Thank you for the applause. I appreciate that.

We are debating Bill 165. It is called the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, which is a little bit of creative writing, I think, and we’re going to get into it.

I was here during the kickoff debate. I listened to the minister speak, I listened to our critic speak—and I have to tell you, Speaker, I’m pretty aligned with our critic. He said several times, when he kicked off his debate, “Premier Ford wants to raise your gas bill. That’s what this is about.” Quite frankly, that is the beginning and end of this debate. There’s a lot of meat to put on the bones about explaining why, but that is what this is about. This is a track history with the Conservative government, where they continually put billionaires ahead of average Canadian people. For the average person in Ontario who is worried about putting food on the table, they couldn’t care less—but for billionaires like Uber, billionaires like developers, they cannot do enough for them.

There is an article that was in the Toronto Sun—as we know, a very far-left-leaning paper. I want to read this too. It was an op-ed by Peter Tabuns. It starts off: “Doug Ford Wants to Raise Your Gas Bill....

“Just before Christmas, the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) issued an important decision affecting the gas bills of nearly four million Ontario consumers.

“The OEB ordered natural gas distributor Enbridge Gas to bear the costs of expanding its natural gas infrastructure,”—basically saying, Enbridge Gas, you pay for this; it’s your infrastructure—“rather than imposing these costs on existing consumers.

“The OEB decision acknowledged the obvious: At a time when Ontario is moving away from fossil fuels, any plan to expand natural gas infrastructure carries enormous risks—not just to the environment but to your pocketbook. And so, the OEB decided Enbridge’s proposal was not in the interests of consumers.”

I’m going to just repeat that—it’s not in the article, but this is not in the interests of consumers. We keep hearing from the Conservative government how great this is for consumers, but this non-partisan independent organization clearly spells out that, no, it’s not. You’re being sold a plastic carrot. This is not good for the consumers.

The article goes on: “The next day the” Conservative “government announced that it would reverse the decision and protect the interests of Enbridge. It plans to pass legislation in February that will raise energy bills across the province and make life more expensive for new home buyers.

“It all goes back to a subsidy that most gas customers don’t even know they are paying. Right now, your gas bill”—if you’re paying a gas bill—“includes a charge worth hundreds of millions of dollars each year to cover Enbridge’s cost of expanding gas pipelines into new developments. On Dec. 21”—just before Christmas—“Ontario’s independent energy regulator decided to put a stop to this subsidy because it raises energy bills for existing gas customers and new home buyers, while also increasing financial risks for the whole gas system.”

So you have a system in place where affordability is top of mind for everybody. It doesn’t matter if you have a decent middle-class income—especially if you’re really struggling to make ends meet. But if you have a double income and you’re making good wages, you’re feeling it at the grocery store. Your price of natural gas, if you have natural gas—there’s not a person who says, “Oh, I don’t know roughly what it is.” They know it’s a lot, and when they look on that fee, they see that one of the fees is basically for the consumers, the ratepayers, to pay for Enbridge to carry their freight. What this independent board has said is that is not fair; that is not in the best interests of the consumers.

I was telling my colleagues earlier: This is no different, their argument about how if we amortize this and pass the consumers on to everybody—when I bought a house, it came with shingles, and the shingles were passed on to the cost to me. We didn’t amortize it by everybody who had shingles in the neighbourhood. It’s the cost of doing business.

And so what they’re telling Enbridge—Enbridge, which is incredibly wealthy. Enbridge’s profits last year—this isn’t just in general—was $16.507 billion. It’s not a mom-and-pop shop—$16.507 billion for Enbridge. We’re talking literally about billionaires here. What the Conservative government is saying: “Well, we can’t have Enbridge pay for this. Do you know who should pay for this?” The Conservative government is saying seniors should pay for this, renters should pay for this; everyone should pay for it except for the billionaires.

As New Democrats, we’re not into helping billionaires. They’ve got two parties already bending over backwards to help billionaires. We’re going to stay with working-class people. We think they need to have fewer hands in their pockets and keep a little money to themselves.

Going on: “Ending the subsidy would save gas customers more than $1 billion over four years in avoided pipeline subsidy costs, which comes to more than $300 per customer.” I talked to our critic about this. It ranges between $300 and $600. Honestly, I don’t want to get into that debate because I can’t do the math on it—but $300 is a strong number that you can count on. So, imagine you’re paying your bill, you’re heating your house, you’re paying for a service, you’re understanding it, and then somebody like Peter Tabuns comes along and explains to you, “What’s happening with the Conservative government is, they’re adding $300 to your bill.” You would be outraged. And when you say, “Why? What’s the rationale for this?”—the rationale is that the Conservative government wants to keep developers and wants to keep Enbridge happy, and so they want you to pay for their expenses. That’s what they think is fair. You pay $300 out of your pocket so that billionaire companies can increase profits to their shareholders.

“Ending the subsidy will also encourage developers to install heat pumps in new homes, which provide much cheaper heating and cooling, instead of gas.”

Basically, what they’re saying is, you have your thumb on the scale. Natural gas is starting to phase out. When I first got my first house, it was mainly heated by electricity, and electricity prices were going up. We had a little natural gas fireplace. There was a time when natural gas was cheaper, but the world is moving on. There are new technologies that are less expensive, and more and more people are going to be looking at heat pumps as they move along. As the end of life for your natural gas furnace starts to decline, you have to look at other alternatives.

The same way that people moved from oil furnaces to natural gas or to baseboards, people will start looking at things like heat pumps and other energy sources to heat their house. That’s just the reality.

What the OEB is saying to the people of Ontario and to Enbridge is, this trend is ending. We cannot sign up people and have people pay for this for decades as they transition away from it. It’s not fair to the ratepayers to carry the freight for something—that you need to invest in your own infrastructure.

The article continues: “Ending the subsidy would be a win-win-win-win. It would lower energy bills for existing customers,” because we wouldn’t be paying the $300 each. It would “lower energy bills for new homebuyers, lower carbon emissions,” which more and more people in Ontario are very concerned about. It is the end of February, for anyone watching at an earlier time or reading Hansard. It is the end of February, and we’re in the middle of a rainstorm in Toronto. In Sudbury, which is northern Ontario—not as far north as my colleague here, but Sudbury is northern Ontario—it was raining on Christmas day. I walked my dogs in the mud.

Climate is affecting what’s going on here, and people are moving along, and more and more people, especially youth but, as well, people who are older, are opening their eyes to the fact that we have to do something about carbon emissions. It is not a tomorrow problem. It’s a today problem. We had youth here yesterday talking to me, basically saying that they’re not sure if they should have kids because they don’t know what world they’ll be bringing their kids into, when it comes to how carbon is affecting our environment.

This plan basically is about avoiding even more costs down the road when homes heated with natural gas convert to heat pumps. The loser, though—and the article basically says—is Enbridge Gas. We get this. Enbridge Gas is a billion-dollar company—and just to repeat, it’s a $16.507-billion company, one-year profit. It’s the loser in this decision. And first out of the gate, Doug Ford and the Conservative government—“We’ve got to stand up for these billionaires, man.” They are front and centre. And we saw this during the greenbelt grab. We saw this in the last Working for Workers bill, when their members voted down an amendment to have misclassified independent contractors as workers so they can make at least minimum wage, right? Billionaires are always first in line when it comes to the Conservative government. They cannot wait to do enough for billionaires. They don’t care about regular people. They’re helped; they’re hurt—it doesn’t matter. It’s billionaires, it’s donors, front and centre.

So, Enbridge Gas, absolutely, is the loser. It would lose millions of dollars in profits, and it’s lobbying hard against the energy board decision.

“It’s no surprise that the Premier’s Minister of Energy”—whose name is here, but I won’t say it, because we can’t for parliamentary reasons—“has announced that they will pass legislation to overturn the decision.” This is what we’re debating right now.

The reality, though, is gas is no longer the cheapest heating source. “Investing in gas pipelines for heating is financially foolish because they will become obsolete and a massive cost to all current and future customers as we move away from gas heating.” That’s not to say that you can’t invest in gas. There’s this false choice that’s being presented by the Conservative government—where, because we’re not supporting these fees being downloaded on ratepayers, we’re against natural gas. If somebody wants natural gas—if that’s the alternative for them, absolutely they can. We’re saying that everyone else doesn’t have to pay for it.

Interjection.

Thank you. We’re going to move to the next question.

I need to apologize to the member. I need to interrupt the proceeding to announce that we’ve reached six and a half hours of debate.

Pursuant to standing order 50(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there has been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader directs the debate to continue.

The minister?

You can resume your answer, member for Simcoe–Grey.

We’re going to move to further debate.

Interjections.

I want to thank the minister for her hard work and for the question.

She’s absolutely right; we’ve seen the carbon tax impact the drying operations of our local farmers. A lot of those drying operations are using gas. These facilities are in place, and the intent here is to make sure—

At the same time, we have massive, massive plans to expand our nuclear sector, which will increase our already clean grid from over 90% upwards to 98%. It’s all part—

For years and years, implementation of capital costs have been paid. So if you’re on gas now, you’re paying for the infrastructure that you use and everybody else uses across the province. It has been going on for years. This is not new.

And if you want to tell us about the federal government—you’re taking us backward decades. We’re going to meet our target. We’re going to crush it; the federal government is not. They are so woefully behind, so we will not take any lessons on GHG emissions from the federal government.

I’ll tell you another thing. In Alliston, Ontario, when the federal government switched from hybrid cars and GHG emissions for the automotive sector to electric vehicle quotas, they’re crushing the industry and they’re kneecapping a planned way forward—and this is a planned way forward—just like the feds. The feds should be watching this. They should be listening to us, because we’re leading the country.

I want to thank the member first for his motion that he passed. I know he has spoken to a lot of Ontarians and a lot of farmers who use natural gas; actually, they rely on that. They feed us, and we rely on them for food security. Those same farmers—and I speak to many of them—also say that the carbon tax is holding them back from investing in things that would actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and hurting their ability to invest in innovative technology. But do you know what else stymies their growth? Access to energy.

I know the member’s riding is adjacent to mine. While we grow lots of onions and asparagus, he has a lot of the potatoes.

I want to ask him, what is he hearing from his local agricultural sector on the need for natural gas?

The member opposite is heckling me about heat pumps or something. What I’m saying is that people should have choice, and the people who are paying for natural gas in their house—people like me. I have a natural gas furnace. I have a natural gas fireplace. I don’t want to pay for Enbridge to have more profit. I’m going to pay for what I get and that’s all. That company is doing okay. They can get their hand out of my pocket and put it in their pocket and pay for the expansions they want to make.

Natural gas is no longer the cheapest heating source; it’s financially foolish. Now, this creates a cycle as well, because as people move away from natural gas—the same way people moved away from oil in the past, people are going to begin to move away from natural gas, and as they move away from natural gas, there will be fewer and fewer ratepayers. There will be fewer and fewer people using natural gas, and the cost of natural gas will go up; it will climb. There are fewer and fewer people paying for it.

When I was 15 or 16 years old, my parents had an oil furnace with this big oil tank, and I remember they would do the math and try to figure out how much we needed. If it was a cold winter, we would come get a little bit more oil because it was so expensive, but we didn’t fill it up; we got a little bit more because the cost was so high compared to everything else, and eventually, that cost forced us to abandon oil completely. And that’s what’s going to happen to these ratepayers.

The Conservative government is telling people for natural gas to get in there—and if they need to, if people want to, they can, but saying you should, recognizing that independent organizations are saying, “This is going the way of the dinosaur.” This is a gas source that came from the dinosaur, but it’s going back the way of the dinosaur. People are moving to new technologies. They’re moving on, just like we always have in the province, and that cost is going to amplify for these people. The government’s own expert electrification panel noted “growing indications that it is unlikely that the natural gas grid can be decarbonized and continue to deliver cost-effective building heat.”

So this isn’t just us sitting around coming up with this in a backroom. What we’re doing, as New Democrats, is, we’re listening to experts. We’re listening to the Conservative government’s own expert electrification panel. We are listening to the OEB. We’re listening to independent voices telling us stuff. We’re not making up our facts and choosing the ones we want. Independent organizations have no stake in the game, aside from being experts. We’re listening to them and making good decisions. Quite frankly, that’s what the government’s role is to do—listen to good voices and make good decisions.

It’s cliché to talk about the eagle and the owl, but the idea is, the owl is supposed to make wise decisions, and the eagle, representing the opposition, is supposed to help make improvements. It’s really tough if you’re not making wise decisions in the first place—a lot of heavy lifting on the eagle’s side.

Our neighbours like New York state and Montreal are prohibiting gas in new construction. The world is moving on, like I said. Passing legislation to reinstate a subsidy is completely out of step and risks financial disaster down the road. The Ontario Energy Board made the right decision. It’s based on evidence. I want to highlight that: It’s an evidence-based decision to lower energy bills.

The Ontario government is on course to make the wrong decision, based on backroom lobbying, to raise your energy bills. That’s what it comes down to.

We don’t want people on natural gas to have to pay more so that Enbridge can have more profit because apparently $16.507 billion isn’t enough for them.

What we’re saying for people who are having a hard time making ends meet is that Enbridge should keep their hands out of their pocket and the Conservative government shouldn’t be helping them take money out of your pocket.

I am almost at the end—two more paragraphs.

Over the years, we’ve seen government bend under public pressure and reverse decisions like opening parts of the greenbelt for development. And so, they have bent to pressure. I think this is going to be rushed through as quick as they can so the public doesn’t find out about this, but when the public finds out they’re going to be paying more and not getting anything for it, they’re going to be outraged, especially when they’re having a hard time making ends meet. I’m outraged that this is happening. I cannot believe the backlash when people find out what’s going to happen with this—that they’re paying for a billion-dollar company to be subsidized.

Where’s the subsidy for the person at home? Where’s the subsidy that we brought forward? We brought forward a subsidy so people would have heat pumps and access to them, like they’re doing in the Maritimes, and they voted against that. They said, “No, no. You’ve got to stick with Enbridge. Enbridge is our pal.”

The Conservative government has made this argument several times about, “We’re going to lower the cost for homes because the cost of having natural gas in the home is going to be passed on to the homebuyer.” They are out of their mind if they think that any homebuyer is going to think that that money is going to leave developers’ pockets and be passed on to them. There is no way that’s going to happen. Do you know where it’s going to be? It’s going to be in the developers’ pockets. It’s going to be a couple of grand in their pocket, and they’re going to peel off a couple of grand and they’re going to feed it back into donations for their buddies who helped them out. That’s what this is about. This isn’t about helping regular people. This is about helping people who donate to this party. This is about helping people who are billion-dollar companies.

“Hopefully the evidence and the truth will prevail, the government will respect the independent decision of the Ontario Energy Board, and you”—I’m talking to the people of Ontario—“will be protected from this rate increase.” That was by our energy critic. I’m not supposed to say his name, but it’s just spelled here: Peter Tabuns, “the NDP MPP for Toronto–Danforth and is the party’s critic for energy and climate action”—just for credit on what was in there.

So what we’re talking about in this bill, and I’ve said it again and again—and really, I started with this statement. I stole it from our energy critic, because he started with it: “Premier Ford wants to raise your gas bill. That’s what this is about.”

Thank you for that interesting speech you just did.

My question is, do you have faith in this government with their climate action? Are you proud of their climate action?

Interjections.

I would like to ask a really simple question to the member for Sudbury. He mentioned that he actually uses natural gas to heat his home. I was wondering how much he paid to get it connected to the natural gas network.

Okay.

So this really is coming down to a point where people are going to pay more, and it doesn’t make sense. There isn’t a rational argument. I know there are a bunch of spinning plates they’re trying to distract people with, and they’re basically flicking laser pointers to distract people, but at the end of the day, you’re going to pay more; you’re going to see it on your bill.

Independent organizations have said consumers should not pay for this. Enbridge should pay for this. And instead of standing up for the consumers, the Conservative government has rushed in to stand with Enbridge and say, “No, no, what we’re going to do is we’re going to overrule this. We think the independent agency is wrong. We think that these independent decisions are wrong. Coincidentally, it helps one of our friends. But we think they’re wrong, and so we’re going to overrule it.”

Ultimately, in debate, they’ll say, if this bill is passed—they have a majority government; this bill is going to pass. But I don’t know if they can withstand the backlash from the communities when they find out that they’re downloading more fees to them. They did this already with municipal taxes. Anyone who’s frustrated with the amount that your municipal taxes have been raised over the last year—what they did is, they downloaded developer fees to municipalities. Municipalities cannot run a deficit, and so that means they lower services or increase taxes—or a mix of both. So if you are upset with your municipal services or your property taxes going up, I want you to take some of that anger and rage away from your city council, and I want you to point it where it belongs: with a provincial government that decided that developer fees should be borne by the taxpayer.

The Premier is very proud of often saying there is only one taxpayer. He’s basically saying, “You’ll pay for it in the taxes.” And when you look at property taxes, you’re looking at seniors on fixed income; you’re looking at homeowners; you’re looking at rank-and-file regular people paying more and more because the Conservative government is balancing their books on the back of the municipalities and saying that you as property taxpayers can pay it. And they’re hoping you’re going to keep your rage in the municipality and not where it belongs with this Conservative government.

This bill is going to drive up energy costs. It is not going to bring them down. This is about raising your gas bill. I said it in the beginning. I said it halfway through. I’m going to say it again. I’m going to say it to everyone I speak to because they need to know. This bill is nothing more than a way to raise your gas bill up, to have you pay so that a billionaire company can make even more profit. That’s all it is. That’s not my opinion. That’s the opinion of independent regulators. That’s the opinion of independent voices who look at everything. They don’t really have a stake in the game—just that they’re experts. If you’re not listening to experts saying, “This is the wrong thing to do and an unfair thing to do,” you have to at least look at the math and say, “I don’t think that you should be paying for services that you’re not getting, and you should not be paying for a billion-dollar company like Enbridge”—a $16.507-billion company. They can pay their own way.

It makes no sense. This is an organization that is incredibly wealthy—and hats off to them; more than $16 billion for Enbridge. I think, “Good attempt.” You went for it and you were saying, “Hey, we want to give more money to our shareholders. What if we got our ratepayers to pay for part of this infrastructure, instead of us?” They tried to sneak one past the goalie, and the goalie knocked it out and said, “No, we’re not going to allow this, as the OEB.” That’s where it should have ended. I don’t blame Enbridge for trying. They’re trying to maximize their profits; they absolutely should try.

What’s wrong, though, is the Conservative government overruling this independent agency, these experts, and saying, “No, you got it wrong. Take care of my buddies for me.” That’s not about politics. That’s not what’s best for the people of Ontario. That’s what’s best for Enbridge. That’s what’s best for donors to the Conservative Party.

All I can remember over the last four years is the Conservative government having a litter cleanup day. A long time ago, I was a Cub Scout, and we had a litter cleanup day.

We need to take action on climate change. We have to take it seriously. We have to do it in some way.

So I don’t have a lot of faith—I don’t have a lot of faith in a lot of things they do, but especially not on this issue.

The member is right; the Ontario Energy Board did the review, they looked at the facts, and they said to Enbridge, “You cannot bill the four million customers that you have in Ontario for development fees for new homes. This is not the way things should go.”

I can tell you that in my riding the natural gas pipe goes to the end of my street. None of us are connected to natural gas—and we won’t be, because Enbridge is saying, “Oh, if you want us to come down, you will have to pay thousands and thousands of dollars.”

How could it be that an agency—they are the only providers that make $16 billion a year—needs to go into the pocket of all four million of their customers in order to stay in business?

I’m sorry; I’m just going to interrupt the member. According to the rules, you can’t refer to the Premier by his name—so the title of the riding, please.

Interjections.

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.

As always, it’s an honour to stand in my place on behalf of the good people of Algoma–Manitoulin.

Speaker, I’m torn on this piece of legislation—

Interjection: We’d love your vote, Mike.

Interjections.

If you look at this legislation and you try to analyze and you try to look through the weeds—I’ve listened to both sides. We have three sides, and sometimes there’s a fourth side. Somehow you try to come up the middle with a view and an opinion that will best serve your constituents, and that’s what I’m trying to do here—to bring their views to the floor of the Legislature as best as I can.

Some see this as the right call, that this will actually accelerate the process, as far as exposing us more to the use of fossil fuels. Some see this as an opportunity to making the decision and following through with what the OEB has recommended, and that it will take us away from fossil fuels. We see others are concerned that this means that there will be delays in certain housing projects and the construction of infrastructure—and I will bring some of those examples that I have here from some of the municipal leaders that I have in my riding.

What this is, definitely, is a government overreach. The government is going beyond what an independent agency has determined, as far as what’s best for Ontarians.

I take this and I look at it from a northern perspective, as well, because in northern Ontario we don’t always have the same luxuries that are available in other areas, particularly when it comes to energy costs. If you look at what was left by the previous government in northern Ontario in regard to the hydro costs, that was painful, and it’s still painful. Now, the present government that came in, that claims that they’ve done some adjustments to it—other than changing some of the curtains and changing the paint on the wall, northern Ontarians are still experiencing some increases to their hydro bills, to the tune of about 12% to 15%.

You just have to ask Roslyn Taylor—and I’ve often talked to the minister about Roslyn Taylor on Manitoulin Island. This government still hasn’t dealt with the delivery of charges for hydro rates, and those are still going up. Most of her charges, the delivery charges, outweigh what she pays for hydro. Would she benefit from being hooked up on natural gas? Absolutely, she would. She would welcome that opportunity.

Here’s another example: A lot of people across northern Ontario, when they’re looking at their energy costs and reducing it, would love to connect to gas, but they would also like to connect to heat pumps. I had a chat with the minister this morning about heat pumps and the availability of them, and I’m glad he has a heat pump. Many of the Conservative members who stood up have talked about having their own heat pumps. But the reality is, those same opportunities are not available to people in northern Ontario. Why? Because some of the programs that provide those heat pumps require an audit to come into your community or in your home to make that audit. Guess what? They do not come to northern Ontario, in many of our communities, so people are forced to put that up front. If you can afford putting that upfront cost, then you have the ability of participating in changing things—but most of them don’t.

The other thing is that there are many projects that are going on in my riding right now. One of them is potentially a new hotel that’s going to be built in Blind River. The price of the availability of energy is definitely a big factor in the project going ahead in their community.

The Beaumont grain dryer that was just constructed in Desbarats, which has brought a new storage facility for grain: A lot of the farmers across the North Shore have changed a lot of their production. They’re going more to grain storage, which required that storage. The company that did come and build in that area built it with the intention of getting off the propane that they’re on now and going onto the cheaper natural gas. Will they be able to make that transition now?

There’s also Nairn Centre, which is looking at some major housing development, and also the township of Thessalon. I will start with reading into the record some of the comments that have been sent to this government on behalf of the township of Nairn Centre. They say, “On behalf of the council and residents of the township of Nairn Centre and Hyman to express our deep concern regarding the recent decision to require all new gas consumers to pay the cost of connecting their homes or businesses to natural gas upfront rather than spreading it over a 40-year period. While we understand the need for sustainable energy practices and the importance of ensuring fair distribution costs, we believe this decision disproportionately affects our residents, particularly those in the process of building new homes and business and who already are dealing with inflation costs. Requiring upfront payment for a gas connection imposes sustained financial burden on new consumers, potentially deterring them from accessing this essential energy source and impacting the growth and development of our community.”

And from the community of Thessalon:

“Access to affordable energy to support this growth for homes and businesses is crucial. Energy infrastructure is vital to manufacturing, agriculture and consumer goods industries in Ontario. The impact of this decision, which conveys a strong bias against natural gas, will stifle economic growth and put housing and energy affordability at risk. These are issues that matter to most Ontarians and our municipality.

“We are supportive of a measured approach to Ontario’s energy transition. Leveraging pipeline infrastructure to deliver lower-carbon fuels such as renewable natural gas and hydrogen, alongside low-carbon hybrid heating technology such as heating pumps and carbon capture and sequestration, will help Ontario achieve its climate goals, and we want to be part of this solution.

“We recognize that there is simply not enough electricity available to replace the energy provided by natural gas and meet the increased demand for electrification. Government comments indicated that natural gas will continue to play an integral role in meeting the energy needs of this province. We need to work together to evolve Ontario’s energy system, one that leverages pipes and wires.”

I bring their comments to the floor because they are community representatives that are looking at large major projects in their community, and these are the concerns that they have. Do they want to participate and be part of the answer as far as doing a transition? Absolutely; let’s not dispute that fact. I think everybody in this room believes that we are in a process where we’re going to transition away from fossil fuels, and we need to start that now. But from the decision that is being done now by the OEB from 40 to zero or five to zero, there’s got to be somewhere in the middle where we could meet to do that transition so that everybody benefits from this and municipal projects that are in the process of moving forward aren’t put in danger of falling apart.

My gut is also responsible for those that are coming behind me, for my children and my grandchildren. We need to do something now. We need to do something today. We can’t pass the buck down the road, and I’m looking forward to watching at committee where the suggestions are going to be as to what is going to be coming.

The government claims that part of the discussions that were held by this government through the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel—that the information it did contain was not made available or was not provided to the OEB to consider. Okay, well, let’s have that information. Let’s have those discussions at committee so that we can do a transition that will be able to help all Ontarians and not put anybody at a disadvantage and provide the savings that everybody is looking forward to this government actually implementing, but also not overstepping your role as a government and really interfering with an independent agency in this province.

Next question?

My friend alluded to something that I still have a very huge curiosity on. Since the launch of the 2019 natural gas expansion program, we’ve supported projects that are supposed to connect over 17,000 customers in 59 communities across Ontario. We talked about the choice between heating and eating, and we’ve reached out to local government to expand natural gas to the ridings—and I know the member from Sudbury has some of these communities.

So I am going to continue to ask, would you stop your constituents from heating their homes with natural gas if that was the fuel source that they chose for themselves, given they’ve already made an application for the natural gas expansion?

To begin, it’s a bit of a strawman conversation. Sudbury is fortunate enough that we have access to natural gas in every area of my riding. But when you talk about access to natural gas, I think it’s fine, and I was clear in my debate—

Interjections.

I was clear in my debate that if people want access, that’s fine. I don’t think everyone else should pay for your access—it’s not just that I didn’t think that; the Ontario Energy Board didn’t think that. Independent experts said, “No, do not do this.”

And if I were to go out in my riding and I were to talk to people in my riding and say, “Do you want to pay an extra $300 for this billion-dollar company to be more profitable?”, every single one of them would say no, and they would be outraged that the Conservative government is trying to pass this off as good for them. It’s not good for them.

What we’ve heard many times during the debate from the Conservative side, the government side, is that this money is going to be passed along to the homebuyer, this money is going to be passed along to the condo buyer. I think it’s laughable.

On the drive down here, around Barrie, there are condos available from the mid-$800,000 range.

There is not one person looking at a condo, looking into a home, who thinks that Enbridge is going to pass the savings along to them. You guys have lost the thread. Honestly, there is nobody who thinks the price of their house is going to come down because of this incentive.

What’s going to happen is, this multi-billion dollar company is going to have a couple more billion dollars in their pocket that the existing ratepayers are going to pay for. It’s lose-lose. Everyone in the province will pay more, plus that fee won’t be passed along to the consumers who are buying new houses for the first time.

Merci à la députée de Nickel Belt, quelqu’un pour qui j’ai un grand respect dans cette maison.

Il faut croire que les gens des circonscriptions et puis les personnes à la tête des municipalités que j’emporte ici au plancher de la municipalité—eux autres croient, avec la présente régulation ou la présente décision que le gouvernement est en train de faire, qu’elle va avoir un impact négatif sur eux. Et puis, ils veulent faire certain que leur opinion est partagée avec le gouvernement pour que la décision qui soit prise ne les mette pas en désavantage pour faire le développement de leurs communautés pour offrir du logement, des nouveaux logements, pour les gens qui viennent aux communautés.

Je ne veux pas qu’on se fasse d’accroires : il y a une transition qu’on doit passer à travers dans la province. La transition, il faut qu’elle arrive aujourd’hui. Il faut qu’on commence à prendre des étapes aujourd’hui à faire une transition pour nous ôter à travers les gaz de carbone. Et puis, ces décisions-là devraient être prises avec une transition où elle ne va pas impacter les gens négativement.

C’est intéressant d’écouter le membre d’Algoma–Manitoulin. Je veux vraiment qu’il clarifie la différence entre aller chercher de l’aide pour des communautés qui veulent être connectées. Ça, ça ne fait pas partie du projet de loi. Le projet de loi, c’est vraiment pour les nouveaux développements où on va aller demander aux quatre millions d’Ontariens et Ontariennes déjà connectés de payer pour la connexion de ça.

Donc, dans son comté, est-ce qu’il y a des municipalités qui auraient aimé ça, être connectées? Oui. Est-ce que ça, ça va les aider? Non. Et est-ce qu’il pense qu’Enbridge, qui fait 16 milliards de dollars par année, pourrait aller chercher le 1 milliard de dollars—qu’on veut aller chercher des quatre millions de contribuables—dans leurs profits plutôt que d’aller chercher ça dans la poche des quatre millions d’Ontariens et Ontariennes qui sont déjà connectés?

I want to thank the member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell for his question. I’ve always been engaged with municipal leaders, community members, organizations and so on. Sometimes there are particular sensitive issues that come up that require a little bit more engagement, and this is one of those engagements.

No, it’s not the first time that we’ve talked in my riding when it comes to natural gas. I can tell you I was a huge advocate in order to help the community of Prince township. Just a couple of years ago we were able, and successful, to make a connection to bringing reduced rates to those individuals to get them off of firewood and oil and to get them to provide new options from electricity.

But anyway, this is not going to be an easy issue for any of us in this room. Again, I look at the government, and you’re overstepping your role as a government on an independent agency, and that is not sitting well with many Ontarians.

We’re going to move to questions.