Next question?

You know, it is really astounding to hear. Does the member understand that if you reduce, let’s say, the cost of construction to a developer by a couple of thousand dollars—let’s say $4,000, as he’s been quoting—that this does not necessarily mean that the cost of purchase to a new home purchaser will be minus $4,000? Home builders will sell for whatever they can sell for. If they can sell for more, they’ll sell for more. Cost of construction does not necessarily equate to cost of purchase, so why do you keep simplifying it? Why does he keep saying it in this way? Because that’s simply not correct.

While we heard that the opposition enjoy adding to the cost of living for Ontarians, we are doing it from the other direction: We are putting money into people’s pockets.

We’ve heard throughout the debate that the Ontario Energy Board’s decision in December 2023 would increase housing prices by $4,400 on average, as the member from Whitby mentioned earlier. Could the member give the House more of an idea on how much we could save if we implement the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act?

I thank my colleague for that. You know, that’s an excellent question, because it also, I think, allows a more direct response.

The savings if we implement this act are big, not just for the homeowners, but for taxpayers and businesses as well. Under the OEB’s decision, a new recreation and wellness centre in the GTA would cost approximately $128,000 upfront. A new 39-home subdivision in the GTA would cost approximately $357,000 upfront. A recent restaurant project in southwestern Ontario, inside of a commercial plaza, would cost approximately $18,000.

By reversing this decision, these costs will be paid over 40 years, just like a mortgage, making new homes and developments—yes—more affordable. That’s a win. That’s a win for taxpayers.

And we’re talking about natural gas connection costs. That’s what we’re talking about here, and access to reliable, affordable energy is critical to powering the new homes we are building and will be building as, increasingly, we meet our targets—and we are meeting our targets. We just had announcements in Brampton. We had announcements here in the city of Toronto. We’re meeting our targets.

The Ontario Energy Board’s recent decision to require natural gas connection costs on new homes and small businesses which were previously paid over 40 years to be paid upfront will only increase the cost of new homes and buildings.

Anyway, thank you for the question from the member from Sarnia, and all of his sterling service here in the Ontario Legislature.

What’s clear is that Ontario is continuing to grow. That means that our regulations need to grow with it. Does that make sense? It does.

Our friends over in British Columbia—and I’m sure the official opposition have a lot of friends in British Columbia—have a threshold of $20 million for their natural gas. How is Ontario’s threshold only $2 million, the same that it was 20 years ago?

If Ontario wants to keep up with the growth that Ontario has seen in the past 10 years, and it’s been significant, then we need to continue to cut red tape, and yes, make life affordable for hard-working families.

I want to get something on the record before I ask the member a question: Most people’s pension plans in this province are invested in Enbridge pipelines. That’s the billionaires you’re talking about, so you guys need to go to the economics and understand that most of the people you’re talking about are your constituents, who would be hurt if this money—it’s not sitting under a mattress somewhere; it’s invested in equipment, pipelines etc.

But anyway, back to the member for Whitby: I’d like to ask you about the leave to construct.

J’aimerais poser la question suivante au député de Mushkegowuk–James Bay : premièrement, j’ai bien de la misère à comprendre la façon dont il—la pensée en arrière de ce qui se passe, exactement. Par moment, on parle de l’environnement, de réduire les émissions de gaz, puis à un autre moment on parle des coûts de la connexion.

Donc, il faudrait quand même comprendre ce qu’on débat ici. Est-ce que c’est le côté environnement qui nous préoccupe, ou est-ce que c’est le côté des coûts qui sont reliés à l’installation du gaz naturel? Puis, si c’est l’environnement, bien, pourquoi ce parti-là de l’opposition a-t-il voté contre l’énergie nucléaire? Tous les projets qu’on présente pour l’énergie nucléaire, qui sont exactement la meilleure affaire pour l’environnement—même les environnementalistes le disent, que c’est ça que ça prend, partout au Canada.

Donc, pourquoi? Est-ce que c’est l’environnement qui les préoccupe ou les coûts des connexions?

Écoute, j’essayais d’expliquer votre logique. D’après ce que je peux voir, vous ne la comprenez pas, vous autres, non plus. Mais ce qui était, en particulier, pourquoi—je disais que le gouvernement dit que ça semble être un problème, qu’ils ne seront pas capables de bâtir à cause que—la personne qui a parlé juste avant moi disait que non, ça va coûter des milles puis des milles s’ils veulent se connecter au gaz naturel. Nous autres, on dit : « Non, ils peuvent se connecter, en autant que c’est Enbridge qui paye. » C’est ça qu’on dit.

Mais vous autres, vous faites illusion : « Non, on ne pourra pas bâtir. » C’est ça que vous dites dans vos discours, et c’est pour ça que je ne comprends pas sa question, parce que c’est ce que vous dites dans vos discours, c’est ce que vous semblez dire à la population. Mais tout ce temps-là, on sait que les coûts vont monter, et vous avez un titre comme « keep the costs down ».

Je m’excuse, mais moi, je n’achète pas.

Puis là on dit qu’il y a une multinationale qui fait près de—bien, ce n’est pas « une » multinationale; c’est la seule compagnie énergétique à gaz qu’on a en province. Il n’y a pas de compétition; on s’entend. Puis on dit qu’une institution indépendante, le « energy board », dit de ne pas mettre c’est coûts-là attachés par ce que, tu sais, il faut s’éloigner de tout ça. Qu’Enbridge les amène, mais ce ne devrait pas être les consommateurs qui payent.

Fait que, non, je ne suis pas content avec ça et, non, je ne suis pas d’accord avec ça, et je ne crois pas que n’importe quel concitoyen devrait payer ces 400 $ à la place d’une compagnie comme Enbridge, qui a fait 16,5 milliards—on ne parle pas de millions, là. Puis même des millions, on s’entend, c’est des bidous. Mais des milliards—

Pour poser la question: le député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

On a besoin d’une réponse de la part du député de Mushkegowuk–Baie James.

Merci.

Prochaine question? Next question?

The member for Ottawa South.

The member for Mushkegowuk–James Bay to respond.

We’re going to move to further debate.

Interjections.

Start the clock.

The member for Humber River–Black Creek can resume.

Ce n’est pas correct—

Reliable and affordable energy: That seems to be what I think we can all agree upon as what we want for the people of Ontario. But once again, the opposition has kind of a conundrum. I know the member represents James Bay, represents constituents who do agree that natural gas should have a role in heating their locations and have applied for natural gas expansion programs through the ministry. And the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act is a great way for the member opposite to demonstrate to their constituents that they’ve been listening to them and they want to make it more affordable to buy a home, knowing what the cost of a house will be if we don’t do this.

Will the member opposite please commit to voting for this act so their constituents can get access to the reliable and affordable energy that have asked for?

I just want to get this right. I know that the long-term prospects for giving the minister this kind of power over OEB decisions is just not a good idea. Maybe we’re thinking it’s a good idea today, but five years from now, is it going to be a good idea? Ten years from now, is it going to be a good idea?

But here’s the thing: I think people are having a hard time thinking about the future. What’s going to happen here? More and more people are going to buy heat pumps. They’re going to go off natural gas, just like happened in the 1960s and 1970s. That’s what’s going to happen, and what will happen with what you’re proposing is, those few people who are left are going to pay more and more and more. Right now, everybody’s going to pay more.

I just want to understand why we’re not thinking about the future and the kind of pressure that we’re going to put on people economically. Like, it’s all good to think about today and try to spread that all over four million people, four million users, but there’s going to come a point—

What I’m saying is that if they want natural gas, Enbridge can bring it and then they just pay their bills. Why should it be consumers paying the bill? Why is it okay that they pay $300 to $400 more for the same bill? It’s wrong. It’s taking money away from people who should not be paying. An independent board said, “No, this is not the way to go. Enbridge should pay to connect.”

What’s wrong with this picture? What’s wrong is that you seem to side with a company that is making $16.5 billion over consumers. Consumers are all your people too. Why would they pay $300 to $400 more? It’s wrong. Some of these people are struggling. I know they’re struggling in my riding. They’ve got to be struggling in your riding also. We all have them. So why is it okay? Where is it okay to—

Interjections.

It’s unfair to the consumer. It’s unfair to the consumer, and to give that power to the minister—I agree with you; it’s wrong. They shouldn’t. They should have an independent tell us—don’t forget. There’s no competition when it comes to natural gas. So why is it that we are bending to Enbridge and passing this cost to the rest of the consumers? It is wrong. People are struggling. We’re having a hard time, and this is not the time to put another $400 or $300 on their bill.

It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Humber River–Black Creek who, thanks to this government, will be paying more for their gas bills as a result of this legislation. And you know what? They’re not going to be happy. They’re got not going to buy the line that this is the government for the little guy because, as we see more and more, it is not.

I’d like to go through how a decision like this actually unfolds. So we’ve got an OEB decision that happens last year. The OEB, which is a regulator that’s tasked at looking at all aspects of energy production, distribution, sale, all of it, makes a decision, not just for the present, but for the future—in fact, a decision that the minister and the parliamentary assistant made for themselves choosing a different form of heating their own home. The decision was, “You know what? The investors of Enbridge, the monopoly that provides the gas doesn’t want foot the risk.” And the OEB says, “We don’t think it’s acceptable to pass that risk on to consumers, so guess what? The answer is no.”

So what do you think happened when that occurred? I’ll tell you what happened: Someone high up in Enbridge made a phone call in moments—probably the decision is rendered, and they’re on the phone and they’re making a phone call. I don’t think it’s to the minister or to the parliamentary assistant, because we all know that the decisions that are made by this government come from a cloud, a shadow that exists around the leadership, that calls the shots. And those shots are dictated to ministers who have no decision-making in this process—zero. I know this. It certainly is not the backbench members but, shamefully, I don’t think it’s the ministers, for a large part.

So Enbridge makes this phone call and says, “What are you doing? What are you doing? Guys, what are we paying you for? What are we paying you for? Reverse this. Reverse it.” Then, developers who are paying them call and say, “Oh, my god. I don’t want to have to pay for this.” And they’re certainly not going to pass that down in savings of new home purchases. It’s simple economics. Home builders will charge what they can charge. If they can charge $500,000, $600,000 or $1 million to sell a home, they’re going to charge it, because the cost of construction does not necessarily equate to the cost of sale. It’s economics. This is the party of capitalism. They understand it crystal clear. But then they get up here and they read prepared notes and talk about something else. It’s outrageous.

So, the power behind this government says to them, “No. You have to go in. Forget democracy. Don’t respect what the regulator wants. Do what we say.” And you know what this government says?

“You call the shots, Enbridge. Of course. Big business always calls the shots with this.” Now, did whoever that member was stand up for the little guy and say, “Wait a sec, Enbridge. While all of us are struggling, while all of us are suffering, you, the monopoly, made 6% increase in profits. You’re now at $16.5 billion. Get your investors to pay for this. We’re the government of the little guy”? Absolutely not. They said, “Let’s take that money and put it on the backs of the consumers.”

Interjection.

Interjections.

Is that quote verbatim?

Point of order, Speaker.

Point of order: the member from Nepean.

The member is reminded of the rules. Please use the title or a member’s riding.

You can continue, please.

I’ll allow the member to continue—with carefulness, please.

The member for Sault. Ste. Marie has a point of order.

I will allow the member to continue.

Start the clock, please.

The member for Sault Ste. Marie has a point of order.

So we’re going to resume, and we’ll restart the clock. We’re going to complete the answer and move on respectfully. And I would like to be able to hear the answer and the questions. Thank you.

The member for Humber River–Black Creek.

Withdraw.

Do you know what? I’m trying to wake up government members, because I’m trying to get them to fight for the interests of their own constituents. They know the people who right now have gas hookups are going to pay more. Are these government members going to send out a newsletter and say, “Do you know what? You’re going to pay more thanks to me, thanks to the decisions that we made”? They’re absolutely not going to do it. They’re going to spin it like a laundry machine, like they always do.

And so here’s the decision that’s made by the OEB—and I’m going to give a couple of quotes. Someone mentioned there was a dissenting position; the one dissenter said the amortization period of 40 years is too much and to reduce it by half, but the other OEB members looked at it and they said, “This is not fair to the consumer.”

I would have expected a government of the little guy to get out there and say, “No, this isn’t fair. Everyone else is tightening their belts. No one can afford to pay. Graham’s constituents can’t afford to pay an extra amount.” They can’t. So is he or are the rest of them going to get up and say, “Do you know what? This isn’t fair. Cut into that”—

Interjections.

What did the OEB say? In their own quotes:

“The risk that arises from the energy transition ... from gas customers leaving the gas system as they transition to electricity to meet energy needs ... gives rise to assets that are not fully depreciated but are no longer used and useful. This results in stranded asset costs that Enbridge Gas would seek to recover from the remaining gas customers. This in turn would increase rates for those gas customers, leading more customers to leave the gas system, potentially leading to a continuing financial decline for the utility, often referred to as the utility death spiral”—something that Graham, Lisa and Ross, forward-thinking constituents here in Ontario, are concerned about. And so—

The OEB, the regulator, looked at what Enbridge wanted to do—the monopoly that has seen an increase in their profits; the monopoly that has seen profits of $16.5 billion. And the monopoly owner tried to pull a fast one, saying, “Let’s pass this cost on to consumers.” And constituents that I named before—they don’t want their last names to be said here in the chamber, so I referred to them by their first names. The reality is, they don’t want to pay those costs, because the monopoly, Enbridge, could.

The regulator made a decision in the public interest. As usual, this is a government that doesn’t like to take no from experts, doesn’t want to hear no. This is a government that simply wants to do what it wants to do, and when it doesn’t get what it wants, like a little child, it tries to rip up the rules. It’s like playing a card game with someone who flips the table. That’s what they did. They did it because they got the phone call from Enbridge saying, “Don’t do this.”

The OEB is looking to the future of energy production. The minister sees the future and has a heat pump in their home; the parliamentary assistant does the same.

This decision will incentivize the future of energy production in this province. It is a forward-thinking decision, a decision that was made with a lot of thought, and it was a decision made to benefit the existing customers, in the public interest.

Shamefully, this government chose to put more money in the pockets and the profit margins of Enbridge, the monopoly, instead of their own constituents, the Enbridge purchaser right now.

I just can’t see this government, with a straight face, get up and say they’re for the little guy, because they’re just not.

Interjections.

I’ve laid out the rationale. The OEB laid out the rationale. I wish, for once, that this government, maybe in caucus—that the members, even the ministers, would stand up and do something for the little guy in this province, not just what the big, big corporations want, for once. Please, please do that. Please do it for the constituents I named. Do it for all Ontarians, just for once, please.

It’s wonderful to rise this afternoon to ask a question to the member from Humber River–Black Creek. I know I’m new in this place, but that is the standing orders—so I ask my question to the member for Humber River–Black Creek.

This member is from Toronto. They have the benefit of natural gas in hookups to natural gas everywhere—now they want to take away that ability for rural Ontario, everyone. It’s shameful.

I want to ask the member—just yes or no—do you support natural gas expansion in rural and northern Ontario?