I want to thank the member from University–Rosedale for her excellent presentation. And I have to say, I agree.

The Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator whose mandate is to protect the interests of consumers, and with this decision, the OEB could not be more clear. They have told Enbridge that they cannot pass the cost down to the consumers and we cannot lock Ontarians to relying on fossil fuels for the next 40 years.

My question to the member is, we know that it is important to have faith in an independent regulator, and the government overturning the decision undermines it. We know that if this moves forward, it will harm the environment and it will hurt Ontarians. Could the member expand a little bit on what it means for tenants and homeowners at the end of the day if this bill goes through, in the context of the affordability crisis?

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.

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.