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.

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?

Thank you very much to the member of the opposition who talked to many aspects of saving money for the end users and how the changes—and I don’t know. He said that the bill is trying to revert or restore the exact situation which was before the decision of OEB, so it’s not like introducing something new. It’s exactly trying to keep things as they were. If they want to put infrastructure, we have to put the investment and a return will be in 40 years.

Talking about savings—we can talk about savings. We can talk about scrapping the cap-and-trade carbon. We can speak about introducing the one-bill Ontario Electricity Rebate. So there are savings that we have been trying to do in energy, but this is about the infrastructure and the 40 years instead having to pay.

Thank you for the question. I was wondering also what the government really wanted to do, and the answer is in the Environmental Registry of Ontario notes. It says there that the government wants to first go right back to the 40-year revenue horizon, which means that natural gas infrastructure is completely free to the developer but is paid for by us, the ratepayers, the homeowners. They’re going back. Now, they’ve added a whole bunch of things so that they can interfere with how the OEB operates, make it redo hearings, make it hold extra, what they call, generic hearings.

But in the Environmental Registry, it says, “We first want to go back to that 40 years.” In fact, every one of the people, including Enbridge, wanted to shorten that 40 years to a shorter time.

So what we’re saying is, let’s give developers a rational economic choice. They have to feel a little bit that there is a cost that has to be recovered. So that’s why we should be protecting, we should be allowing the Ontario Energy Board to be an independent adjudicator to protect consumers.

We also need natural gas for the next few years at peak times to make sure that the electricity is reliable when supply and demand fluctuate. It’s not like we’re getting rid of natural gas tomorrow. I think if the member is suggesting that, he is wrong. There is a place.

When a developer builds a new subdivision and decides whether to put natural gas in, we want it to be a rational decision, where the cost is—

For me, what’s important is that the OEB is trying to protect consumers. This principle should apply not just to Enbridge but to all other natural gas distributors as well. So for me, what’s important is the principle. I’m not out to get anybody. What I want is this principle that if you decide to build natural gas infrastructure, you should make a rational decision based on how long it’s expected to be used. And if you’re not going to recover the cost of that natural gas infrastructure from the gas bills paid by the customers, then you need to have some fraction of that cost paid up front. That has to be a clear payment so that a rational economic decision is made.

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.

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?

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?