like, let’s keep this focused on—there are different technologies, different applications—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

That’s fine, yes—

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Large versus small, heavy versus light water reactors: These are differences—

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

Yes, but my question is, are you going to be more transparent about numbers or not? Okay. I probably only have, like, 15 seconds or something.

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Fifteen seconds.

Official source

Mr. Ted Hsu

I will just surrender those 15 seconds.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Okay. Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Okay. Thank you. We move to the government side—MPP Cuzzetto.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Thank you, Minister, for being here, and I want to thank all the staff that are here as well from the ministry. Thank you for being here today with our minister here. As we’re embarking on one of the largest nuclear build-outs in the world, we’re building the first small modular reactor in the G7 at Darlington. We’re investing in other nuclear builds with Bruce C and Wesleyville, with nuclear refurbishment and planned nuclear expansion expected to add over 150,000 jobs and more than $800 million to our economic benefit. Minister, can you explain what this means for the province of Ontario and Canada?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Thank you very much for this question. Broadly speaking on our nuclear build-out, this is one of the exciting areas where we’re very proud to profile a win for the province, a win for the country and, I think, for Western supply chains. Nuclear power, I think, at its core, is a Canadian leadership story. We were among the first in the world to develop a heavy-water Candu technology that has been exported to a global application. The member from Mississauga–Lakeshore will know in the early days when I arrived, you were here—the institutional knowledge. I went on day three to Romania, to the Cernavodă nuclear reactor and generating station, which is a Candu technology. The government of the day decided to refurbish and then later expand the Candu footprint there. So we see global application. What I think is a positive story is that it uses Canadian fuels and SCATR radium processing in Ontario, in Port Hope. It uses a Canadian supply chain, Canadian workers. It’s a great story to tell the world. We are expanding at a scale not seen in Canada, the largest in North America, about 150,000 jobs—an $800-billion gain to the national economy over the next century, effectively, because these assets will last 90-plus years. They’re longer than the current Darlington for example, and certainly longer than Pickering. That’s a positive story. And I feel like sometimes these numbers become very difficult to comprehend, even for myself—150,000 net new workers. So for all of us who have constituencies and families and children seeking employment—we talk about youth, challenges of young people getting jobs. There are, from OPG to Bruce, to the entire supply chain, the transmission companies of Hydro One, Fortis—everyone is looking for meaningful work and skilled labour. Every skilled union has stood behind our government and Premier when we made this decision. I will conclude with this: Pickering was an asset that the former Liberals were going to close, right? Some 6,500 net jobs would have been closed. It would have devastated Durham. But perhaps more than anything else, it just demonstrates the short-term nature sometimes of decisions based on political cycles, not the long-term interests of the province. This is a 38-year life extension. I don’t know about you, but I don’t plan to be here at that time, I can assure the members. So this actually will go beyond a government’s life. This is about investing in the grid for future generations. I think there’s real virtue in that. And that intergenerational lens is what is going to pay dividends for our kids.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

You know, this is great news: 150,000 new jobs in the province of Ontario. For someone that came out of the automotive industry, I know this is more than the automotive industry combined in this province. But I want to talk on refurbishment here. We have a track record of refurbishment on budget and on time. Look at Bruce unit 3: We refurbished that seven months ahead of schedule and $150 million in savings. Darlington: four months ahead of schedule and another $150 million. What does that mean for the Ontario economy and our energy system in the province of Ontario?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Well, I think when it comes to large-scale nuclear, it demonstrates a track record that sets us apart from the world. There is no one in the G7. There are certainly, for the Americans and the British government, as you see, large-scale builds in France. In every nuclear nation, no one is delivering large-scale builds on time and budget, let alone ahead of schedule and perhaps even below budget. That is a strength. It is a competitive advantage. It’s a message we tell the world everywhere we go and it’s what sets us apart. Even on the Canadianization of that investment—often nuclear is compared to other resources; often they are romanticized. And yet, the anchor of our policy is based on an industrial policy that gives Canada’s supply chain the win. Because when we’re buying, say, an alternative resource—like, for example, wind or solar—80% to 85%, respectively, of the manufacturing of those materials and components come from China. Roughly 90% to 95% of our nuclear spend stays in this country—90-year assets versus 20-year, 25-year assets. Land acquisition that is comical when you compare them—of a few acres versus that you would need often the size of Toronto to get the same sense of scale, of reliability. You’ve got to build three times above to get the same yield. Even just the SMR is 1,200 megawatts, power for about 1.2 million homes. You would need, essentially, the city of Toronto, 600 square kilometres, to buy and use to generate your wind power, and then a battery equivalent to the size of Lake Ontario. So, look, we could have the debate. In fact, I welcome this debate because the evidence and facts are on our side. We didn’t come into this with a bias for a resource. We came into this with a bias for the triumph of simple, objective truths. The supply chain is Canadian, the fuels are Canadian, the manufacturing is Canadian, the components, the workforce. The IP is Canadian, which is something we ought to be talking about more: the intellectual property stored in this province, that for Candu was created in this province. So I do see this as a strength and we’re very proud to profile it. We obviously need to maintain caution and a heightened level of discipline on OPG and on Bruce and on others. And we do, I assure you, to make sure that we’re stewards of the ratepayer. But so far, our message and our track record have been very promising. I just want to frankly express gratitude to the workers. This is not an achievement for the government of Ontario. Governments come and go. To be fair to the workforce, they delivered a win that no one could have done, and for that, I say thank you to every nuclear worker, every skilled union that has stood with us on Pickering, on Darlington, on Bruce, on the SMR at DNNP—I thank the First Nations in Williams Treaties that invested in the DNNP, the small modular reactor project, the first time First Nations have bought into a nuclear generation project in Canadian history, a massive investment of equity partnership, a beautiful case study of economic reconciliation, but beyond that, just making sure there’s skin in the game, that they benefit from, in that case, a 65-year asset. So, a lot of momentum, but look, we are very much on high alert to maintain that discipline, and OPG, Bruce, they all know the Premier’s expectation, our expectation is to maintain that when it comes to large-scale builds, and that’s something I think you can count on.

Official source

Mr. Rudy Cuzzetto

Thank you, Minister.

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

MPP Dowie.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Thank you, Minister, for being here. It’s funny; this moment in time is one where we look back at whether the right decisions were made, and I’d say unequivocally in the case of some of the decisions that the Ministry of Energy—absolutely, the right decisions were made. We had, in 2015, an era where farmers in Leamington and in southern Essex county were lamenting the lack of electricity supply in southern Essex county and speaking of how they might have to go to Ohio in order to expand their operations. Fast-forward to today, the southwestern transmission lines were completed on your watch, $30 million under budget and a year ahead of schedule. The main impetus for that project—I’d say, accelerating that project—was the NextStar Energy battery plant, which has a significant need for critical minerals. So I’d say there is no better example of government and industry working together than that project and its tremendous success. It’s pivoted very well in our economy. Your ministry has brought forward a $4-million investment through the Critical Minerals Innovation Fund this past June. I’m hoping, Minister, you might be able to share more about this program and how it’s helping Ontario unlock future opportunities for critical minerals development.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Thank you; you were able to blend in some hometown advantages of our investments in transmission in the southwest, but thank you for your advocacy. A 50-50 partnership with Hydro One, with local First Nations: We accelerated those projects to get on with them. Your community right across—Windsor-Essex, Chatham-Kent—that whole region has just taken off, greenhouses and so much more coming down your way. In Sarnia region, not too far off, we’re also looking at scaling the refinery of our petroleum in the petrochemical hub for Canada. Three of our refineries in Canada are centralized there. We were in Alberta yesterday; the Premier led this effort to make the case for a sovereign pipeline, to make the case for a strategic petroleum reserve. We are the only G7 nation without one, and I think, given the challenges we faced with Line 5, it makes the case for pipeline redundancy. But because your question had a lot, I’m going to go a little bit everywhere here, but going back to minerals, this is important. You are right that NextStar—I mean, among the largest investments in Canadian history—landed in Windsor, building out next generation technology for EVs and batteries, and we see the connection point of downstream conversion of our minerals. I think one of my observations as a Canadian—and this happens across the country—is just this propensity to export our raw materials, leaving all the value-added investment off the table for us, sending it to the US, sending it to Europe, sending it anywhere but ourselves to do processing, refinery and fabrication. The Premier says we are going to end the ripping and shipping of our resources and do more here at home; I think everyone agrees with that premise. The $500-million, three-year Critical Minerals Processing Fund was designed to fix this basic problem, which is that we should be able to scale our processing. Indeed, the stranglehold of China principally as a geopolitical adversary—have control over nickel, lithium, and the list goes on and on. For allied supply chains, that is a real risk. Energy sovereignty and access of secure supply is a real risk, which is why at PDAC 2026—and it will very much be our message for 2027—it was, “Ontario is a reliable partner,” underpinned by a democratic value system, high ethics, the highest environmental labour standards and human rights obligations. I mean, we really are the gold standard in this space. We want to keep promoting that. In the meantime, we’ve already made an investment in Generation Mining—a really important investment, the first investment that Minister Fedeli and I announced just over a week ago with the First Nations chief present, expressing enthusiastic support for the project and for further economic development within his region, in partnership. I thought that was a really solid story of investment that’s going to create thousands of jobs and infuse an additional—this project is not just the mine. It’s a mine. It’s a mill. It’s manufacturing. So it has the full spectrum. The whole end-to-end supply chain stays in Ontario. We’re not sending our resources and our ore abroad. That’s the ultimate case study of success. Every component and journey along that path is domesticated to the province, for the benefit of the world. Expect to see, over the coming literal weeks, a series of additional announcements that will help profile how government can provide a small, enabling investment to help make the economics work, given the market-manipulative tactics of the Chinese and other adversaries, who try to create downward pressure on commodity prices to destroy or undermine Western industry. So we’re playing a role, we’re stepping up, and it’s nice to see private investment being catalyzed to actually build out these projects. As I say, it’s not just going to be a mine. It’s a mine. It’s a mill. It’s the manufacturing downstream conversion that gives us the full spectrum of success, and there’s a lot more to come. We’ve announced one of dozens that will be profiled through that $500-million fund, and as I mentioned to you, that’s a three-year commitment for the next three.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that, and I look forward to a brighter future for industry all across Ontario and particularly back home. Thinking of NextStar, one of the areas that’s been able to pivot initially was intended to be for EV batteries, but they have now moved heavily into battery storage. I know that our government, in August 2024, launched the largest competitive procurement for new electricity in our history. Through that process, our government has secured around 1,755 megawatts of new energy supply through 16 new projects all across the province. This is truly, Minister, a major step forward to meet the growing demand for energy that we have, while keeping the cost down for families and businesses.

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Minister, I’m hoping you can explain how this procurement delivers better value for Ontario ratepayers.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Sorry, say the last sentence. I just missed it.

Official source

Mr. Andrew Dowie

Can you explain how the procurement delivers better value for Ontario ratepayers?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Yes. In short, we entered the government in 2018 with a legacy of sole-source contracts, paid 10 times above market, often 80 cents a kilowatt hour for FIT contracts, which are deeply offensive, and the ratepayers want their money back. We will never repeat that. That’s an insane legacy of the former Liberals. We campaigned to upend that, to cancel expensive, bad energy projects that did not have social licence to build them on farmland, prime agricultural land—the story goes on. We decided to use competitive procurements. I can report to you today: 73% reduction in costs for procurements relative to the FIT projects under the former Liberals. That’s the savings to procure the same amount of capacity, same amount of megawatts. We’re doing it 73% lower than where they started. That is the competitive—

Official source

The Chair (Mr. Aris Babikian)

Thank you, Minister. The time is up. We move to the second round of questioning. MPP West, you have the floor.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Before I start, I had meant to congratulate MPP Beattie on his by-election. Congratulations on your by-election in Hamilton East–Stoney Creek. I meant to come over to see you, and then the time started. I meant to say it in the last round, so I just apologize if that was—I feel rude, not saying it earlier, so congratulations again. I know how important it is to win an election; all of us do. Let’s talk about electricity rates. I really do wish this was two separate ministry files, because we have 30 minutes less time to ask questions when they’re combined. Part of this was discussed in the past: the OEB rate increase application. So last year, OPG submitted an application to the OEB—lots of acronyms—to nearly double its rates for nuclear generation. I remember, in your opening statement, you said we need to double the grid in 10 years. So I understand the need to get this done, but the reality for consumers is that they rely on three things for energy: dependable, reliable and affordable. And as much as, in previous questions, you’ve said we made a lot of ground since the government increased prices of electricity, the reality is the price of electricity continues to go up. If this is approved, households’ monthly budgets are going up about $8 a month in 2027. That means an increase of 5% to 7%, which is two to three times the rate of inflation. Then there will be four more years of this, and I don’t know if my math is right but I think it’s about eight bucks a month afterwards, so ongoing increasing bills, just from the single generator. Does the minister believe that OPG’s rate increase demands are fair or reasonable?

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

So OPG builds out—let’s talk about the subcomponents of that. They put forth the rate application predicated on refurbishing Pickering. We could go one by one to see if members opposite disagree with the investments. We invested in Pickering. I would like to know where we all stand on the Pickering refurbishment. We invested in Darlington. We invested in the first SMR with a supply-chain advantage, conservatively, of roughly $500 million of contracts already secured. They’re doing the entire hydro refurbishment of every single contract—5,000 megawatts. They’re adding new natural gas generation as an insurance policy as the refurbs are down. We’re using more natural gas—Alectra, one of the subsidiaries, is building that out with a cost-competitive framework—and renewables, which we’ve done 73% lower than where the former Liberals did. So it reflects the build-out, because we need more power. The option for any government is how they are going to secure reliable power. Investment is required, and thus we’ve got to pay to make those investments or prepare to make those investments. There’s no other way. It’s an essential element of our economic growth strategy. I have confidence that OPG has brought forth the most economical path, but there’s no free or low-cost option to add 16,000 megawatts to the grid when our population, our industry and our economy are growing. That is the aspiration. We cannot allow this debate to be the OPG model or the “utopia” model where we pay for nothing and everything is free. There’s no option for that. Colleagues, respectfully, we’ve got to spend billions. Using the 90%, which is the highest figure—their baseline is a 65% forecast—we have to spend tens of billions of dollars just to keep up. So I really feel that it is important to level-set with the population. To do the level of scale of our build-out, we need to invest. And therefore, we need to be mindful that ratepayers—

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I’m just going to jump in, because I’m going to run out of time, and I think you’ve made your point. It is a tough situation to be in, because the fall of the previous government was—I mean, the theme was “heat or eat,” right? People were having a hard time putting food on the table because their bills were so high.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Yes.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

And one of the promises the Conservative government made coming in was to address this and bring the rates down. Rates have not gone down; they continue to climb. And I’m not saying it’s an easy thing to solve—and I’m not the minister, so it’s not mine to solve—but I will say it is a concern for people, particularly in the north, particularly in areas that only have access to electricity to heat their homes. In the north, if you don’t heat your homes, the pipes will burst, not to mention all the other outcomes. So as more and more things are taking effect on you—with the price of food, you feel like the grocery stores are gouging you; diesel now, I think for the first time in my life, is higher than the price of gas—people are struggling all over the board with electricity climbing. We know that the rates rose substantially with the previous Liberal government. It was an increase of about 70% in some cases. In November 2025, there was—this is under the Conservative government—29% to 30% across all the pricing tiers. It climbed again. Then we use the Ontario Electricity Rebate to artificially lower that, but we’re paying that through taxes. So it’s not really lower; it’s just that you’re not seeing it on your bill, but we’re still paying for that. And then in May 2026, they made structural changes so that your on-peak hours were shifted to the middle of the day, and the tiered pricing threshold dropped from 1,000 kilowatts a month to 600 kilowatts. So if you’re in a larger home, you hit that threshold partway through the month and your rates go up. Then, in 2026 as well, local distribution charges added another $2 to $5 a month depending where you were when the price changes. We’re also expecting, next November—two months from now, I guess, a couple days after we return to Queen’s Park for regular sittings—that there will be another regulated price adjustment, and experts are expecting that it’s also going to climb as well that time. IESO’s own projections show the average market electricity price is increasing by 165% over three years. It is going through the roof. It’s becoming unaffordable for a lot of people. What is the plan to fix this, and how long can taxpayers continue to pay the subsidy that’s artificially bringing it down? We’re not even seeing the true price.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

It is true that the cost of living is incredibly challenging for people today, especially. And I think it demonstrated the fortitude of the government to launch the largest energy savings program in Canadian history. I want to put this into context: What we inherited from the former Liberals was a program that only allowed energy savings to 30% of the province. It was only for constrained regions. Through the legislation we introduced in the past, we allowed it to go to 100% of—every one of our communities now has access to that program. We then expanded it after announcing it and unveiling it. That $10.9 billion gives a 2-to-1 conversion of savings. We did it for families. We expanded it from home renovation to home appliances. We then expanded it to industry through the XLerate program. Altogether, 750,000 homes and businesses are now part of the success of Save On Energy. We also cut the gas tax and the diesel—10 cents per litre—which was very important. We really believe that’s fundamental. We encouraged, if not lobbied, the feds to match us and to support us on this. At least they did an extension, whereas we did a permanent reduction of the provincial excise tax. You are right that we need to be attentive. As we build, as we invest, as we refurbish, as we add capacity, that investment will require a significant contribution for the people of Ontario. But our obligation is to safeguard that through three things: competition to get the lowest cost, following the advice of the AG; the second is energy savings that have been universalized to every Ontarian; the third is tax relief specific for energy when it comes to gasoline and diesel. Altogether, we have maintained a massive level of support for low income, First Nations, for northern—the NEAP program, the two-cents-per-kilowatt reduction relative to the rest of the province. All those programs are, at the worst, maintained, but often we’ve enhanced them.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Okay. I’m just going to jump in because of the amount of time we have.

Official source

Hon. Stephen Lecce

Okay.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

With all that happening, the price is still getting up there. People are still feeling it in their pocketbook. The AMAPCEO, when you think of the industrial rates that are coming up—I won’t have time to talk about data centres, I don’t think, today, but there is a lot of energy that’s going to be required. You said as well, “We’re going to double it in the next 10 years.” How do we attract large industry when Ontario rates are very high? Quebec’s are lower; basically, the same access to water, structure, everything else. How can we compete if the price of electricity for the workers going to the workplace is going to be higher, the electricity in the workplace is going to be higher? How do we attract the investment here in those situations? They’re very concerned about this. They’re projecting that industrial electricity costs will increase by up to 55% by 2029.

Official source