J’ai bien aimé la présentation que le député de Mushkegowuk–Baie James a faite. C’est clair : le projet de loi existe parce que le conseil de l’énergie de l’Ontario a fait une étude suite à la demande d’Enbridge. Enbridge ne veut pas payer pour les infrastructures pour amener le gaz naturel; ils veulent seulement charger quand on utilise le gaz naturel. Ils veulent que les infrastructures soient payées par n’importe qui, sauf eux.

Le conseil de l’énergie de l’Ontario a vérifié ça puis leur a dit : « Absolument pas. Vous voulez aller vous chercher des nouveaux consommateurs? Vous allez payer pour les infrastructures pour aller chercher des nouveaux consommateurs. »

Le gouvernement Ford n’est pas heureux avec ça. Il a dit : « Mon Dieu, ça va diminuer les profits d’Enbridge, qui ont seulement 16 milliards de profit par année. On ne voudrait pas voir descendre ça. Donc, on va charger aux quatre millions d’Ontariens et Ontariennes qui sont connectés 400 $ de plus par mois pour qu’Enbridge garde ses profits. »

Est-ce que c’est correct avec vous, ça—

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.

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?

I just had a farmer in my region who texted me, and he was wondering if he can install a heat pump on his grain dryer. I said, “No, no. You’ve got to use natural gas. There’s no way.”

When we’re talking about heat pumps in the northern region—even in my region in eastern Ontario, I’ve got a heat pump, but I’ve got a natural gas backup, and that’s the story about all rural municipalities in the northern area. If you want to use a heat pump, you’ve got to have a backup source. It has to be an electric duct heater, whatever. That’s the reality.

So how can you not understand the reality of rural Ontario? I know you’re living in Toronto, but you’ve got to understand the reality of rural Ontario.

The member from Humber River–Black Creek really spelled this out well. He talked about his constituent Tom.

This bill is going to give politicians the power to force consumers to pay costs that the Ontario Energy Board has ruled they shouldn’t have to pay. It doesn’t make any sense. This means the government is going to add the over $1 billion in cost to the gas bills of nearly four million consumers, each of them paying an average of $300 or more from their pocket.

You clearly talked about how the Conservative government is siding with billionaire corporations over regular people.

What is the precedent when a majority government interferes with an independent organization like the Ontario Energy Board to overrule news they don’t want to accept?

Next question.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The member for London North Centre has given notice of dissatisfaction with the answer to a question given by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and somebody on the government side will have five minutes to reply.

The member for London North Centre.

Can’t we all just get along in in here?

Interjection: No.

Here’s the thing: I keep thinking about the future, 10, 15—2040—16 years from now. Way more people are going to switch to heat pumps, and then what’s going to happen is it’s going to drive up the cost for—

Interjections.

Number two is, I’m talking about the future, and they’re saying that you don’t care about rural customers—I don’t believe that. But why would they give the minister the powers that they are if they’re that worried about what it is you would do? Because it’s not just about what the minister is going to do next week; it’s about what a minister is going to do in 2035.

I was hearing you speak, and I spoke on this. We have a lot of constituents who are having a very hard time. I know everyone has lots and lots of constituents who are struggling right now to make ends meet and to be able to “mettre les deux bouts ensemble,” to be able to pay the bills.

Can you talk on your end about your constituency? I know you named a few—but can you talk about how difficult it is? If they have another $300 to $400 gas bill, how much are they going to struggle, and how much is it going to hurt them? I know if they do it in my riding, they’re going to hurt, and that may mean that they’ll lose where they’re going to be staying. So I’d like to hear from you on that.

It’s not often that we hear responses such as we did from this government. When I look at this speech, I was thinking about distinction without a difference. We’re here this evening because the government failed to answer the most simple of questions. In short, all I requested was an answer to a term that they have been using for the past 18 and some months. My question was: “What does the government mean when it says ‘attainable housing’?”

All of us in the space really should think back to our formative years in the education system. I swear everyone in this chamber would do well to remember standards of behaviour, decorum and manners, but that’s a different topic for a different time.

When asked to provide an answer, as a young person, if you tried too pull the wool over the teacher’s eyes, they would ask you again to try again and answer the question. I think of all the student groups who come and visit us here and the behaviour of government members blustering and backslapping, all while dodging the most simple accountability and transparency. That’s basically what we have here: A situation whereby the government refused to answer the question. They were given a second opportunity; they still refused to answer.

And here we are with their third chance. But quite frankly, Speaker, I’m not holding my breath. If I do end up hearing one, well, I’ll be quite surprised.

I also want to say, if it the government doesn’t know what it means when it says “attainable housing,” that’s okay, too—no harm, no foul—but be forthright, be upfront about it. Just admit that you don’t know what you’re saying when you say this—and it’s been going on for 18 months. You know, another thing your teacher probably told you in your formative years is that it is far easier to simply tell the truth.

Now, in terms of this question itself, I asked for the definition of “attainable housing” and the responses were bizarre. The responses did not at all address what I was asking. The Minister of Housing, the government House leader, mentioned the 21% increase in homelessness funding that’s coming through to London, and unfortunately indicated something that was contrary to the fact—that it was not something that I had asked for—when in actual point in fact, as I had the opportunity to point out, I had been asking for emergency homeless funding since I was elected.

Cities across Ontario should be evaluated based on rezonings and building permits issued rather than the number of new homes that are under construction or housing starts. Developers get shovels in the ground, not politicians. This government is talking all about—and we’ve seen this happen in Bill 134, the Affordable Homes and Good Jobs Act. They mention “attainable” once in that piece of legislation: “The Development Charges Act, 1997 includes provisions exempting affordable and attainable residential units from development charges.” You would think that when they have that word “attainable” and it’s part of a development charge removal that they would actually understand what “attainable” means. But unfortunately, that’s the only time it appears in it.

For the government’s benefit, I’d like to provide you with the definition of what “attainable” means. It’s an adjective for the verb “to reach, to achieve, to accomplish or to gain, to obtain.”

I also wanted to provide a little bit of background indicating that it was a PC Premier, Bill Davis, who also did really effectively bring in rent control, something this government is ideologically opposed to, and they want people to pay when they’re inhabiting a building after November 2018. There was a radio interview with the Premier on 640 Toronto, and he even admitted that they’re trying to work out what “attainable housing” is and that they’re working with stakeholders. They’ve been using the term for 18 months, and they still don’t know. “Attainable” is going to be a lower cost of a regular-priced home.

You know, Speaker, it’s kind of embarrassing that this government has been using this term, bandying it about, really having it as a carrot for the people of Ontario, when they don’t actually know what it means.

So Speaker, I’d like to ask the question of the government, what is “attainable” when people can’t even get into affordable housing? We have a crisis across this province with housing. I wish this government would stop using it as a shield for what they’re doing and actually address the cost of living crisis that we have here in Ontario.

Thank you for that excellent question.

It’s astounding that this government would choose constituents, existing energy customers, to have to pay increased costs in this affordability crisis instead of Enbridge, posting higher and higher profits—profit margins that are just through the roof. No, they want to pass that down.

And it’s just going to be so interesting to see government members, if they want to be fair and honest, explain, maybe in a newsletter, “Hey, your energy bill, your gas bill is going to go up, because Enbridge doesn’t want to pay out of its profits, and you know what? We always agree with the big guys making lots of money over the little guy.” I just can’t wait to see them explain that.

Actually, for the first part of that question, I’d like to quote the OEB report, as reported by theenergymix.com. The OEB looked at that, and they said, “The OEB is not satisfied that Enbridge Gas’s proposal will not lead to an overbuilt, underutilized gas system in the face of the energy transition”—this came from the board itself.

And theenergymix.com went on to say:

“That assumption points to a problem for future homeowners, who would be committed to paying installation costs to the utility over the full 40-year span. The decision to construct a new development with gas infrastructure would be the developer’s, but would saddle homeowners with the financial burden, even if some of them later decided to adopt some other heating option, like a heat pump.”

That is the rationale, in part, that the decision made by the OEB was based on. But of course, this government doesn’t like no—this government wants to do whatever it is, and this government will always say yes when big business says, “Help me instead of the little guy.”

Just stand up to Enbridge. Stand up to big business. Stand up for Enbridge customers and help them save costs on this. But you don’t want to do it, of course—of course not.