Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Yes, it’s not often we catch ourselves outside of our seats, so that was a great transition.

I also, on behalf of the official opposition, want to welcome WoodGreen Community Services to the Legislature, and a special shout-out to their president and CEO, Anne Babcock. I’m looking forward to continuing conversations with you. Thank you for being here.

I have a petition entitled “Vulnerable Persons Alert.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas there is a gap in our current emergency alert system that needs to be addressed;

“Whereas a vulnerable persons alert would help ensure the safety of our loved ones in a situation where time is critical;

“Whereas several municipal councils, including, Brighton, Midland, Bonfield township, Cobourg and Mississauga and several others, have passed resolutions calling for a new emergency alert to protect our loved ones;

“Whereas over 90,000 people have signed an online petition calling for a ‘Draven Alert’ and over 6,000 people have signed an online petition calling for ‘Love’s Law’, for vulnerable people who go missing;

“Whereas this new alert would be an additional tool in the tool box for police forces to use to locate missing, vulnerable people locally and regionally;

“Whereas this bill is a common-sense proposal and non-partisan in nature, to help missing vulnerable persons find their way safely home;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Support and pass Bill 74, Missing Persons Amendment Act, 2023.”

I wholeheartedly support this petition. I will affix my name to it and give it to Ellen to bring to the Clerk.

And their staff.

To the member opposite: The Canadian government has mandated a phase-down of natural gas heating and to have carbon zero by 2050. This cost that Enbridge is asking for—the OEB has decided that it’s not fair to ask the ratepayers to pay into something that is actually so risky and not going to be able to be built over years and years, since natural gas will eventually phase out.

We’ve seen $16 billion in profit to Enbridge. Why does the government think that the ratepayers, the people who pay the bills every month, can afford to pay more instead of taking it from a monopoly corporation that made $16 billion in profit last year?

Thank you to the member from Sudbury for his debate on Bill 165, titled Keeping Energy Costs Down Act. It’s the title that concerns me right off the bat—typical of this Conservative government—because, really, it’s keeping the costs down for who? It’s keeping the costs down for Enbridge, which the government is protecting over the ratepayers. We hear day in and day out how expensive life is for people being able to heat their homes, and now this government is literally going to allow Enbridge to put a bigger cost on our heating bills to protect Enbridge profits.

Can the member give his comments on why he thinks the government is so angry?

Interjections.

It’s always interesting to be in the Legislature and to participate in debates that this government brings forward. I heard some definitely interesting things from the member opposite. He talked about the legislation would appoint a new chair to the OEB. Is that stacking the deck once again like they’re going doing to the judicial system? I mean, this is the trend that we’re seeing here.

We’re also hearing about new customers, and yet we’ve heard from folks in the north that they have not been able to get the same privileges of connection, and yet new builds are going to get the privilege because of this government’s way of thinking. This is a $16-billion-a-year-profit company that will benefit once again from the ratepayers who are already overburdened with monthly bills. Why do you think it’s acceptable to increase a person’s monthly gas bill?