I just want to focus on the fact that what we are focusing on and what the government seems to be ignoring is that we know, and the people of Ontario will soon know, that this is a bill that will keep Enbridge happy. This is a bill that will make customers pay and will make Enbridge continue to operate in the way that they have that is actually costing people money in a time when we have a substantial affordability crisis. So why would this government put forward a bill that is going to cost people and going to benefit Enbridge, particularly in the midst of an affordability crisis?

I’m speaking today on the second reading of Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024. I believe the changes proposed by this act will aid in both protecting the interests of Ontario energy consumers and getting housing and energy infrastructure built faster. It will also play a role in ensuring that Ontarians and Ontario businesses will be able to access reliable and affordable energy now and into the future.

I am one of the two parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Energy. Over the past year and a half, I’ve been quite proud of what I consider our pragmatic and particularly technology-agnostic approach to energy policy. This government has built an electricity system in Ontario that I think gives customers choice and the opportunity to manage their energy use. We also, as has been stated multiple times, have one of the cleanest grids in the world.

We’ve shown our commitment to growing our clean energy advantage through early planning measures like requesting a Pathways to Decarbonization report from Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator. This report resulted in the government’s Powering Ontario’s Growth plan, which was released in July 2022. We also created the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel in 2021, which has provided critical recommendations to support the province’s first integrated energy plan.

Ultimately, our clean grid has become a clear competitive advantage in world markets. Countries and industries around the world are seeing the need to reduce emissions. Many consumers appreciate seeing a focus on clean energy. As Minister Smith described, Ontario is quickly becoming a leader in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing as well as green steelmaking, as demonstrated by the major investments made in our province by companies like Stellantis and Volkswagen.

I remember being particularly struck by an anecdote that I think Minister Fedeli gave us about the Volkswagen decision to relocate to St. Thomas. At the time, they had been looking at several other American jurisdictions which, from a price perspective, may have made more sense than St. Thomas. However, those jurisdictions were operating on coal, and Volkswagen felt that it would be somewhat hypocritical to produce electric vehicle batteries on a coal-based system, which ultimately led to St. Thomas in Ontario being chosen.

In Ontario, we’re doing what we can to support electrification through the province. To go briefly into an anecdote before I get into it more, lowering emissions is very important to many people in Waterloo region. Just last month, I was at an announcement regarding a sort of tripartite, federal-provincial-municipal funding grant to Grand River Transit. Thanks in part to that funding, about $5 million of which came from the province, Grand River Transit is getting 11 fully electric 40-foot buses and new charging units.

I was there for the unveiling of the first new hybrid bus in its new vinyl wrap design, which introduced me to several amateur transit enthusiasts, which I had heard rumour of, but I’d never had the pleasure of meeting any in person. I ended up sitting next to a young man who I believe was named Gordon, who regaled me for a solid 10 minutes with stats about the efficiency and benefits of the new electric buses, which I was very grateful for because, as is usual—with the exception, frankly, of this—I hadn’t actually prepared any notes on what I was going to say at this announcement. I more or less got up and just parroted what Gordon had told me, which worked out wonderfully. So there is no doubt that there are a lot of people who are excited by these new electrified transit options, and that Grand River announcement was a great example of three levels of government coming together in support of something.

Ontario’s population is, as we have commented on regularly, growing at an incredible rate, with us expecting to see millions more people just by the end of this decade. With growth comes demand. Now, for the first time since 2005, Ontario’s electricity demand is rising. The IESO’s most recent analysis indicates that electricity demand in the province could more than double by 2050. If demand doubles, as we expect it to, then of course, so must supply.

It’s absolutely imperative that we start now if we’re going to build the homes and the infrastructure to support the Ontario of the near future and provide the power that we’ll need to thrive. That said, Speaker, this rapidly expanding growth and associated calls on energy bring forth many thoughts and opinions from Ontarians. We need to make sure that all voices are heard, which brings me to my main point.

Last December, the Ontario Energy Board made a decision to bring the 40-year revenue horizon, which had been set back in 1998, down to a zero-revenue horizon, to take effect, by this point, in less than a year. This is a decision that, regardless of what one feels about it, will have a huge impact on families and businesses.

It appears that the OEB made the decision in the absence of some vital evidence from a number of major players and stakeholders that have a significant and important understanding of this sector. The decision was also made without consulting with IESO about a significant point, which is the impact that this decision would have on the province’s electricity grid, particularly the impact it would have given that this decision would essentially require a massive and sudden increase in electrification demands, which would have a huge impact on the province’s grid. That was not covered.

Herein lies the central purpose of the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. It’s making some changes to the Ontario Energy Board’s regulatory processes to make sure that this kind of oversight doesn’t happen again.

I am a lawyer, but I was a criminal prosecutor and therefore I have, at best, only a nodding acquaintance with the complex law surrounding regulatory bodies such as the OEB. Although, that said, having sat here this afternoon, I was initially feeling somewhat hesitant about getting up and speaking on something that I have so little authority on, but I now feel completely comfortable, after having listened to several of the past speakers, to speak loudly and proudly about something that I don’t necessarily have any specific expertise on, because it appears to not be a prerequisite. Essentially, I don’t require any special knowledge to look at this decision and see what I would call a very concerning dissenting opinion.

So, Speaker, please bear with me as I, again, read out this quote from the dissent—it’s authored by Commissioner Allison Duff—as it’s lengthy but relevant. Commissioner Duff wrote, “I do not support a zero-year revenue horizon for assessing the economics of small volume gas expansion customers. I do not find the evidentiary record supports this conclusion. The CIAC comparison table filed by Enbridge Gas did not even consider zero within the range of revenue horizon options. Zero is not a horizon. It is fundamentally inconsistent with the intent of E.B.O. 188 by requiring 100% of connection costs upfront as a payment, rather than a contribution in aid of construction. There was no mention of zero in E.B.O. 188—yet a 20 to 30 year revenue horizon was considered. To me, the risk of unintended consequences to Enbridge Gas, its customers and other stakeholders increases given the magnitude of this ... change.”

Commissioner Duff continues: “The rationale provided in the majority decision to support zero is predicated on understanding the considerations and circumstances facing developers.” However, “this rationale is conjecture as no developers intervened or filed evidence in this proceeding. In contrast, a recent OEB proceeding regarding a proposed housing development in Whitby included intervenor evidence, oral testimony and submission by the affected developer group, enabling the OEB to render a decision based on the evidence.

“A zero-year revenue horizon implies an indifference as to whether these developers decide to connect, or not connect, any gas expansion customers. Is the scenario of no-new-gas-connections, replaced by construction of all-electric developments, feasible? For example, would electricity generators, transmitters, distributors and the IESO be able to meet Ontario’s energy demands in 2025?” She concludes that by writing, “I don’t know.”

Speaker, regardless of where one stands in the discussion around energy, every person in this chamber should be worried when one of the three presiding commissioners says that she was not presented with the necessary evidence to reach any decision, let alone such a drastic change as this, going from a 40-year revenue horizon down to a zero-year revenue horizon in less than a year.

Frankly, it’s not just me reading a dissenting decision and commenting as an armchair expert. Other experts themselves are concerned. I’ll point here to a column written by Aleck Dadson, the former chief operating officer of OEB, and Ed Waitzer, the former chair of the Ontario Securities Commission, who described their frustration with the Ontario Energy Board’s decision.

Mr. Dadson and Mr. Waitzer stated as follows: “In our view, adjudicators should focus on deciding specific matters in a transparent, fair and non-partisan manner. They should do so by applying a legal and regulatory framework to findings based on evidence and arguments presented in an adversarial process. And they should avoid trying to resolve complex policy issues, in which any decision will affect unrepresented stakeholders and other areas of concern. In short, adjudicative panels shouldn’t stray.”

The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act is proposing legislative changes that will ensure major OEB decisions with far-reaching applications, like this one, don’t happen again without adequate stakeholder consultation.

I’m going to change course for a minute here to talk briefly about regulatory agencies such as the OEB and to have a bit of background. Again, I go back to my feeling of inferiority about speaking about this, because it’s not my area of competence. However, what I have heard this afternoon has indicated that there’s a terrifying dearth of understanding about what regulatory agencies actually are present in this House.

Regulatory agencies are critical to the operation of modern society. Because of their importance, it’s essential that they be subject to effective governance. Essentially, regulatory agencies take very, very specific areas of practice that the courts, the government, the Legislature don’t have the time or expertise to delve into in order to establish their individual application in individual cases. So it becomes delegated. Essentially, every regulatory agency is exercising powers that were delegated to them by Legislatures, which is necessary in the complex specialized economy that we operate on. Ultimately, when you are delegating power from a Legislature to a regulatory body, the delegation entails carrying out the objectives of the legislation that was enacted, but frankly that also entails carrying out the government policies that inform the legislation. That’s what makes a regulatory body, particularly a government regulatory body, significantly different than, say, a court. A court is a judicial decision-maker, whereas a regulatory agency is a quasi-judicial decision-maker, but only in limited circumstances.

So given that regulatory agencies are tasked to some extent with carrying out government policies informing their enacting legislation, they’re not independent of the government, and they never will be. At the same time, however, I will say that being able to properly exercise that type of delegated authority does require a certain amount of independence, because you need to have that in order to operate as a quasi-judicial decision-maker, which requires them to have, as I said, that measure of independence. However, the truth is regulatory agencies are not courts. They are subject to oversight to varying degrees and in different ways, by the Legislature, by the government and by the courts. In other words, they’re subject to three sources of external governance already.

The OEB itself, specifically, was created by a statute, the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. It’s an independent regulator. If you go into the act, you will see that the stated purpose of the OEB is to serve the public interest. What’s interesting is we don’t have a very clear definition of the public interest, but frankly, that’s not uncommon in this type of legislation. At the same time, however, the OEB is required both in its governing legislation and also by the accepted practices of governance to be responsive to provincial government policy. That’s not an oversight or a problem; that’s literally how it was created and how it functions.

In doing what its primary purpose is, which—let’s be clear: The objective of the OEB is predominantly related to determining the prices to be paid for the transmission and distribution of gas and electricity in the public interest. So when the OEB is exercising this primary goal, which is approving these rates, it’s ultimately required to balance competing interests: residential consumers, large and small business, the government and utility shareholders. The key here that, again, this discussion so far has missed is that the OEB does not serve the interests of just one group, and to understand the OEB as some sort of consumer protection agency is a completely incorrect understanding of how it functions as a regulatory agency.

The OEB’s role and their purpose, as I said, is to balance interests, and those interests often compete, which is how we end up in the public interest, which is a grand final assessment of what is best for the general public, understanding that the general public, once you divide it, in itself has a number of competing interests. The thing is there’s no way that the OEB can appropriately balance competing interests in a situation such as the one we heard, where a decision was made without appropriate input or information from a number of industry experts and stakeholders in this area. So it was this nature of the decision, which, frankly—what it shows is not necessarily some sort of over-dominance on one position by the OEB but perhaps a failure of policy to make it clearer that the OEB as an institution needs to focus more on that type of public consultation and stakeholder recipient opinions than it currently does.

What we are proposing is that the OEB would have to conduct more public engagement to ensure that any impacted individuals and organizations have the opportunity to participate, because, as happened here, it’s clear that OEB hearings, while discrete events apply to individual cases, have the potential to tread into matters that have a significant public interest for a number of people. But the thing here as well is that you have to understand what is happening with this decision. When you’re looking at judicial review of a regulatory agency, what happens is that a court would take issue with how it essentially exercised its power, as versus the nature of the decision, which is why it requires government involvement in this case. So what the government is doing is not inserting its own decision in place of the OEB’s decision but remitting the decision that the OEB made back to the OEB with additional policy considerations that the government wishes the OEB to consider, which is entirely within the rights and power of the government—any government, regardless of political stripe—based on how the OEB functions, how any regulatory agency functions. So this is a completely appropriate way of doing it in order to hand that back.

But ultimately, we’ve talked about the OEB decision’s impact on a number of areas, and I think the one that I want to focus on more remains the housing, because the practical impact of this is to make the cost of gas connection something that has to be paid up front, as versus amortized over the current 40-year time period. So in the world of this decision, builders would be required to pay the entire cost at the time of the gas application and then bear that cost up until the point that the house sells, which substantially increases the total costs. We’re looking at between $4,500 to $6,000 per residential unit. So for a large subdivision, we’re driving that, theoretically, up into the millions. And that burden then transfers quickly to homebuyers as they pay up in the form of those higher prices for new houses.

What I have not heard here today is that home builders and residential construction professionals in Ontario have a long and, I would say, well-illustrated track record of supporting and incorporating climate change initiatives. Homes are ever more energy-efficient and the industry itself has followed and employed hybrid heating technologies. The key here, though, is this: Realistic timelines must be respected because we have seen what happens when ideology overrules reality. In fact, we’ve lived it. Ontario suffered under it. We won the 2018 election because of it, and we won’t be subjecting Ontarians to that again.

In the circumstances we face currently, which is an affordability crisis and a housing supply shortage, we simply must still support the pipeline infrastructure required to deliver low-carbon fuels such as natural gas, which is a readily available, reliable and competitively priced energy source. Doing so is absolutely crucial to maintaining affordability in the immediate and near future.

I also note there are a number of other spinoff issues that I haven’t heard mentioned. If we’re talking about natural gas hookups, we’re not just talking about heating, we’re talking about water heaters. We’re talking about gas dryers. Essentially, what the opposition would have us do—or, rather, have the OEB do—is immediately cut off the access to natural gas hookups. Because, yes, we can’t possibly put that type of financial burden on builders right now when we’re already struggling to make housing affordable.

You then also force your consumer into suddenly having to make a million different decisions about how they’re going to heat their home, how they’re going to heat their water, how they’re going to do their laundry—all, again, to support a purely ideological narrative.

Ultimately, I feel very strongly that this is the right course of action. It puts us in the realm of realism versus ideology, and I certainly will be voting in favour.

Thank you to my colleague across the way for his remarks. Building off of the member from Niagara West’s question, I know there is some confusion amongst the Liberal Party members, especially their leader, around answering tough questions. So yes or no to the member opposite: Do you support natural gas expansion in rural Ontario? Yes or no?

This bill doesn’t apply to the Natural Gas Expansion Program—so yeah.

Final question?

Point of order, Speaker.

Thank you to the member from Kitchener South–Hespeler for her remarks this afternoon. I appreciate her taking us through how the OEB was set up—the acts, as the member for Simcoe–Grey mentioned, as well, that oversee the OEB. It’s been mentioned many times now how this would literally stop homes from being built—literally.

Interjections.

Can the member please elaborate on how this will help Kitchener South–Hespeler continue to get homes built in her community?

I have to say to my friend opposite, I don’t think she’s giving herself enough credit. What I heard in the 20 minutes was that she didn’t feel like she was in a position confident enough to render an informed opinion, but because of other opinions she’s heard, she was going to do so anyway.

This is someone who is a member of the King’s Counsel—a nice honorific created by this government. This is a former crown prosecutor. In fact, we may need a lot more crown prosecutors because the person sitting and leading this government may be on an RCMP perp walk before long. We may be needing your expertise. But the fact of the matter remains, I didn’t hear a shred of evidence in that presentation—

Interjections.

The building owners and manufacturers’ association, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the Federation of Rental-housing Providers of Ontario—these are all, if I’m not mistaken, people involved in the development and property-owning industries. They all deputed to this OEB hearing. The member had alleged that the OEB didn’t hear them. Can she clarify for this House that she’s mistaken and perhaps didn’t read the 140-page decision before coming into this House?

I was beginning to think that I would have nothing to actually answer to, as I hadn’t heard a question in most of that. I just heard a lot of “gotcha” politics from somebody very challenging to respect.

But anyway, I did not say that. I said that other multiple stakeholders were not consulted, such as the home builders’ association. Attempting to catch me out, as the member is doing, by specifically listing a number of intervenors? I said nothing about that and, frankly, you inaccurately representing my words—

Another thing that we really didn’t hear talked about today is the fact that this is not new. This concept that this is somehow going to be a massive boon or injection of money into Enbridge coffers is absolutely absurd. It’s been happening at least since 1998, when EBO 188 was first settled, and allows the fact that many of us rely on natural gas hookups to spread those costs over in a way that makes it accessible for all consumers—and, frankly, a very, very typical aspect of how communities spend money.

Ultimately what we would be doing is gambling their financial future on the OEB’s frankly overall focus on federal policy as versus even provincial policy—and it’s a provincial agency, not a federal agency. So I disagree with you. I believe that this bill is essentially doing what the OEB should have done, which is, as I’ve said, act in the public interest and balance competing interests.

To the member across, thank you very much for your presentation. The OEB ruling could, in fact, make building new homes more affordable because it means you would have to build only one type of energy infrastructure—the electricity—and not require a very expensive and obsolete second one. And it will be obsolete at some point as we move towards a climate-neutral economy.

Reversing the OEB ruling could result in building methane gas infrastructure that will take about 40 years to pay for—infrastructure that will be delivering fossil fuels into the year 2064, Speaker, 14 years beyond the time when the world has agreed to achieve net-zero fossil fuel consumption; infrastructure that will be made obsolete by the ongoing energy transition.

To the member across: What in this bill will actually meet the needs of the citizens of Ontario tomorrow, because this bill is being passed and pushed forward today, but we need to plan for the climate emergency?

I want to thank my colleague for her comments and her very accurate description of the OEB and the regulatory framework—the governing legislation. The OEB is governed by seven separate acts, including the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998. And I want to thank her for her comments on the regulatory regime.

But my question for my colleague is, from 1960 to today, when we look at setting rates, we factor in the cost of the supply—the capital costs involved and the supply and delivery of the goods, which in this case is natural gas. I’m wondering if my friend could comment on the impacts of taking a 40-year horizon and bringing it to zero.

It’s 12 years.

A quick question.

Let’s be clear: Ontario has a carbon tax that you imposed. What people want to know is, what are you going to do with the revenues that this government is collecting? You collect a carbon tax. You didn’t hold a referendum, if I recall. This government is going to collect billions—billions—on your carbon tax.

So while you talk about the concerns of people needing to be able to afford housing in this province, which are very legitimate concerns, my question to you is, why are you hiding the fact that you have a carbon tax? Why are you hiding those revenues? And how are you going to spend them to make life more affordable for the people of Ontario?

I have to say, listening to the member just speaking now: Trying to discredit the Ontario Energy Board to justify your kneecapping of their decision; to try and say that the process that the OEB went through was substandard; to, in fact, present statements about their year-long process and about the many, many people, the over 30 or 35 expert witnesses, that came to this decision; to watch this government do anything to twist themselves in circles so hard that they’ll fly up—you know, something—is unbelievable.

But I shouldn’t be shocked, because this is just the government’s MO. This is the government that will spend millions and millions—hundreds of millions—on ad campaigns, and the cringe of those ad campaigns for all of us is unbearable. So let me give you a bit of your own medicine: What if I told you there was a place where the government took the side of a for-profit, huge corporation and forced the costs on individual residents? What if I told you that place is Ontario? And what if I told you this bill before us, called “Keeping Energy Costs Down,” is evidence—exhibit A—that that’s what’s happening here? This bill is entitled “Keeping Energy Costs Down,” but my question is, keeping energy costs down for who? Because these do not keep energy cost down for ratepayers in the province of Ontario. It just jacks them up.

Who is this government working for? We see time and time again where this government stands, whose side they stand on, and it’s not on the side of individuals in this province; it’s certainly not on the side of young people, who have such anxiety about our future, given the impending climate crisis.

We’ve seen a government that certainly didn’t take the side of families who lost loved ones in long-term-care homes. Whose side did this government take? They took the side of the for-profit corporations, the operators, and made sure that they continued to make profits on our seniors, despite an abysmal track record in those for-profit long-term-care homes. In fact, they went to great lengths to inoculate these long-term-care homes from any consequences for their mistreatment of our loved ones.

Has this government taken the side of people who can’t afford groceries? We keep talking about food insecurity. The government says “food insecurity.” Do you know what that means? People can’t afford to eat. That’s what that means. In this province, they can’t afford to eat. They can’t afford to feed their kids. Did the government take their side? Did they stand on the side of families struggling to feed themselves and their kids? No. Whose side did they stand on? The side of Galen Weston and Loblaws, the corporation that has seen billions in profits, rising profits, during this time, and that also was given a nice, sweet deal by this government so that Shoppers Drug Mart could administer vaccines. And what have they got now? Shoppers Drug Mart gets insider access.

Didn’t this government also give Loblaws cash money for fridges and freezers? So this government didn’t stand on the side of consumers. This government stood on the side of Galen Weston and that huge corporation.

Did this government stand on the side of people all across this province who didn’t want to see the greenbelt grabbed from their province? Did it stand on the side of environmentalists? Did it stand on the side of farmers losing prime farmland to the tune of 320 acres a day? Did this government stand on the side of democratically elected municipalities that said, “We don’t need your urban boundary expansion. We can make our housing targets within the existing urban boundaries”—which is happening. No. Who did they stand on the side of?

This is an unprecedented situation, where a government is under an RCMP criminal investigation, so it would be interesting see what side they stand on that—whether they’re found guilty or not.

I’d like to see a government that finally takes the side of individuals.

Let’s talk about the Eglinton Crosstown. This government has people living in that community—how long is it? Eight years?

It’s still not operational. Small businesses have lost their businesses. They’ve been suffering for this long. And who does this government take the side of?

How about ServiceOntario? The minister is here today. I would like to ask the minister: Did you take the side of small business owners who have been operating for years and years in our community? Did you take the side of people who wanted to see access to ServiceOntario in their communities? No. You took the side of Staples and Walmart. Not only did you take the side of Staples and Walmart, but you made sure that they were well-compensated for that.

And now who is this government taking the side of? This government is taking the side of Enbridge. And who is Enbridge? Enbridge, essentially, is a regulated energy monopoly operating in our province. The only thing that protects us from that monopoly is the OEB, which this government has spent hours and hours here discrediting. That’s the only thing that protects us from the monopoly of Enbridge. And what is Enbridge? Let’s just talk a little about Enbridge, how the CEO of Enbridge makes—how much? Some $19 million a year: That’s how much the CEO of Enbridge makes. How much profit did Enbridge make?

Interjection.

Prescriptions.

Speaker, I live in a riding that is largely suburban. Essentially, industrial and suburban is where I live. It’s also one of the main growth areas for all of Waterloo region. These homes are being connected to natural gas. Nothing about this prevents anybody from wanting to install a heat pump later or accessing any of the grants that may be available, but ultimately, like I said, this is about prioritizing the public interest and balancing those competing interests.

In this case, we are in an affordability crisis. The number one thing is people saying, “I can’t afford a house.” I wouldn’t be able to buy my own house if I was trying to buy it today. So the number one thing we have to do is get these built and make it so that people can pay for them. If you added $6,000 to the price of my home when I was buying it, I couldn’t have afforded it, because I didn’t have $6,000 to spare.

When we’re talking about affordability, I will reiterate what I said last time: This is about getting houses built, getting people into them and figuring the rest of it out as we go, because right now, we’ve got families, young people, that can’t even afford to put a roof over their heads. That is going to be my predominant concern as a member of provincial Parliament and as an MPP for Waterloo region and Kitchener South–Hespeler.

So $46 million.

Despite what this government says and all of the talk they talk about a delegated authority and a regulator, despite all of that, I have seen this government hide behind a delegated authority time and time again. How about the Retirement Homes Regulatory Authority, delegated authority? What did the government do during COVID when people were dying in retirement homes? What did the government do? What’s her riding, the member who was speaking earlier about regulatory—

So delegated authorities: There are two sides of that coin. This government has hidden behind delegated authorities many, many times, and in this instance, they’re throwing the delegated authority regulator under the bus.

I just want to say that the people of Ontario are going to understand with this debate that you want their bills to go up and that you actually continue to have absolutely no climate plan, none whatsoever. This is a government that has no climate plan and neither does Enbridge. Birds of a feather, I guess.

But the city of Hamilton and many other cities across Ontario understand what is happening here, and they have taken the time from their democratically elected councils to move motions. I’m just going to talk about the city of Hamilton, whose motion was moved by Councillor Craig Cassar and seconded by Councillor Maureen Wilson. Essentially, they moved a motion which says they support the decision of the Ontario Energy Board to end the gas pipeline subsidy. Out of that, I will just excerpt a few of the pieces from this motion. It says:

“Whereas, natural gas is methane gas, which is a fossil fuel that causes approximately one third of Ontario’s GHG emissions, and must be phased out...;

“Whereas, the ... OEB decided to end a subsidy for methane gas pipelines to be built in new construction developments, effective 2025, finding that that this would lower energy bills for existing gas customers and improve affordability for new homebuyers”—so the OEB decision said it would lower energy bills and improve home affordability, just the exact opposite of what the government is saying. And that, finally:

“Therefore, be it resolved:

“That the city of Hamilton expresses the support for the decision of the Ontario Energy Board to end the gas pipeline subsidy and requests that the Ontario government allow the decision to stand.”

And they sent this resolution to the president of AMO. The Premier received this; the minister of—what did we call him—the minister of Enbridge, but actually, the Minister of Energy, Todd Smith; the Minister of Finance and so forth. So this government has received this, but no sooner did this government—my colleague wants to see that letter—but no sooner, can I say, did this motion pass—unanimously, I might say—at city council, and guess what? Enbridge wrote to the city council. It’s amazing, isn’t it?

I imagine, by the time I leave the chamber here and get back to my desk, I will have a call or a letter from Enbridge, because Enbridge is using a team of lobbyists to influence people, municipalities. They want to convince the province to overturn the OEB legislation, which we actually see happening now, despite the fact that the OEB came to an evidence-based decision after quite a long consultation. Again, it was made in the interests of the people of Ontario, not in the interests of for-profit corporations.

I’ll just say in passing, and people can put two and two together, but these two things exist in the same space, which is the Minister of Energy, who is—what is the word I want to say?—advocating, working for Enbridge against the interests of average consumers. His chief of staff is a former lobbyist for Enbridge—so, coincidence, possibly? I think not, but you be the judge. The Minister of Energy, who is siding with Enbridge over you as ratepayers and over you when your gas bills are skyrocketing—that minister’s chief of staff is a former lobbyist for Enbridge.

What is it my dad used to say? Well, I won’t even say it. But it’s really impossible to take this as a credible bill and as a decision that’s made in the interests of the people of Ontario, when we see that the lobbyists are all over the place and we see that they’re the minister’s own chief of staff. How in any way is that seen as impartial or credible? It’s not. This does not pass the sniff test, and you know it.

I would suggest that the way you’ve been spinning yourselves to try and justify this decision—particularly, I must say, the King’s Counsel members—is really shameful. It’s a discredit to your profession, to your training. Clearly, in the province of Ontario, the legal community is not happy with you guys at all, and I don’t blame them.

This brings me to another part of this government’s ongoing way they conduct business. Do they take the side of average Ontarians that can’t afford lobbyists, that don’t have shareholders, that don’t make large political donations? No, they do not. They take their direction from donors, from insiders, from big corporate interests, from lobbyists, from staffers who are right in the minister’s office. That’s who they take their marching orders from.

For the people at home, be clear: You’re just going to pay more. They want you to pay the costs of Enbridge’s infrastructure. They want you to pay for a hookup infrastructure that belongs to Enbridge so that Enbridge can then charge you not only for the hookup but charge you for their product. It makes absolutely no sense. They charge, charge, charge and charge again.

Then, this government will stand and stare you right in the face, full-face look at you and say, “Oh, we’re doing this to protect you because we have such a huge track record of protecting the average people in the province of Ontario. Trust us. We’re really on your side. Oh, who’s that behind us? No, those aren’t lobbyists. Those are not political donors.”

People don’t buy it, don’t believe it. That needs to be perfectly clear. People are on to this government. They know they don’t work for them. They know who this government works for.

But really, the member for Toronto–Danforth, in his excellent hour lead on this, said some of the government’s actions are shocking but not surprising. I agree—not surprising because fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Or when somebody tells you who they are the first time, believe them. That’s what we have here.

This government’s penchant for interference, for putting their thumb on the scale of justice to tip it in their favour or in the favour of their friends, is unparalleled. This government started by wanting to invoke the “notwithstanding” clause to cut the number of Toronto seats in half because the Premier was in a pique. His feelings were still hurt, so he wanted to punish Toronto. No—

It’s not answering to their whim.

I’m sorry to interrupt the member, but it is now 6 p.m.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1800.