My question for the energy minister is—and first of all, I want to say that I’m glad that he’s living in a rural area and doing fine without natural gas at his residence, and that he’s not going to have to pay for any stranded infrastructure. But I want to ask him a really particular question, because he quoted one of the commissioners—one of the three, if that’s the right term—who wrote a dissenting opinion at the end of the OEB decision and order.

My question to the minister is, would he support the position of that commissioner to reduce the revenue of horizon to 20 years, leaving approximately a third of the cost of the new connections to pay up front and not on the backs of existing households? Would the minister support that?

Well, the OEB, in its own decision, said it was going to cost about $4,400, but they were looking at a cul-de-sac in the GTHA when they were using that analysis. We know and you know, certainly, being from Perth–Wellington, just how much more it’s going to cost to get that extra line out to your home or to the farms that are—boy, they’re starving for more natural gas in your community. I hear from them all the time at ROMA and AMO. It’s going to cost them tens of thousands of dollars more.

That’s why we won’t let this stand. That’s why we’re coming back with our natural gas policy, so that the Ontario Energy Board will be able to reconsider government policy and ensure that they’re hearing from the proper people, including the Independent Electricity System Operator, home builders, contractors, farmers and those who will be impacted by these additional costs that are heaped onto them as a result of this misguided decision.

In Niagara, where my colleague is from, a new business customer would see an upfront connection charge of approximately $53,000. That’s $53,000 more that they would have to pay up front instead of amortizing this over a 40-year period. Anybody who thinks that going from 40 years to zero years is rational is completely irrational—it just is. A recent restaurant project in Niagara would cost approximately $13,000 more up front. So it’s going to have an impact on the residents in Niagara, just as it would right across the province.

We have an opportunity, particularly in our greenhouse sector, to be a world leader. We already are, but we have an opportunity to grow that even more. And providing them with the ability to amortize the cost of pipelines up to 40 years makes a heck of a lot of sense and will increase our GDP dramatically.

The dissenting commissioner’s opinion, Allison Duff, was very, very clear as well: that the OEB commissioners didn’t hear from the stakeholders that they needed to hear from. They didn’t hear from the farmers, they didn’t hear from the home builders, they didn’t hear from the contractors, and most importantly, they didn’t hear from the system operator that manages our electricity grid. So we’re going to put this back in the OEB’s court once we set our natural gas policy.

Next question?

I’d like to thank the minister for the introduction.

This bill, Bill 165, reminds me quite a bit of Bill 23. With Bill 23, this government said that removing development charges would automatically trickle down and pass over cost savings to new home buyers. We know they didn’t put any metrics in place. They didn’t put any guardrails in place. And we see a lot of the same thing here with Bill 165. Apparently, they think that this money is going to go—but really, the effect of this bill is quite something else. In fact, I believe that this bill would properly be entitled keeping Enbridge happy while customers pay more.

This bill allows the government to approve a gas pipeline that the OEB has deemed as not in the public interest. Why would the government force consumers to pay for a project that is not in the public interest?

I’m glad that the minister, in his speech, which I thought was very impressive and spoke to a lot of the issues at stake with this legislation—he mentioned farmers. And I think in my community of Niagara West, where I have a massive greenhouse sector, I have a massive amount of traditional agricultural and dozens and dozens of commodity groups—they need access to natural gas to ensure that they’re drying their corn, that they’re able to heat their greenhouses in the winter, that they’re able to provide the food that all of us rely upon. So I’m wondering if he could talk a little bit more about that.

I have already heard about concerns around the cost of connecting to natural gas and the infrastructure costs in some of my communities. If this legislation hadn’t been brought forward, how much more in costs would have been passed along to those who want to buy groceries?

As my colleague expressed, it’s shocking, the thought that a multinational corporation that makes huge amounts of money by squeezing cash out of homeowners and tenants might mislead people. I know it’s incomprehensible to many here but, in fact, it could well be true.

The National Observer reports, “Enbridge has a new fight on its hands as Competition Bureau Canada officially launches an investigation against the gas giant over allegations the company is misleading customers about the role of gas in the energy transition.

“Specifically, Enbridge has promoted new gas hookups as the cheapest way for Ontarians to heat their homes, while branding natural gas as ‘low carbon’ and ‘clean energy.’”

That’s being challenged by the environmental organization Environmental Defence.

The National Observer reports, “‘Enbridge’s dishonest marketing is duping people into’” installing new gas hookups and spending thousands of dollars on new gas furnaces and other appliances, “‘falsely claiming it’s cheaper than heating with electricity, which is just not true,’ said Environmental Defence program director Keith Brooks in a statement.” It’s good that the Competition Bureau has agreed to investigate Enbridge.

“The complaint filed by Environmental Defence, Ontario Clean Air Alliance, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment and a group of Ontario residents” in September, “accuses Enbridge of falsely claiming gas is the most cost-effective way to heat homes. Enbridge has made this claim online and in communities it has pegged for expansion in an attempt to increase its customer base.”

Environmental Defence summarized the situation this way: “Enbridge is misleading consumers into connecting to its gas system using false and misleading representations.... Enbridge is telling potential customers that gas is the most cost-effective way to heat their homes and suggesting”—and this I find totally entertaining—“that it is ‘clean energy’ and ‘low carbon.’ None of these representations are true.” That lack of honesty about what’s real and not real when it comes to home heating is something that people should keep in mind.

But the other issue—and this is a big one because, as the minister has said, we’re moving away from gas heating in our homes: People get caught paying as gas heating fades away. People are increasingly deciding to save money and protect the climate by switching from gas to electric heat pumps. As this process expands, the cost of the gas grid for those who stay with gas is going to increase, and new gas lines, installed to service new customers, will increasingly not have customers to serve. That was a finding by the Ontario Energy Board.

We’ve had these transitions before. This is not unique or novel in the world. Most of you have not followed energy history. I am a strange person; I actually look at the history of energy in this province. About 1958 or 1959, the TransCanada pipeline came through to Ontario from Alberta, bringing natural gas. This opened a whole new way to heat homes that was cleaner, more convenient and probably cheaper than coal. From 1960 to 1970, the portion of homes that used coal for home heating went from 30% to 1%. Within a decade, 30% of Ontario homes no longer used what had been a very popular fuel.

So I want to say to people here that you can have a very rapid transition from one technology to another, frankly, probably, with very little in the way of government programs in this case. People looked at, “Hey, we can spend all this money on coal, or we can go with an option that we don’t have to shovel, that is more convenient, that is just a flick of a switch on a thermostat in the wall. I’m going to go with gas”—a decade. And I have to tell you, just in that same report I looked at, that 1% at the end? Man, they were spending a fortune, because the whole of the coal delivery infrastructure shrank and became a much more expensive fuel to get. I don’t know why those 1% held on, but they did.

We’re facing a situation in Ontario where as we move away from gas home heating, something that the minister has said we’re doing, people who stay on the gas system, who get sold on to the gas system, are going to be stuck with much higher bills, and the pipes that are put in the ground are going to be paid for by those who can’t afford to buy a new heating system, ones whose furnace is eight years old. They’ve got about a 15-year lifespan. If your furnace is eight years old, you’re not going to get rid of it and buy a new furnace. Mostly, people can’t. They only buy when they have to, and they will get stuck with those higher bills. That’s a risk for homeowners and tenants. That is a problem that people are going to face in the future.

Frankly, continuing the subsidy from the existing consumers—and remember, Premier Ford wants to increase your heating bill. He wants to drive up your gas bill. He wants you to pay more so that he can create deeper problems for you in the years to come. I want—

Interjections.

No, you don’t say.

There’s another reality. A number of you who are gas customers—in fact, almost four million of you who are gas customers—know that around 2022, the price of gas went up dramatically. Now, what was happening in world events at that time? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the disruption of the supply of natural gas to Western Europe, and frankly, you had a situation where the world market was setting the price.

We in Ontario pay a much lower price than people do on the world market. But something that you need to know—a few things you need to know. One, about 60% of the gas we use in Ontario comes from the United States. It used to come from western Canada; it’s coming from the United States. And in the United States, there are large numbers of liquefied natural gas export terminals that are shipping that gas out. In fact, recently, there was a pause put on a few of those in part because industrial manufacturers in the United States were saying, “These exports are killing us. They are killing us. You need to stop exporting all the gas, because it’s changing our cost picture.”

Well, in 2022—and I remember this, because (a) I got a bill, and (b) my constituents came to me about it—a big spike in gas prices. If you will remember your gas bill, about half is the cost of getting the gas to your house; that’s the pipes in the ground. The other half is the gas, and that other part comes from the price of gas out on the open market.

I want to say to all of you that although it’s unpredictable as to whether or not we will see other spikes—and I have to say, wars happen and disruptions of energy supplies happen, and if I knew what the price was going to be, I would be running a side deal in gas futures and making a lot of money, so I won’t predict that. But I will predict this: the potential for great volatility. That is a huge problem for people, the inability to be certain what it’s going to cost them in the year to come to heat their homes. That is an issue, and to the extent that we stay with gas or expand the use of gas in this province, we expose more and more people to the volatility of those gas prices. That is not a good thing.

I had said at the beginning, and I want to say this again: The OEB didn’t say you can’t have a gas connection to a new house; it wasn’t a ban on gas. If Enbridge wanted to install new gas connections to new homes, they could do it with the capital that’s provided by their investors, and they could try and recover it over the next few decades. But I have to say, they understand the volatility of the world; they understand the uncertainty of the world and the potential that within two decades or three decades, you’ll have a dramatically smaller market for gas heating in this province—again, I follow the minister’s statement talking about electrification of heating—so that it may not be a good investment for those people who are backing Enbridge. No, they want to put the burden on you. They have asked the Premier to put the burden on you, the customers of Enbridge Gas, the multi-billion-dollar risk.

So Premier Ford wants to raise your gas bill. He has decided that higher profits for Enbridge Gas are more important than protecting you. He wants to increase the money that goes to Enbridge, and he wants to take that money out of your pocket. He’s protecting his buddies at Enbridge and sticking you with the bill, and that’s about $300 for each gas customer over the next four years. And that’s why we’re debating this legislation today, legislation to allow the government to overturn a decision by the energy regulator, the body set up to protect you, the customers, from the actions of utilities that want to squeeze as much money out of you as they can.

Speaker, high price is certainly at the heart of what we’re dealing with here—no getting around it. It’s an issue that people have very immediately on their minds. They go to the grocery store; they try to buy something electronic; they have to pay higher rents; they’re paying their energy bills; they’re squeezed.

However, there are other issues here, even if they’re not as top of mind as cost of living. The reality is the world is getting hotter. Weather is getting more extreme. It’s getting more unpredictable. Those climate changes are affecting the price of food, of insurance and a variety of other things. They are increasing the cost of operating government because they’re causing more damage to infrastructure. Drought and higher temperatures are reducing food production in many places, and we see the impact at the grocery store.

It’s not just climate change that’s affecting us at those grocery stores. There are retailers—big ones—that are taking the opportunity to squeeze as many pennies out of people as they can. But the reality is that as the world gets hotter and our climate more unpredictable, food prices will increase. As insurers face higher claims from catastrophic weather events, they pass the cost on to their customers. I’m sure many of you have seen those higher insurance bills.

I’ll just say there are three jurisdictions right now where the rise in those bills has led to some really dramatic changes: Louisiana, Florida and California. Many insurance companies are leaving those jurisdictions because they can’t charge premiums high enough to cover the replacement cost of the houses destroyed in extreme weather or in wildfires. Those places are having to provide a very limited state-sponsored housing insurance, where an awful lot of the risk is left with the homeowner and where those states are not happy that they’re having to provide that insurance, because I’m sure it doesn’t actually pay for itself.

As we get hotter, as weather becomes more extreme, people are not going to be able to afford the premiums that insurance companies will charge to protect their homes and their property. This is not a distant problem; this is a problem happening today in the southern United States and which will make its way north into Ontario and into Canada. Already in Canada, the insurance bureau has said something like a million homes are facing the potential of losing home insurance because of flood risk.

So we’ve got a situation where day-to-day life is going to become more and more difficult. In order to stabilize the climate and protect us all from rising food costs and to make sure that things like insurance are affordable, the world is engaged in an effort to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. To do that, we have to move away from fossil fuels like gas. That means many things, but one of them is that when we have a chance to reduce future gas burning—from heating, for example—we should take it. We’re in a situation now where new homes, if they get a heat pump rather than a furnace and an air conditioner, can actually have lower-cost heating and cooling than if they went down the gas route. The OEB recognized that in its decision.

Happily, this would mean lower costs for homeowners. Let’s assume that Ontario actually does build one million new homes over the current decade. Given that so far the targets are not being met, I think there are real questions about that. Let’s just say you didn’t reach 1.5 million but you reached a million. We have about four million homes in Ontario now. If all new homes were gas-heated, then we would face a very large new source of carbon pollution in Ontario. I don’t know how the government would meet its very weak target of a 30% reduction, but we would be making the world hotter and we would be paying for it out of higher gas bills. That’s what this legislation means.

Premier Ford wants to raise your gas bill, take more money out of your pocket and make the world hotter, more volatile and more difficult for all of us. That’s what we’re debating today: the whole question of whether we will protect customers, whether we will let the Premier increase your gas bill or not. He’s protecting his buddies at Enbridge Gas and he’s sticking us with the bill, and we’re talking about $300 over four years. Anyone who wants to pay an extra 300 bucks to help Enbridge Gas, please put up your hand. I’m sure that when the vote comes there will be a chunk of people in this room who will stand up and say, “Yes, I want to pay more and I want to help Enbridge.”

Now I’ve talked about the direct cost and the, let us say, absence of facts in the arguments made by the government in the minister’s presentation, but I also want to talk about the impact of effectively restoring the previous situation where the Ontario Energy Board is just a glove puppet for the Minister of Energy—not a good thing.

It’s bad news to change the law so that all future energy decisions or regulations through the Ontario Energy Board will be made in the same way the Premier made his decision about the greenbelt or about Staples or about privatizing health care: out of public sight, by politicians on a massage table or in Vegas or at a wedding party where they’re celebrating and drinking wine with lobbyists. Do we want that to be the way decisions are made around energy?

Let’s look at how the decision was made by the Ontario Energy Board on protecting people from higher Enbridge rates. Again, I’m going to go back to the excellent article by the energy lawyer Ian Mondrow:

“At 6 p.m. on December 21, the OEB publicly issued a comprehensive decision on an application by” Enbridge “for approval of Ontario gas distribution rates commencing January 1, 2024. The decision is the result of a thorough public hearing process, which involved more than a year of review, thousands of pages of company and expert evidence, a comprehensive oral hearing and a thorough process for submissions by” Enbridge, “OEB staff, and a number of informed, indeed expert, customer and public interest intervenor representatives. The comprehensive, well-written and fully reasoned decision is 147 pages long....”

So what do we have? We had a public process that people could attend or follow. I followed it for the last year. Thousands of pages of evidence were introduced—I have to say, I didn’t read thousands of pages; I read quite a few hundred, but not thousands. Interesting stuff. The consultant for Enbridge—two consultants. One consultant, their economic consultant, talked about the threat of a death spiral for this particular utility, because as the cost of heating by gas went up, more and more people would leave the system, and as more and more people left the system, those who were left behind would pay a higher fee, and more and more people would leave.

So, real risk to the system—how do you manage that? Part of the way you manage it is, you actually focus on repair rather than expansion, so you control your costs. That’s something the OEB was very interested in.

Again, you had a public process. You had people who were trained in adjudication and had familiarity with the energy system listening to presentations by those who had expertise with energy, who were hired as consultants to give information. These were not lobbyists who were wining and dining the board. They weren’t taking the board out for lunch, getting them drunked up and then sending them back into the room. No. They were trying to present evidence so that, in fact, you could have a rational assessment of the options before us.

What does the Premier want in the place of a public hearing with evidence that could be challenged by numerous intervenors and by adjudicators themselves?

Well, first of all, this bill gives the government power to overturn the key decisions within that OEB order that’s under discussion. This gives the government the power to increase your gas bill, to take money out of your pocket and put it into the pockets of Enbridge investors so they get richer. That’s what this is about. The government wants to have the power to make Enbridge richer and you poorer. It allows the minister, with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council—that’s the cabinet—to direct the Ontario Energy Board that the construction of a new natural gas transmission line is in the public interest.

Normally, the Ontario Energy Board would hold a hearing to determine whether a proposed project is in the public interest—does it actually do what it should do; will it put a financial burden on the other customers; is there a justification for this that allows an investment of the money that’s taken out of the ratepayers’ pockets?

This provision in the act would oblige the Ontario Energy Board to grant leave to construct without a hearing. In other words, we go to energy decision-making by lobbyists and members of the government’s cabinet, or maybe just by the Premier’s staff—I’m not sure which; only the RCMP knows for sure who makes these decisions. It means that the ability to actually have decisions or proposals reviewed in public, with evidence presented, considered, challenged and adjudicated doesn’t have to happen anymore. It’s just lobbyists bringing home the bacon for their clients, and that bacon is you and me paying more out of our pockets to make Enbridge richer. It allows the minister, with the approval of the cabinet, to overturn any OEB order that either refused to approve a gas transmission line or required the beneficiaries of the expansion to pay upfront capital costs. In other words, if the OEB determines that a gas pipeline project is not in the public interest, then the cabinet can force the OEB to let it proceed anyway.

At this point, you have to ask: Why do you have a regulator? Because, frankly, they’re just scenery. They’re a mountain picture painted on a wall. They are of no consequence, because the real decisions will be made by lobbyists, cabinet members and the chiefs of staff who report to the Premier and those ministers.

There are other ways that Bill 165 would allow the Premier to force gas customers to pay costs that the OEB would otherwise not allow. Currently, no one can construct a new gas pipeline in Ontario unless the OEB determines this expenditure is in the public interest and grants leave to construct. This rule seeks to ensure that expenditures are properly scrutinized so gas consumers are not forced to pay for costly, uneconomical projects. So by deciding to allow politicians to make that ultimate call as to whether or not a gas line is in the public interest, instead of an independent regulator, there’s a risk—man, sometimes I really understate. This politicizes the energy regulation process. It just says, “Nope.” Thoughtful consideration—may I even say, just businesslike consideration—is out the window; it’s who has got the pull, who knows who and who can actually get the decision that you need.

There is an example of a previous government that operated this way: the Liberal government. For those who weren’t here when they were in power—

Supported by you.

We would tag-team going after them, yes. We used to go after them. We would go after them in committees, we’d go after them in the House, because we knew they politicized the process. And you guys are following that road—sorry; this government, Speaker, is following that road of politicized energy decisions. The outcome is not good.

So not only does the current government want you to immediately be stuck with a bill for a massive subsidy to Enbridge Gas—and I’m talking $300 per customer over the next four years—it also wants you to be stuck with the cost of future projects that the OEB, the regulator, might dismiss because they hurt the interests of gas consumers. The process of hearing evidence in public by a board of people with experience and a mandate to protect the public interest is replaced by a process where the best lobbyist, as I said before, brings home the bacon—your bacon—to whatever company wants access to a subsidy from you. This is not well received in many quarters and, frankly, is contrary to advice that the government has received. I’ll go to the advice first, and then I’ll go to comments from other quarters.

In its recent report, Ontario’s energy transition panel, appointed by this government to look at the transition—frankly, again, to the minister’s comment, a transition away from gas home heating to electrification of home heating; the minister made that clear—made a recommendation that is inconsistent with Bill 165. They recommended the OEB “should conduct reviews of cost allocation and recovery policies for natural gas and electricity connections, as well as natural gas infrastructure investment evaluations to protect customers and facilitate development of the clean energy economy.”

Well, this isn’t protecting customers. I didn’t hear the minister say once that when we change this, it will mean that the rate reduction that the OEB mandated will be maintained. No, no. The rate reduction the OEB maintained is out the window. Customers will not be protected. You can go all around the mulberry bush, you can do the ring-around-the-rosie, you can be the jack in the jack-in-the-box—whatever. It ain’t protecting customers. It means higher bills. That’s what this legislation delivers. Their own electrification panel recommended the OEB make the kind of decision that the OEB made, and that’s the one that this government is working hard to reverse.

Other organizations in the energy field had comments like this: Adam Fremeth and Brandon Schaufele from the Ivey Energy Policy and Management Centre wrote—again, Ivey school is not your left-wing hotbed, right? It ain’t. They wrote, “Overriding an independent economic regulator is a big deal. It is not something that should be done lightly. The government’s decision explicitly undermines the OEB and threatens credibility of future energy investment in the province.”

Note that: “future energy investment.”

When you have a government that operates in a way that is capricious, that is not open, that is not rules-based but is influence-based, then—it’s not true with all investors; maybe some think they can get that influence and get what they want, but a lot will say, “Ehh.” You put money into that province, you don’t know if you’re going to get it back. You don’t know if actually you’re going to get a return on your investment. You could be side-swiped by someone else who’s got more powerful lobbyists. I think their comment is a good one.

“Moreover, it’s not obvious that this move is in Enbridge’s long-term interests. Once a precedent to effectively overrule a regulator is established, there’s little to stop future governments from using the same tactic to different ends, perhaps against natural gas infrastructure.”

Interesting comment, very interesting comment.

Do you have rules-based, law-based regulation in Ontario, or do you set it up so it’s influence- and lobbyist-based? I think that’s the choice before us. We know what the government has proposed. Not only do they want you to pay more on your gas bill—320 bucks over the next four years—they are also setting up a situation where you don’t know what the rules are. The rules are whatever the lobbyists and the influencers can make happen.

I’m going to quote Mr. Mondrow again, energy regulation policy expert at Gowling: “Minister Smith would be well advised to consider the wisdom of the energy panel’s recommendation and leave the matter of further consideration of new energy connection cost recovery policies with” the Ontario Energy Board. I don’t know; he seems to know regulation. He seems to know energy policy. “Leaving this in the hands of the independent regulator would maintain transparency, consistency, public accountability and a thoughtful and reasoned balancing of interests. That, after all, is the reason for an independent energy regulator.”

I think that’s a pretty good summary. Why do you have a regulator?

The logical last step in this bill, really, is dissolving the Ontario Energy Board, because frankly, you realize they’re of no use to you. They’re an impediment to you, actually, just dictating what energy policy will be, based on what lobbyists and other influencers want to do. Those lobbyists—Enbridge—want to take money out of your pocket. They want to raise your gas bill.

Adam Fremeth and Brandon Schaufele from the Ivey Energy Policy and Management Centre also noted “the government’s decision to override the OEB should have virtually no effect on affordable housing in the province.” In other words, they fundamentally disagree with the Minister of Energy in his arguments that he made earlier today.

Now I’ll quote an environmental organization. Environmental Defence wrote, “This legislation would be bad for new homeowners”—true enough—“bad for existing gas customers”—yes, because they’re going to pay more—“and bad for the environment. The only one that benefits is Enbridge Gas.”

Richard Carlson, energy director at Pollution Probe, said, “The OEB was clear, correctly in my opinion, that the energy transition is under way and there’s uncertainty about the future of natural gas use in the province.”

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

I think those are all fair comments. You have a government that, in order to look after its friends at Enbridge, is going to rewrite the law to make the regulator irrelevant and make sure that you pay a higher bill. No wonder people are concerned.

I want to take just a few minutes, because I don’t have a lot of time left, to comment a bit on the other items that came up in the minister’s speech earlier today. The minister said he wants to protect consumer choice. Well, frankly, consumer choice hasn’t changed. People can put in gas furnaces if they want. Developers can put in gas furnaces if they want. There are two options. One is that the investors, who receive billions of dollars from their investment in Enbridge, can put in a little more money to pay for those hookups and pay themselves back over 20 or 40 years. If they think that Enbridge Gas will still be in the home heating business in 40 years, they could do that. They could charge money to a new homeowner, if the new homeowner actually wanted that, but I would say if the new homeowner actually looked at the economics of a heat pump versus a gas furnace, they would go with a heat pump because it’s a better deal—no getting around it.

To say that he’s protecting consumer choice—not the case. Consumer choice isn’t being removed. What’s being removed is the subsidy paid for by all the other gas customers—just to be clear, $300 per customer over the next four years. Not a good deal for those who are customers.

This OEB decision would increase costs: I’ve already gone through the evidence—not the case. In terms of homeowners, the OEB determined it would be a wash, a very minor change one way or the other, and frankly, other commentators have said it wouldn’t be of great consequence.

Predictable energy environment: Well, I have to say, I noted earlier about the fact that increasingly we will be integrated into the world market for natural gas. To the extent that we stay with gas, our costs become more and more unpredictable. We don’t know what’s going to happen. Frankly, to say that it would be predictable doesn’t make sense. I think you’re far better off setting up a situation in Ontario where people depend on energy generated in Ontario—electricity—rather than depending on gas imported from the United States. Again, about 60% of our gas is from the States, and we are competing with others around the world who might want to buy that gas at a much higher price. If you’re talking about predictability, a predictable energy environment, you want to move away from fossil fuels and you want to move away from natural gas.

He talked about a common-sense approach. Well, I think a common-sense approach is that existing gas customers don’t get stiffed with a bill—$300 over the next four years—to make Enbridge richer. Frankly, the common-sense thing to do would be to look at the OEB decision, which was a very reasonable decision based on an awful lot of evidence, and say, “Yep, that makes sense.” The best deal for new homeowners is to direct them towards an electric heat pump. The best deal for existing gas consumers is not to charge them more money, not to raise their bills. That would be the common-sense approach.

Let me see. There were some—oh, yes, I just have to note the minister’s satisfaction with his own home heat pump: that he didn’t freeze in the dark, that it kept him warm through the winter. Hey, that’s great.

Interjection.

Not us. We used to work with you.

No, I thought the point was really good, that he was endorsing it, that it worked and it worked well. I think that’s what we need for people across Ontario, something that works well that they can afford.

Interjection.

He wants to keep heating costs down. Well, look at the evidence. The evidence is that to keep heating costs down, you go to electric heat pumps. The technology is changing rapidly.

One thing that people should be aware of is that in the United States, the Inflation Reduction Act that’s in place now is investing heavily in advancing the technology for heat pumps so that heat pumps that already are quite functional at minus 30 will be even more efficient, more effective in the years to come. Places like Norway—Norway, people know about it, near the Arctic Circle—60% of the households have heat pumps. That’s how they heat themselves—60%. Finland, pretty close, around 50%. Sweden I don’t have the number for, but my guess is it’s in that range. They seem to be able to function, and they’re up by the Arctic Circle. If you want to be practical about cost, if you want to be practical about a system that gives you a more predictable kind of heat or energy basis or security, go to heat pumps.

He was talking about how this decision would discourage developers from using cost-effective and efficient gas. Well, frankly, it would encourage them to use cost-effective and efficient heat pumps. They’re going to put in an electricity line anyway; let’s face it. So if you’re putting in an electricity line, don’t worry about the gas, unless you’ve got a customer who really wants gas. Then you can offer it to them. It isn’t barred by anyone. If Enbridge believes what it says in its filings, in its claims, it’s certainly happy to invest in it. They can do that. They don’t have to come to us, the other gas customers, to pay for it.

Also, the pragmatic approach of the government to energy: Interestingly, the Electricity Distributors Association and the Royal Bank of Canada, who are not noted, again, as particularly radical organizations, both said that when it came to dealing with the immediate crunch in Ontario for meeting demand, it was far more cost-effective and far faster to invest in conservation and efficiency—both of them—and not just faster and more effective, but substantially cheaper. This government has totally ignored that advice. The Independent Electricity System Operator has said numerous times that energy efficiency is cost-effective. It is a great deal. That minister is ignoring the electricity distributors who, frankly, know a fair amount about electricity in this province, and the Royal Bank of Canada, that has an interest in this matter. His own organization, the IESO, has talked about the value of conservation and efficiency in terms of low cost and the ability to deliver quickly the sorts of reduction in demand so that we don’t have any power shortage. So I can’t say that his approach is really that pragmatic.

And just briefly about difficulties in both Alberta and Texas for failure of electricity systems in deep cold: In the most recent problem in Alberta, two gas plants went off-line in the middle of that crunch—two gas plants. They couldn’t be depended on. And in storm Uri in Texas, when they had those blackouts, again, it was the gas system that couldn’t handle the cold. The pumps for the gas systems were frozen. So in both cases we’re talking about problems with the gas infrastructure; that was the biggest issue.

I’m going to wrap up, Speaker. Don’t forget; this is really plain: The government wants you to pay more on your gas bill. It wants to raise your gas bill. It wants to ensure that Enbridge has higher profits. It wants to take money out of your pocket to the tune of 300 bucks over the next four years. Everything else is just smoke. All the other arguments are strange-looking scenery and don’t bear on the guts of it. This government wants to raise your gas bill. That’s it.

The OEB didn’t say, “No. You can’t put your money in and supply people with that 40-year loan.” Go ahead—no sweat. But you can’t take it from the existing gas customers. They are tapped out. So I say to you right now, your government should go to Enbridge and say, “Look, you’ve got big pockets. You put the money out. You try and collect it over 40 years.” Because 25 or 30 years from now, that system will have shrunk dramatically, and whoever is left holding the bag is going to have very big expenses, and I think Enbridge knows that.

I would like to thank my colleague from Toronto–Danforth. He kept coming back to $300 over the next four years—if we calculate that, that’s going to be less than 10 bucks a month—and thinking that this is big money and this is Enbridge, like we are helping Enbridge, while the whole idea behind that bill was to reduce the cost that a new connection would have to pay upfront. I don’t know how come he can say there’s no significant difference. This is simple math. You’re going to pay what you’re going to pay in the next 40 years in one lump sum upfront. Now we cannot start talking about the prices of the houses going up because, at the end of the day, it’s going to be passed to the end user.

My question is, what do you think about the savings of this lump-sum amount, kick-start initial cost, versus the $300?

Questions?

I want to thank the honourable member for a wonderful and very informative speech.

I think it’s great that we have just highlighted in the back-and-forth here what a great poster boy our energy minister is for heat pumps. I think everybody in Ontario should know that our energy minister has a heat pump, has electric backup and he’s doing quite well, and I guess because he spoke about it here today, he wants all of Ontario to know that. I want to thank everybody for bringing that out in the debate today.

I’ll pose to the honourable energy critic for the NDP the same question that I posed to the minister. I think he’ll know what I’m about to ask.

One of the dissenting commissioners, the only one who voted against the OEB decision, suggested that the revenue horizon should be 20 years, which would mean that the upfront payment would be about one third of the cost of a natural gas installation. Would he support that?

I listened intently to the member from Davenport, the opposition critic. I have to say, I’m not sure what kind of dream world the members opposite are living in, but to try to say that in rural communities like mine in Niagara West, it’s going to cost $300 to pay upfront for the cost of bearing the natural gas infrastructure, and to say they can simply all get heat pumps—again, we’ve gone through this. We’ve heard from the Minister of Energy about those days when he’s at a lower temperature, he needs his natural gas to kick in, he needs to see the assistance from other areas. And I know in my riding, that’s the exact same thing.

So the member opposite, does he genuinely not understand the meaning of cost avoidance? He kept going on about this $300 and how little it’s going to cost the people of Ontario to do this. So we understand he’s in favour of forcing this on the hard-working, first-time homebuyers of Ontario. How much is it going to cost communities in my riding if the NDP had their way and they forced this down their throats?

Can you say that again?

I want to thank the member for Toronto–Danforth, not Davenport, for that great presentation. I also just want to note, you mentioned that the minister enjoys the benefits of a heat pump for a home that is not serviced by gas.

I was surprised—because I’ve read the 147-page report that you referenced in your remarks—when the minister said that the Independent Electricity System Operator was not consulted, was not involved, because if you refer to page 5 of the report, what the OEB says is that, in fact, the IESO was one of the people who contributed to the years’ worth of research, the over 10,000 pages of evidence that the OEB came to a decision.

I guess I’m asking the member to reflect upon the conflicting position of the minister. Is he the minister for energy or is he the minister for Enbridge?

Next question?

I’m moving on to the next question.