It’s always an honour to rise and speak in the House, and today I’m speaking on second reading of Bill 165, a bill that should really be called “keeping energy costs down for Enbridge,” because it’s certainly not keeping energy costs down for gas customers in this province.

What this bill is doing is forcing existing ratepayers, people who currently use methane fossil gas in their homes, to subsidize the hookup of new fossil gas infrastructure in our province, in order to support a company that had profits of $16.5 billion last year and whose CEO earns a nice salary of $19 million a year. I don’t think Enbridge needs a subsidy. I think the people of Ontario could use a bit of a break, but certainly not Enbridge.

What are the implications of taking the unprecedented step, for the first time in Ontario history, to overturn an OEB decision? What are implications for the people of the province? Well, Enbridge is going to save $250 million a year just up front. But what does that mean for existing gas customers in Ontario? Well, if you take this complete decision, according to Environmental Defence, Enbridge is going to save around $2 billion over the five years of this decision, which equals $600 per fossil gas customer in Ontario.

I just want the people of this province to understand what is happening here. Enbridge is getting a subsidy and it’s going to cost you—if you use fossil gas in this province—on average $600 a person. I think that’s a bad deal, at least for the people of Ontario. It’s a pretty good deal for the 19-million-dollar man and his company, Enbridge, but certainly not a good deal for the people of Ontario.

If there was no other alternative or no other option for people, or if developers had no other way of heating and cooling people’s homes, then maybe you could make an argument that such a subsidy for Enbridge costing ratepayers so much money would be justified. But it’s not. Because as the OEB decision—and I’ll remind you that the OEB decision was based on input from hundreds and hundreds of stakeholders, producing thousands and thousands of pages of documentation to justify this decision that it would actually be cheaper for people to heat and cool their homes with heat pumps. Not only is the government taking the unprecedented step of overturning this OEB decision, they’re actually doing it to disincentivize developers putting in technology that will be cheaper.

As a matter of fact, over the average life-cycle cost of a heat pump versus a gas furnace, those new home owners will have 13% lower costs. So we’re asking ratepayers to subsidize Enbridge for new home owners to have more expensive heating and cooling in their homes.

According to the OEB decision—if you actually take the time to read the decision—there will be no incremental cost increases for developers if they put in heat pumps and don’t do the initial gas hookups in the first place. So not only do we risk forcing new home owners to have a more expensive heating system, this bill will also force them to have a stranded asset.

Even this government, with its weakened climate targets, says we should be net zero by 2050. So my calculation is, it’s 2024, so 2050 is less than 30 years from now, and if we have any hope of being net zero, we cannot be heating our homes with fossil gas. So why is the government imposing a 40-year amortization schedule, which means they’re making calculations for gas furnaces way beyond 2050? By definition, they’re going to be forcing existing homeowners to have a stranded asset that will then cost them even more money to replace so we can meet our net zero targets.

This is also going to have implications for our economy. In 2022, the green energy transition, according to Bloomberg, resulted in investments around the world of $1.3 trillion, over half of that in low-cost renewable energy, primarily wind and solar because the prices have come down so much. That investment in 2023 rose to $1.8 trillion. That kind of growth is going to continue each and every year, moving forward.

I want Ontario to be a global leader in what is now a $1.8 trillion economic opportunity. According to Bloomberg still, about half of that investment is wind and solar. A growing amount of that investment is in electric vehicles—and I’ll say that finally Ontario is starting to catch up and make investments in electric vehicles—but a growing percentage of that investment is in alternative heating sources, like heat pumps. As a matter of fact, according to the International Energy Agency, heat pump installations are growing at double-digit rates around the world, no more so than in Europe, where we saw a 40% increase in heat pump installations last year.

As a matter of fact, the EU’s target is that 60 million additional heat pumps will be installed by 2030. So Ontario has an amazing opportunity to not only be a leader in electric vehicles, but to be a leader in manufacturing heat pumps. But in order to do that, we actually need a government that believes in a technology that’s going to save us money.

And I know some people have said, “These heat pumps, do they work in cold weather?” Absolutely they do, to minus 30 degrees. As a matter of fact, the countries in Europe that have installed the most heat pumps are the Scandinavian countries, which have a cold climate very similar to Canada.

Speaker, I want to close by saying: What are the implications of this decision? The government has spent the last few months opposing carbon pricing, a price on pollution, because they say there are other ways to address the climate crisis. Well, those other ways are through regulations and through investments in technology that result decarbonization. But the government is opposed to that too, because that’s exactly what this bill, Bill 165, does. It says that we are, as a province—even though the independent energy regulator says that the way to go is not in expensive gas but in lower-cost alternatives like heat pumps, instead of actually putting in place a regulatory regime that would encourage that, the government is opposed to that.

So I don’t know what the government’s for. They’re going to ramp up gas plants for electricity, increasing carbon pollution by 400%, even though we are at a time where the costs of the climate crisis are escalating. We see it each and every day, and the government seems to be opposed to any and all solutions.

I’m pleased to rise today and speak to this important piece of legislation, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024. The proposed bill, if enacted, would amend the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, to put in place mechanisms that facilitate broader stakeholder input as well as the manner in which a generic hearing process may be directed by the minister. The proposed bill would also set out a mechanism to address aspects of a specific natural gas order of the Ontario Energy Board related to revenue horizons. The proposed bill would also address certain other matters relating to the granting of leave-to-construct approvals, including the exemption from the requirement to obtain leave to construct for certain energy projects.

The bill might seem very technical, and it does sound technical. There’s a lot of things in here that our government is working on to fix, but ultimately, all of these technical phrases, adjustments and terms lead to one thing: the fact that our government is working hard to keep energy costs down by amending the Ontario Energy Board Act. As we all know, one of the reasons we got elected in 2018 is because of the skyrocketing cost of hydro, especially after the fire sale of those hydro shares by the previous Liberal government. So we are coming here to fix a mess that was left by the previous government, supported by the current official opposition, in fact. Ontarians have put their faith and trust in us to fix this mess and to get Ontario back on track, and that is exactly what this piece of legislation is doing.

We have received numerous supportive quotes for this work that we are doing. The Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus has said, “Modernizing these outdated regulations would reduce delays and costs for economic development initiatives including new industries seeking to locate in Ontario and create jobs (or existing companies seeking to expand), transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments, connections for low-carbon fuel blending (e.g., renewable natural gas, hydrogen) as well as residential and business customer connections.”

The Western Ontario Wardens’ Caucus has said, “Western Ontario has seen significant growth in the past decade with pressures to build out the gas pipeline network. Many municipalities in our region have lost major investment opportunities because of the delays in getting natural gas to development sites. Any person or company planning to construct hydrocarbon transmission facilities within Ontario, must apply to the OEB for authorization, if the projected cost to build the pipeline is over $2 million, a threshold that was set in 1998....

“Increasing the cost threshold to $10M would closer align Ontario with other Canadian jurisdictions (e.g., in BC, these thresholds are $15M for electricity and $20M for natural gas)....

“Due to increased regulatory and cost pressures, as well as inflation, virtually all gas pipeline projects are now greater than $2M rendering the threshold meaningless. Roughly 0.5 km pipe in urban settings now often exceed the $2M threshold.”

They’ve also said, “Modernizing these outdated regulations would reduce delays and costs for economic development initiatives including new industries seeking to locate in Ontario and create jobs ... transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments, connections for low-carbon fuel blending ... as well as residential and business customer connections.

The South Central Ontario Region Economic Development Corp. has said, “As Ontario continues to face a shortage of industrial land, the south-central Ontario region, made up of Brant, Elgin-Middlesex, Norfolk and Oxford counties”—and I just want to mention that the member for Brantford–Brant is sitting right in front of me, so this applies to his region. They have said, “As Ontario continues to face a shortage of industrial land, the south-central Ontario region ... is challenged with balancing competing pressures for prioritization of agricultural land, industrial land and residential land. Attracting new business investment continues to be an economic development priority, as municipalities in SCOR aim to further develop industry sectors, expand the municipal tax base and increase job opportunities in the region.”

They are asking the Ministry of Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade to work alongside the Ministry of Energy, the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Ontario Energy Board to modify current regulations that delay the expansion of utility services.

For example, section 90(1) of the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, states the need for a leave-to-construct application if the project is projected to cost more than the amount prescribed by the regulations, which is currently set at $2 million. Thus, any project that surpasses this threshold is required to undergo a lengthy regulatory process of 15 to 18 months before even starting construction. With inflation, many planned business investments require natural gas expansions that exceed this threshold, acting as a barrier to investment in the province and, more specifically, rural Ontario.

Madam Speaker, the list of supportive quotes goes on and on and on. We have supportive quotes from the township of East Hawkesbury. We have supportive quotes from the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership. We have supportive quotes from the city of Welland. We have supportive quotes from the Niagara Industrial Association. We have supportive quotes from Invest WindsorEssex.

We also have stakeholder quotes. For example, the Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers say, “The Ontario Greenhouse Vegetable Growers commend the recent decision by the Ontario government to increase the leave-to-construct threshold from $2 million to $10 million. This will enable faster builds with quicker connections that will result in increased food production capacity and continue to fortify domestic food security imperatives. Natural gas is an essential crop input, as the heat and carbon dioxide are captured to optimize and enhance greenhouse vegetable production. Legislation such as this will continue to drive investment in Ontario’s agricultural sector, growing food, jobs and economic prosperity.”

Speaking of greenhouses, I cannot forget to mention SunTech Greenhouses, a large greenhouse in my riding of Carleton, close to the area of Manotick. I just want to say, people talk about the tomatoes in Leamington, but I want to brag about the tomatoes in Manotick, because SunTech tomatoes are the best. I am willing to do a food-tasting competition with Leamington tomatoes. I’ll bring in tomatoes from SunTech Greenhouses. They can bring in—I think it’s the member for Essex can bring in tomatoes from Leamington. We will do a tasting test, because I guarantee you that the tomatoes in Manotick will, hands down, beat the tomatoes in Leamington.

I want to thank the member from Guelph for his comments today on Bill 165, raising costs for gas customers across the province. I just want to go through some of the figures and make sure I got the figures right. I do appreciate them.

You said that right now, with this bill, the government’s actually proposing that anybody who’s buying Enbridge gas, who’s an Enbridge Gas customer, is going to be subsidizing the expansion of their lines by $600. That’s the cost to each individual customer. Then you said that the people who are the new customers for Enbridge are going to be paying 13% more over the life of a gas furnace than they would have if they had a heat pump. Those are the numbers.

Is this the only example that you know of where this government is squandering our tax dollars in order to support a private, for-profit corporation? I’ll give just one example from my own riding: Ontario Place. This government is giving Therme 650 million tax dollars. Do you have other examples?

Thank you to the member from Carleton. A similar question to my other colleague’s: This bill takes existing costs not being paid by the consumer after the OEB decision and places them on the backs of consumers. So it takes costs that are not being paid now by consumers and puts it on the backs of consumers into the future. How is that possibly making life more affordable for folks when you’re taking costs that they are not paying now and placing them directly on the backs of those consumers?

I listened respectfully through her submissions, and I appreciate the member’s statement. Our government has been working pretty hard every day to keep the costs down for the people of Ontario. Approximately 3.8 million households in Ontario currently use natural gas for home heating. That’s two thirds of all households in Ontario, and that includes households that are represented by members in the House, Cochrane or—let me just see; there are a few others that have applied for it—James Bay. They’ve applied for the natural gas expansion program to the ministry. So obviously, they want to take advantage of this option.

I guess my question to the member is, will you commit to voting for this act so their constituents can get more access to the reliable and affordable energy that they’ve asked for?

My question is for the Associate Minister of Transportation. There are families and individuals in my riding of Newmarket–Aurora who rely on public transit as their main form of travel, but they have told me that they are concerned that steep transit costs are adding further pressure to their household budgets. Commuters are looking to our government for solutions that will make travelling easier and more affordable. We must continue to deliver on our commitment to bring financial relief to transit users.

Speaker, can the minister highlight what our government is doing to keep costs down for commuters across the GTA?

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.

For those joining us at close to 5 o’clock, we’re debating the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024.

What’s clear is that, since day one, our government, led by Premier Ford, has taken action to lower energy costs, including by cancelling the previous government’s cap-and-trade carbon tax, cutting the gas tax and introducing the Ontario Electricity Rebate.

Now, while previous governments implemented schemes that led to skyrocketing energy prices, we’re using every tool in our tool box to keep costs down for residents and businesses like those situated in the town of Whitby and other part of the region of Durham. The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024, will protect future homebuyers from increased costs and, yes, keep shovels in the ground on critical infrastructure projects.

The proposed legislation would, if passed, give the province authority to reverse the Ontario Energy Board decision to require residential customers and small businesses to pay 100% of the cost of new natural gas connections upfront. These costs would have previously been paid over 40 years. Once the government introduces a natural gas policy statement, a recommendation of the Electrification and Energy Transition Panel’s final report, it will require the Ontario Energy Board to consider this issue again.

The government will also appoint a new chair of the Ontario Energy Board this spring with the expectation that the board and commissioners conduct appropriate consultation—in line with the proposed legislative requirements—before reaching decisions that support the objective of an affordable, reliable and clean energy system.

Natural gas will continue to be an important part of Ontario’s energy mix as we implement our pragmatic plan to invest in and bring online more clean nuclear energy. For example, the recently announced refurbishment of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station which creates and sustains approximately 6,400 Ontario jobs per year for decades to come in towns and cities that surround Pickering like Whitby.

Unlike the previous Liberal government, which saddled families with sky-high hydro bills, our government is taking a thoughtful approach that keep costs down for people and businesses and delivers energy security.

To ensure that future decisions made by the Ontario Energy Board consider a wider range of affected parties and government policy priorities, the proposed act would require the Ontario Energy Board to conduct broader engagement with stakeholders and provide the Minister of Energy with the authority to ask for a separate hearing on any matter of public interest that could arise during an Ontario Energy Board proceeding. This would include both transferring an issue from an ongoing Ontario Energy Board proceeding to its own generic hearing and directing a hearing for a matter not currently before the Ontario Energy Board under certain circumstances.

If passed, the government may subsequently propose regulations to require the Ontario Energy Board to notify and invite participation or testimony from specific stakeholders or economic sectors—for example, transit, low-income service providers, construction, housing or government agencies—that could be significantly impacted by an upcoming decision or hearing.

With the proposed legislation, the government would also ensure new customers do not have to incur upfront contributions towards the construction of certain gas transmission projects that are critical to the province’s economic growth. This would preserve the historical treatment of these transmission projects that provide broad energy system benefits and serve many customers in different areas. Preserving this treatment will help ensure that the province can continue to attract critical investments in sectors like greenhouses and automotive in southwestern Ontario, some of which we heard about earlier today during question period.

In discussing legislation like this, I think it’s helpful to hear perspectives from third parties, and one of those third parties is Ontario Real Estate Association, and their particular quote, which I’m about to read into the record, I think provides valuable context to our deliberations this afternoon. And it’s from Tim Hudak, who is the chief executive officer of the Ontario Real Estate Association:

“If we want to create more Canadian homeowners, we should not whack them with this massive upfront bill for infrastructure that will last for generations.” And this legislation is generational.

“This head-scratching overstep by the” Ontario Energy Board “will push affordability further out of reach for Ontarians, and put provincial and municipal housing targets at risk. Such one-size-fits-all policies will be particularly harmful to Ontario’s smaller and northern communities, where energy infrastructure is not well-developed....”

The Ontario Energy Board’s “bad move to upend Ontario’s long-standing approach to finance infrastructure like natural gas over time puts new neighbourhoods and desperately needed new homes in jeopardy....

“If the short-sighted OEB decision goes through, fewer new connections will be made and fewer homes will be built. Those that do get built will be more expensive and homebuyers will need to pay the entire hookup cost upfront, adding thousands to the price of a home.”

This legislation would also enable the government to require the Ontario Energy Board to conduct a separate hearing on any matter of public interest.

The proposed legislation would also maintain the existing treatment of gas transmission projects that are critical to the province’s economic growth by ensuring new customers do not have to incur upfront financial contributions and update the Ontario Energy Board’s leave-to-construct process to respond to concerns raised by municipalities around supporting critical housing projects and local economic development initiatives.

I’d like to spend a little bit of time on the leave-to-construct process, because I have eight municipalities that form the region of Durham, an upper-tier government, where I live. Many municipalities are very supportive of proposed legislative approach—not only the eight that are in the region of Durham but from the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus. This is what they had to say: “Modernizing these outdated regulations would reduce delays and costs for economic development initiatives including new industries seeking to locate in Ontario and create jobs (or existing seeking to expand), transit projects, community expansion projects, housing developments” and fuel blending as well. That’s from the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus.

Speaker, I see I only have about a minute and nine seconds left, so I’m going to sum up right now.

All of these proposed changes will improve processes, building on the work of the Ontario Energy Board’s modernization started back in 2018, ensuring that the entire energy sector and other impacted sectors have more input into Ontario Energy Board decisions and will ensure that future OEB decisions take into account government policy priorities including protecting ratepayers in the town of Whitby and other parts of the region of Durham.

Speaker, as demand continues to grow across Ontario and, yes, the region of Durham, due to economic and population growth, our government, led by Premier Ford, will continue to work hard to ensure a reliable supply of energy continues to be available for hard-working Ontarians now and in the future.

Ça me fait toujours plaisir de me lever et de parler en Chambre pour représenter ma circonscription de Mushkegowuk–Baie James. On parle de Bill 165, Keeping Energy Costs Down Act—garder les coûts énergétiques bas. Quand tu lis le titre puis après ça que tu commences à réaliser que quand le « energy board » dit de ne pas donner ces coûts-là—vraiment, le projet de loi, il est aussi simple que ça.

Ce qu’on débat ici en Chambre, c’est que les coûts d’Enbridge, devraient-ils être payés par eux ou bien les concitoyens? C’est ça, le projet de loi. On peut mettre ça comme qu’on veut, on peut essayer de montrer : « Regarde ici, ça “shine” », mais tout ce temps-là, on met la main dans les poches des contribuables. C’est exactement ça qui se passe.

C’est pour ça que c’est tout le temps intéressant d’entendre les deux perceptions du gouvernement. Puis nous, l’opposition officielle, on dit : « Écoute, on a des experts du “energy board” qui disent que les quatre millions de consommateurs ne devraient pas payer », parce que le gaz naturel, c’est une énergie de laquelle on s’éloigne. On commence à s’éloigner. Puis, ça devrait être Enbridge qui paye et non les consommateurs. C’est ça qu’ils disent, les experts. Moi, je ne suis pas un expert là-dedans, mais c’est ça que les experts nous dissent.

Le gouvernement, tout de suite quand c’est sorti, ça n’a pas été long qu’ils ont dit : « Non, on va le passer; on va passer ces coûts-là. » Ça, ça veut dire que nos coûts vont monter. Ne tombez pas dans l’illusion : même si le titre dit que vous allez payer moins d’énergie, au contraire, les prix vont monter. On sait qu’ils vont monter. C’est là. Le gouvernement dit qu’ils ne monteront pas, mais ce n’est pas la réalité.

Fait que, là, il va y avoir des coûts additionnels. Je pense que personne ne veut voir ses coûts de chauffage monter. J’ai écouté les débats, puis on entend le gouvernement dire : « Quoi? Vous voulez qu’ils payent à l’avant? » Ce n’est pas ça qu’on dit, là. On n’est pas non plus contre le gaz naturel. On dit que ce ne sont pas les consommateurs qui devraient payer. Puis ce n’est pas en disant qu’on est contre le développement pour les maisons ou les condos ou tout le reste. Ce n’est pas ça qu’on dit. On fait juste dire que le gaz naturel, si une personne le veut, c’est Enbridge qui va aller payer. Parce qu’on parle qu’ils ont fait 16,5 milliards de dollars—pas des millions, des milliards.

Puis on dit que ces coûts-là—et les experts nous disent que ce ne devrait pas être les consommateurs qui payent. Je pense que c’est raisonnable parce que, écoute, moi, je viens d’un comté, Mushkegowuk qui va dans la Baie James. S’il y a de quoi qu’on voie quand ça vient à tout le réchauffement de la planète, plus que tu vas au Nord, plus qu’on le voit.

Cet automne quand j’y suis allé, j’ai vu la rivière Albany puis la rivière Attawapiskat—les « sandbars ». Elles étaient tellement basses qu’ils ne pouvaient même pas aller à la pêche dans leurs territoires ancestraux, sur la rivière où ils allaient pêcher le doré parce qu’ils sont obligés de se faire ramener en hélicoptère parce qu’il n’y a pas assez d’eau dans la rivière. Je n’ai jamais vu ça. Puis je parlais même à des chefs. J’ai parlé avec des « elders », et ils ont dit qu’ils n’ont jamais vu ça.

J’ai une communauté, à Attawapiskat, qui sont dans une situation d’eau où l’eau de leur lac où ils prennent l’eau est rendue à un niveau très dangereux, et ça se peut même qu’ils se fassent évacuer. Là, ils sont dans un processus de faire venir un système pour enlever le sel dans l’eau parce qu’il y a des puits qui ont été creusés trop creux et ils ont été contaminés par l’eau salée. Puis après, vers la fin de mars, il va y avoir le système dans un container pour l’amener. La planète se réchauffe tellement que probablement, quand arrive le temps de déménager, la route hivernale va être fermée.

La route hivernale, elle est ouverte et elle ouvre tout le temps de plus en plus tard puis elle ferme beaucoup plus vite Ça fait qu’on est dans une réalité qu’aujourd’hui on veut s’éloigner de ce produit-là, que les experts disent qu’il faut s’éloigner de ça. Puis, on voit que la tendance mondiale, en passant, s’en va dans la direction opposée de ce gouvernement-là.

On a vu des gouvernements conservateurs dans l’Est mettre des nouveaux incitatifs pour aller à la nouvelle énergie comme des « heat pumps » et tout ça dont on parle, dont on entend souvent parler. Ça se fait. La technologie existe. Va-t-elle avancer? Oui, elle va avancer encore. On n’a rien qu’à penser à Norway, qui en a.

On voit que nos hivers sont beaucoup moins froids, qu’il y a des solutions à être mises. On peut avoir un gouvernement qui met des incitatifs. De dire à Enbridge que ce n’est pas aux consommateurs de payer, on s’excuse—« Everything est fini. Allez connecter, puis le consommateur, s’il le veut, il payera. » Il n’y a rien de mal avec ça. Ce n’est pas un concept qui est nouveau, là. Ce n’est pas un concept qui est nouveau.

Mais ce qu’on sait dans le Nord, par exemple—j’entendais mes collègues dire, « dans le Nord, dans le Nord. » Oui, c’est certain qu’il y en a qui veulent l’avoir. Mais s’ils veulent l’avoir, Enbridge aurait à payer pour l’amener. J’entendais ma collègue de Nickel Belt. Ça c’est un exemple qui est exemplaire dans mon comté—que le gaz naturel passe proche de chez eux mais ça va coûter des milles et des milles juste pour l’avoir. Pourquoi Enbridge ne l’amène pas? Pourquoi il ne pourrait pas l’amener chez eux? Si elle veut l’avoir, elle va payer. Pourquoi faut-il que tous les contribuables payent?

Quand les experts disent, « Il faut s’éloigner de ça », non, ça devrait être à Enbridge de payer. Lac-Ste-Thérèse, un exemple pareil encore : s’ils veulent l’avoir, Enbridge veut l’avoir—mais quand Enbridge a passé la ligne, sais-tu pourquoi ils n’ont pas amené la ligne quand le gaz naturel a passé? Il n’y avait pas d’argent à le faire, madame la Présidente. Il n’y avait pas d’argent à le faire.

On a la ligne qui passe à Val Côté—même chose. La ligne n’est pas loin, là. Ils ne veulent pas mettre une base. Pourquoi? Il n’y avait pas d’argent à le faire. C’est une petite communauté, peut-être, de 20 à 30 personnes.

On a plein d’exemples comme ça. Ils disent, « Oh, les maires du Nord veulent l’avoir. » C’est sûr, mais les gens ne veulent pas que ça nuise. Mais on ne dit pas de nuire à construire des maisons. Au contraire, on veut que ces maisons se bâtissent, là. Mais si le gaz naturel va là, Enbridge l’amènera et ils vont être payés avec des contribuables, comme n’importe quel autre « business » qui se passe. C’est ça que les experts nous disent.

Mais le gouvernement veut vous faire accroire, par exemple, que non, non, non, ça va nuire à bâtir. Non, ça ne nuira pas. On en a besoin, de ces maisons-là. Et crois-moi, je suis convaincu qu’Enbridge va rentrer le gaz qu’ils ont besoin à ces clients-là. Ça va se voir dans les gros développements dans le sud de l’Ontario. Puis là, ça va se faire, parce qu’il y a de l’argent à le faire. Il y a de l’argent à le faire. Mais là où la population est basse, oublie ça. On le vit, comme c’est là. Pensez-vous que ça va changer? Si vous pensez ça, vous vous faites une illusion qui n’est même pas là, parce que c’est ça qui se passe maintenant et ça ne changera pas.

Mais, pour le Sud, Enbridge va rentrer les lignes, même si ce ne sont pas les 4 millions d’habitants, de consommateurs qui payent. Ils vont la rentrer, la ligne, s’ils veulent avoir ces clients. Pourquoi? Ils savent qu’éventuellement, ils vont perdre ces clients-là. Ils savent que ça s’en vient. Ils voient la lumière au bout du tunnel, comme on dit souvent en français. Ça va venir à là, ce qui fait qu’ils vont aller chercher le montant d’argent qu’ils peuvent. Le problème est qu’éventuellement ceux qui ont ça vont payer de plus en plus.

C’est pour ça qu’il faut commencer à regarder—je pense que c’est mon collègue, notre ami d’Algoma–Manitoulin qui l’a mentionné très bien. Il dit qu’on doit commencer à faire de nouveaux incitatifs pour aller à plus d’énergie, la nouvelle énergie verte qui va répondre à la situation. Parce que, moi, dans mon comté, je peux vous dire, je le vois. Venez dans le Nord; je vais vous le montrer. C’est épeurant, parce que ce monde-là, ça touche leur vie. Ça touche leur quotidien.

Quand vous pensez à la route hivernale, elle est rendue au point qu’ils ne savent même pas quand elle va commencer à être capable de rentrer tous les produits dont ils ont besoin—tous les produits dont ils ont besoin pour survivre pour le restant de l’année, là. Puis, avec quel coût? Ça veut dire, qu’est-ce qu’on va faire si la route hivernale n’existe plus? Comment est-ce qu’ils vont rentrer tous les produits dont ils ont besoin pour construire les maisons, pour la bouffe—puis, la liste est longue.

Mais, on a un gouvernement qui est parti à contre-courant. Les États-Unis vont vers là. Des conservateurs au Canada le font dans d’autres choses. Mais nous en Ontario, la plus grosse province, la plus riche, où on est capable de faire les bonnes choses, on est parti à contre-courant.

En Europe, les « heat pumps » existent. On a entendu qu’il y a des ministres qui en ont, des « heat pumps ». Il n’y a rien de mal avec ça. Si la personne veut l’avoir, le gaz naturel, bien Enbridge l’amène, puis après ça, elle paye. Mais ça ne devrait pas être au consommateur de payer. C’est ça le débat aujourd’hui, puis c’est pour ça que nous, on dit que ce n’est pas le consommateur—Enbridge, ils en font, des milliards. Qu’ils prennent un de ces milliards-là et qu’ils connectent, et ça ne nuira pas à la construction comme ils essayent de vous faire—cette belle illusion-là que ça va nuire—parce qu’il y a des incitatifs que le gouvernement pourrait faire.

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?