I want to thank the member for Chatham-Kent–Leamington for his speech. I know his community is home to—it was formerly Union Gas, then Enbridge. So, back 10 years ago, plus or minus, under the Green Energy Act, we saw these proposals to be rid of natural gas in the province of Ontario, which would have had a devastating impact on Chatham-Kent.

What I’m hearing today from some of the arguments is that the opposition seems to be saying they want to force Ontarians to move away from natural gas entirely. Can the member speak to whether that’s a smart approach for his community and across Ontario for Ontario’s energy system, and the impacts that this sort of ideological approach might have on your community?

This bill essentially is the government weighing in and overturning the ruling of an independent regulator. So this government kneecapped a regulator, and it really reduces the transparency, accountability. It also raises the concern that important energy decision-making is being done via backroom lobbying. It furthers the practice of this government of not being transparent and open and not doing the people’s business in this House.

I see a direct connection to you discharging Lydia’s Law directly to committee and overturning the independent regulator’s decision.

Can you speak to me about Lydia’s Law and how this connects to your government’s overturning of decisions that are made by regulatory bodies in this province?

You mentioned that the OEB decision didn’t include stakeholders. In fact, there are 134 pages of that report, and many, many stakeholders were consulted—just like Lydia’s Law, where End Violence Against Women Renfrew County spoke during the Renfrew inquest; the Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children spoke; Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, LEAF, spoke; the Sexual Assault Support Centre Waterloo Region brought their information to this important private member’s bill, on behalf of the MPP for Waterloo, Catherine Fife.

My question is, just like this government ignored the recommendations from your own regulator—keeping in mind that Enbridge is a regulated monopoly—just like you ignored decisions that you don’t like, why are you ignoring the Auditor General’s recommendations when it comes to Lydia’s Law and keeping sexual assault survivors safe in this province?

I sit on committee; you’re absolutely right. Every single time, your government uses their supermajority to squash anything that they don’t like.

With regard to this bill right now, we moved about 12 amendments, and your government voted every single one of them down. I have been in committee when you’ve moved into in camera for no reason; been in committee when you were reversing your greenbelt legislation, and you didn’t even let the people come to debate that.

If I can take the member at his word that he will use the power of his government to bring Lydia’s Law to the committee and that you will hold public and open hearings across the province—can I have your word on that?

Point of order.

I’m standing to speak to Bill 165, right on the heels of the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington, who finished his debate by saying that anyone impacted should be able to make their case.

We have an example right here in this House. Lydia’s Law was discharged to committee. Those survivors of sexual assault were not able to make their case in this House. So your words “transparency” and “accountability” ring hollow.

This government does not hesitate in any way to interfere whenever it suits them. This is not a government that’s transparent and accountable. We only have to look to the RCMP investigation to understand how they’ve conducted themselves in the past. So while this government—

It is disappointing to hear the member from Eglinton–Lawrence say that transparency and accountability is not germane to this debate, because what we’re talking about is the decision this government made to big-foot, to overturn, to politicize a very important energy decision in this province.

Make no mistake: You acted swiftly to overturn the Ontario energy decision ruling. I would like to see you act more swiftly when it comes to other important things in this province, like sexual assault survivors. But you acted so swiftly when it came to the OEB ruling.

The Ontario Energy Board is an independent regulator—a regulator. They oversee Enbridge. Enbridge is an energy monopoly. They should be a regulated monopoly. But when you kneecap the regulator, what you are left with is a monopoly.

Let’s be clear: Your decision and this bill—it’s bad for new home owners. It’s bad for existing customers. And certainly, it’s bad for the environment. That’s just straight-up a no-brainer.

My question always remains: Who does this government listen to, and who does this government work for?

When it comes to the people of this province, this is a government that has sided with a huge corporation, Enbridge—against making sure that you could protect costs for them in an affordability crisis. This bill is called Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, but my question is, who is this keeping energy costs down for? Do you know who it’s keeping energy costs down for? Enbridge. It’s keeping energy costs down for developers. But who is stuck holding the bag? Four million consumers of methane—also known as natural gas—in this province. That’s who is left holding the bag, because this government doesn’t work for the people of the province.

Quite clearly, your actions, your policies, your bills and your lobbying registry shows who you work for, and that’s big corporations; it is connected individuals.

When it comes to the Premier’s office, this place is crawling with lobbyists who either did work for the Premier or are now working for the Premier or are working for corporations like Enbridge.

So you can stand up all you want and talk about transparency and accountability, but nobody is buying it. Remember Mel Lastman? “Nobody!” Nobody is buying it at all.

What I would like to say is that if you were truly concerned with the people of the province of Ontario, you would have listened to the Ontario Energy Board, whose job is to protect consumers. It should be what your job is—to protect consumers. Instead, what we saw is unprecedented political interference in order to help a powerful gas monopoly at the expense of consumers.

Again, this bill does exactly the opposite of keeping energy costs down for people in the province. It will only exacerbate their bills and make their bills go up higher, to the tune of $600 per customer. This bill would allow the government to add over $1 billion in costs to the gas bills of nearly four million consumers. How is this keeping costs down? It’s not. And what you are doing is, you’re taking away people’s choice—especially vulnerable and low-income people—their ability to make choices when it comes to their energy choices.

This government had, possibly, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, with an OEB decision that was clearly on the side of people who had to pay these energy bills: consumers.

You had an option of putting money back into people’s pockets. You had an option to finally start addressing the realities of climate change. Instead, you chose to stick with the same old. Instead of sticking with people who are going to be mostly impacted by climate change—the costs are going to be borne by homeowners, of climate change; we’re going to see people with basements flooding, people denied insurance costs—you have stuck with billion-dollar corporations. You have sided with them, as usual. You’re lining the pockets of billion-dollar corporations instead of looking out for the people you should be looking out for. I suppose I could say that I’m surprised, but I am not.

The government likes to stand up in here and say that, at the Ontario Energy Board hearings, they didn’t consult with people; nobody was involved. That is straight-up malarkey—134 pages of documents. I think it was over a hundred testimonies.

The Ontario Energy Board took one and a half, possibly two years, to come up with this ruling, and your government tabled this bill to overturn the ruling in a New York minute—I think it was the very afternoon that this decision was tabled.

What I want to be clear about is that you sided with Enbridge over consumers in this province. And who is Enbridge? Can we just talk about Enbridge? Enbridge is a huge international energy company in the province of Ontario. They have a monopoly. They’re not regulated anymore because you keep overturning any regulations. Enbridge made $45 billion last year—$45 billion. That’s who you’re sticking with, that’s who you’re trying to help: a corporation that made $45 billion.

The CEO of Enbridge earns $19 million—$19 million—and that’s for one year, not 19 years. That’s a lot of coin. At $19 million, the CEO, certainly, is not going to be concerned about the $600 that it’s going to cost them on their energy bill.

So that’s who you are siding with.

What I would also say is that people now are not given a choice, and what you’re doing—you say you’re overriding the regulator to support people, but evidence shows otherwise.

More and more, people want to look at more efficient heating options for their homes, because it’s expensive, and we know it’s only going to get more expensive. What you are doing is making sure that people are tied into new gas hookups rather than giving people affordable options, and rather than moving forward with subsidies to help people insulate their homes, to help people be more energy-efficient, to help people afford a high-efficiency heat pump, which heats and cools their homes. This is the direction that the world is going in, but this government is still going to side with a dinosaur fossil fuel strategy that is going to cost—not developers, not Enbridge, but it’s going to cost consumers a lot of money.

As has been said again by the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington, that this government is all about transparency—and honestly, absolutely nobody believes that. Do you know what? You don’t even have to listen to their words. Just look at their actions.

I will say that, at committee, we moved a number of amendments that would have, in fact, taken this bill—and it would have made some amendments to make sure that we put into place protections for consumers. If the government was hell-bent and twisting themselves in knots to support Enbridge, we thought the very least that they could do is to support some amendments.

What amendments did we put in there? We thought it was very important that the government understood that you were allowing Enbridge to determine the cost future for how long that they can cost out the return on the investments that they’re making. Let’s again be clear: What we’re talking about is assets that belong to Enbridge. These are assets that belong to Enbridge, but who is paying for them? The people of the province who are relying on gas. That’s who is paying for these assets that Enbridge will owe.

We made a number of amendments, really, to help what is essentially an indefensible bill be a little more palatable—not much. You can’t polish everything. Do you know what I mean, Speaker?

We wanted to, number one, talk about the workers who work on these fossil fuel lines. It was something that I learned, that I didn’t know until I sat in committee and heard from the workers—that Enbridge has no requirement to provide reporting on methane leakage. They have no requirement to report on how they are going to repair these leakages. that’s really about the consumer interest, because not only is it a significant contributor to greenhouse gases and to carbon emissions; it also is an unsafe situation for workers. So we wanted the government to accept this amendment that would require Enbridge to report on these leaks, and they turned that down. Why wouldn’t they want to prevent and report on methane leaks? I don’t understand why the government used their supermajority to vote it down.

We also moved an amendment that would require the OEB to keep track of private contractors. I think this is really important, because this is a government that likes to talk about jobs, which are really important to the province, but they don’t ensure that workers are kept safe. This is the perfect example—when we talk about methane leakages. Also, despite ruling on the side of Enbridge, they don’t like to talk about the fact that Enbridge laid off a thousand workers in this province. Let’s recap, shall we? They’ve got a $19-million CEO. They made $45 billion in profits. They were going to make sure that every consumer—I grew up in Toronto wit—every methane gas user in the province is going to pay another $600 on their bill. But they didn’t say one single thing when Enbridge laid off a thousand workers in this province. So we moved that motion, and the government turned it down.

We also wanted to make sure that we had the notion of procedural fairness in there. A girl can only hope and dream, but given a government that we see just discharges the private members’ bill Lydia’s Law directly to committee so no one can have their day in court, if you will—this government voted against our amendment that would reaffirm procedural fairness. It actually says in the bill that procedural fairness doesn’t apply. The member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington can stand and talk about transparency, accountability, but the bill he’s defending says right in it that procedural fairness does not apply.

We moved an amendment that says the government cannot direct the OEB to approve a new gas pipeline if this harms consumer interests, because what we’re seeing is the politicization of the energy file. There’s no regulator left because you just overrule them. So is it going to be that all of these energy decisions are going to be made in the minister’s office, with Enbridge executives sitting around? I think it’s really important, if you’re not going to allow the OEB to protect consumers’ interests, that there’s a bill—in the bill, there’s the notion that we are going to protect consumers’ interests in that bill.

We did move—I guess it was a tongue-in-cheek amendment, but we wanted to change the name of the bill to “make Enbridge customers pay more act,” because this is the net effect of this bill. That’s what it’s all about. It’s about forcing existing gas consumers to pay the costs the Ontario Energy Board would otherwise have disallowed. It will increase costs for a typical household consumer by $600—a cost that the Ontario Energy Board said consumers shouldn’t have to pay. The government says consumers should pay it. They used their supermajority to make sure that your gas bills are going up. This is about making consumers pay more so who can make more profit? Enbridge. Because a $19-million CEO, $45 billion—not enough. We need to have a bill that ensures that they continue to be profitable.

A government that talks about working to keep costs down, making life affordable, is kind of ludicrous in the face of their actual bills that just drive up the cost of things that people have to pay. They cannot choose to not have heat in their homes. They may not have heat in their homes, not by choice, but because they’ve been cut off because they can’t pay their high energy bills. This is something that this government should really be concerned with.

Who are you protecting? Clearly, it’s not the people of the province of Ontario.

I could talk a little bit about stranded assets. Really, what that means is, as we move to decarbonize, to get off fossil fuels—which is happening all over the world, which we are supposed to do in this province—these pipelines will be obsolete. They’ll be stranded. But guess what? Someone is still going to have to pay for them. So the more consumers who get off gas, the fewer and fewer consumers who are going to be forced to shoulder the costs of these stranded assets. What that means is—for example, the hardest-to-decarbonize industries will be left holding the bag with these obsolete pipelines, assets. Low-income people who cannot afford to transition, who cannot afford a heat pump or other options, are going to be stuck with higher and higher and higher bills, as fewer people and fewer industries are going to be paying the same amount. So this problem is really only going to get worse.

I could talk a lot about this government’s climate denial and that this is a bill that will ensure that we continue to be hooked on methane gas longer than we should; that this is a government that has no programs in place to help people transition.

Let’s be absolutely clear: In the face of forest fires that we are seeing in BC; a forest fire season that started extraordinarily early in the province of Ontario; wildland forest firefighter teams who are short—

It’s now time for further debate.

I recognize the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

It’s 200.

It’s now time for questions.

I actually want to dedicate my question to the Minister of Energy and my respect for him. Quite often, I have been impressed by him in the last six years; usually, it’s for his quick wit. But on this issue, I have never seen him move so fast—faster than the electricity in the wires—because when the OEB came out and said, “Make the shareholders, make Enbridge pay out of the profit margins,” he said, “No. Make the consumers pay.”

My question for our member is, who did it faster—Usain Bolt running 100 metres or this minister standing up for Enbridge in the media?

—200. They’re short 200 firefighters. Their equipment—you told me about a bomber that needs repair.

These are the impacts of climate change.

You don’t have a climate plan whatsoever. You quite clearly continue carbonization support—a huge monopoly plan. Where is your climate plan? There isn’t one. You couldn’t point me to it because it doesn’t exist.

I’m so disappointed. I continue to be disappointed that this government does not want to listen to an independent energy regulator, doesn’t want to listen to the people of the province of Ontario, and dispatched an important bill about sexual assault survivors directly to committee. It’s shameful.

You talk about your energy sector. Your government’s emissions go up year after year. You’re not reducing emissions, no matter what you may say. They’re going up every year.

This plan to support Enbridge, a fossil fuel company that also has no plan to decarbonize—why should consumers pay for Enbridge’s pipes in the ground? Why shouldn’t a huge corporation like Enbridge pay for their own assets?

This government does not want to hear opinions from people they don’t agree with. This is a government that doesn’t want to allow people to have input in huge decisions, like the cost of energy in this province.

This is a government that has absolutely no hesitation to big-foot independent regulators and has absolutely no hesitation to take a bill and send it out of this House to silence sexual assault survivors in this province.

I would like to just say that transitioning from our dependence on fossil fuels is not going to be easy, and who would know that better than yourself, the Minister of Energy? Absolutely, it’s going to be a long, hard road—but what I don’t see is you taking this urgently. With this decision, I see business as usual—“We support big companies. We support the lobbyists. This can wait. We’re going to punt this down to the next election, to 2026.” But I would say that other levels of government are taking this very seriously.

Speaker, 35 Ontario municipalities said that they passed resolutions to phase out gas power.

The city of Hamilton had a unanimous motion that basically said that they would send this to the Premier and that they do not support you overturning the OEB decision.

Quite clearly, they had their ducks all in a row. They had been hearing—what is it you said? They’ve got two shoulders, they’ve got—

Interjection.

So, who—Usain Bolt, Ben Johnson? I would like to see—we have a big hallway down here. Ready, set, go—let’s see how fast. Do you know what? You and I could see who can move faster.

Thank you for the presentation and your speeches.

We’ve seen this government use their majority to overturn the energy board’s decision not to charge their customers, yet they abuse that.

When we heard the member from Chatham-Kent–Leamington when it came to Lydia’s Law—what are the similarities of what you saw here today? I know you talked about it a bit during your presentation. I’d like to hear some more of what your thoughts are on this.

Thank you to the member for her comments.

Broadly speaking, I want to ask a question that’s a little bit about infrastructure—it’s an area I spent much of my career doing.

What do we mean by infrastructure? Well, infrastructure is transit systems—and, oh, by the way, we’re doing the biggest transit investment in the history of the province. Oh, by the way, that also gets cars off the road, which is an excellent climate plan. Electricity is infrastructure, and we are—I think 92%, if I’m not mistaken, of the electricity generated in Ontario is greenhouse-gas-free—

Interjections.

Doesn’t it make sense that infrastructure, which is long-term assets, gets paid over the long term—which is what this bill does. Doesn’t the member agree with that?

Well, there’s gas that could be trapped in this House, I would say. Some carbon capture could happen here in this House.

I’ve already shared that we need to decarbonize, and absolutely, we need to have a stable energy system. It’s not easy. People rely on it in their homes, and industrial users rely on it.

This bill sets us back on our ability to decarbonize, because Bill 165 gives an incentive for developers to install new gas connections. Why? Because it requires no cost on their part.

So let’s be clear: Bill 165 prevents a levelling of the playing field on upfront connections between gas and electricity consumers. Let’s also be clear that the OEB said, “We don’t think it’s fair for consumers to pay.” Enbridge said, “Well, I don’t want to pay.” And the developers said, “I don’t want to pay”—

Further debate?

I’m honoured to rise today to speak to Bill 165—the “keeping costs down for Enbridge act,” I think is what it should be called, and “making the people of Ontario pay the bill for Enbridge’s operations act.” It’s outrageous, frankly, for the government to take the unprecedented step, for the first time in Ontario’s history, to intervene in the independent decision of the Ontario Energy Board, the regulator designed to protect the people of Ontario. It’s outrageous for the government to intervene in that way in order to continue to subsidize Enbridge, a giant multinational corporation, to expand fossil fuel infrastructure in this province, especially at a time when we’re facing a climate emergency.

Canada is on fire yet again. The toxic smoke from western Canada is blowing into Ontario as we speak, leading to more toxic air that we breathe.

The international energy association, an incredibly conservative organization, has made it absolutely clear that if we’re going to meet our climate obligations, we can’t continue to expand fossil fuel infrastructure.

The OEB, a very conservative organization, finally made a decision that actually takes into account the climate crisis and, quite frankly, what’s good for energy consumers in this province, and in less than 24 hours, the government asked to overturn it. We now know from the FOI request around the emails around this decision that even the government’s own lawyers were worried about the government taking this action, but the government said “No, no, no. We’re not going to listen to the lawyers. We’re not going to listen to the independent regulator. We’re going to listen to Enbridge and their $19-million CEO and actually put Ontarians on the hook for the stranded assets associated with ruling out fossil gas infrastructure.” And do you know what makes it more galling? If there was no alternative for people, then you might say the government has an argument here. But people can have heat pumps. The OEB decision, backed up by mounds of evidence, shows it will actually be 13% cheaper for people to install a heat pump rather than fossil gas infrastructure.

So we have to ask, who is the government acting for? Is it the people of Ontario or Enbridge Gas? It’s clearly Enbridge Gas.

An analysis independently done by Brandon Schaufele from the Ivey school describes it as this: Effectively, the OEB decision “shifts the upfront gas connection cost onto home developers in a manner similar to development charges for water and sewer connections,” other forms of infrastructure. “Unlike water and sewer, however, developers could decide to skip a natural gas connection altogether,” and install heat pumps, which would actually save people money.

“The government’s decision explicitly undermines the OEB and threatens credibility of” the independent regulator and “energy investment in the province.”

It’s a bad outcome for customers, but it’s a good outcome for Enbridge. So why is the government doing this when we’re in the midst of a climate crisis?

We know that investors around the world are pouring not billions, but trillions of dollars into the green energy transition. As a matter of fact, last year alone, $1.88 trillion went into the green energy transition—half of it into wind and solar, because they’re now the lowest-cost sources of electricity generation, but a big and growing chunk of it into heat pumps. Do you know why? Because heat pumps save people money and reduce climate pollution at the same time. That’s exactly why, over the last two years in the US, more new home developments have installed heat pumps over fossil gas. It’s better for the climate and cheaper for the people.

In Europe, right now, a 40% year-over-year increase in heat pump sales—do you know why heat pumps are growing so fast in Europe? They’re cheaper for people, good for people, good for the economy, good for creating jobs manufacturing heat pumps—not so good for giant corporations like Enbridge.

So which side of the ledger is the government on? I want to know.

What is especially infuriating about this is, not only are they ramping up fossil-gas infrastructure, which is going to increase climate pollution; they’re doing it at a time when Ontario has the worst performance in climate pollution now. The data released just 10 days or so ago shows that the province with the largest increase in climate pollution in the entire country in 2021-22 is the province of Ontario. As a matter of fact, 60% of the increase in climate pollution in Canada during that period comes from the province of Ontario.

This government not only wants to expand fossil-gas infrastructure for buildings, but they want to ramp up gas plants, which is going to increase climate pollution from the electricity sector by 580%.

I’ve heard the members opposite say what a clean grid we had. Yes, it was 96% clean when they took office. Now it’s 87% clean and going down, because they’re going to increase climate pollution by 580% for the rest of this decade, at a time when we’re all paying the price for the climate crisis.

Last year, in Ontario, one million acres burned. We had toxic air pollution all down the eastern seaboard. As a matter of fact, in just four days, from June 4 to June 8, in the province of Ontario, the health care system paid an additional $1.28 billion due to hospital admissions from toxic air exposure.

We know from the Financial Accountability Officer that the cost to infrastructure in the province of Ontario alone—just public infrastructure, just this decade, the next six years—is going to be $26.2 billion.

According to the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the damage to insured assets last year due to the climate crisis was $3.1 billion. They estimate that the cost of uninsured assets is three times that, almost $10 billion, costing everybody in this country an additional $750.

The cost of the climate crisis is only going up. We’re all paying for it.

We have solutions that will save us money, like heat pumps. We have solutions that will create jobs—by installing things like heat pumps. And we have the opportunity to actually move in that direction. We have an incredibly conservative energy regulator actually saying, “Do you know what? We should maybe start thinking about this. If we’re going to do a 40-year amortization period starting in 2025, that takes us to 2065, 15 years after the country’s commitment to be net-zero, so why would we make a decision like that, leaving the stranded assets on the backs of energy consumers in this province?” It will be the people of Ontario who will pay for it. That’s exactly what the OEB decision said.

When we have a truly competitive market, people would make a financial decision and say, “We’re not going to take on that risk.” But Enbridge doesn’t have to make that decision because they’re a regulated monopoly, and the regulator said, “Do you know what, Enbridge? We’re going to make you decide to take that risk by removing the 40-year amortization period, because the people of Ontario should not bear the risk of your business decisions, especially when there are cheaper, cleaner, better alternatives.”

Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise and speak in strong support of Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, 2024. This legislation is a critical step forward in our ongoing efforts to ensure that energy remains affordable, reliable and accessible for all Ontarians, while also supporting our housing and economic growth.

Since day one, our government has been dedicated to making life more affordable for the people of Ontario. We have introduced policies that have cut costs, such as scrapping the cap-and-trade carbon tax, cutting the gas tax, and implementing the Ontario Electricity Rebate. These measures have saved families and businesses significant amounts of money.

The Keeping Energy Costs Down Act is another crucial piece of our comprehensive strategy to keep costs low and support the needs of our growing province.

Let me start by addressing a critical issue this bill tackles: the recent decision by the Ontario Energy Board to require new customers to pay 100% of natural gas connection costs up front. This decision, if left unchallenged, would add approximately $4,400 to the price of new homes, and tens of thousands of dollars for homes in rural Ontario. This is unacceptable.

Bill 165 gives the province the authority to reverse this decision, restoring the previous arrangement where these costs were spread over 40 years. This change will help prevent unnecessary financial burdens on new home buyers and ensure that we continue building homes across Ontario without delay. It will protect the dream of home ownership, especially for those in rural areas, and keep our housing market moving forward.

Natural gas is not only essential for heating our homes, but also for powering our economy. By restoring the natural-gas-connection-cost rules, we are ensuring that businesses—particularly small businesses and farms—do not face prohibitive upfront costs. This is vital for economic growth not just in my riding of Carleton, which has numerous small businesses and family-owned farms, but also for maintaining Ontario’s competitiveness.

The proposed legislation also preserves the existing treatment of gas transmission projects. This means new customers will not have to incur upfront contributions, ensuring that these critical infrastructure projects can proceed without financial barriers. This is especially important for sectors like agriculture and manufacturing, which rely on affordable and reliable energy.

I have to look no further than my own riding of Carleton, where one such natural gas expansion helped bring natural gas, which was desperately needed, to the community of York’s Corners in the eastern part of my riding, bringing natural gas to homes as well as Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm, a staple of the Ottawa agriculture industry—finally, after years of requesting it.

Again, this expansion is especially important for sectors like agriculture and manufacturing, which rely on affordable and reliable energy.

Another significant aspect of Bill 165 is the emphasis on public engagement. The OEB’s recent decisions highlighted a lack of adequate consultation with affected sectors. This bill mandates broader engagement, ensuring that future decisions by the OEB reflect the priorities of all Ontarians. The legislation empowers the government to direct the OEB to conduct separate hearings on any matter of public interest. This ensures that decisions are made with comprehensive input and are aligned with the public’s needs and government policy priorities. By involving more stakeholders, we can ensure that the energy policies we implement are fair, informed and beneficial for everyone.

Now let’s focus specifically on how this bill will improve life in rural Ontario. Rural communities, such as those in my riding of Carleton—including North Gower, Richmond, Metcalfe, Ashton and more—are the backbone of our province, contributing significantly to our economy through agriculture, manufacturing and other vital industries. However, these communities often face unique challenges when it comes to energy access and affordability.

In rural areas, new home construction often requires more extensive infrastructure for natural gas connections, leading to higher upfront costs. The OEB’s decision would have added tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of new homes in these areas. By reversing this decision, Bill 165 ensures that these costs are spread over 40 years, just like a mortgage. This will significantly lower the financial barriers to building new homes in rural Ontario, making home ownership more attainable for families, and supporting the growth and vitality of these communities.

Rural businesses, particularly small farms and local enterprises, are crucial to Ontario’s economy. The high upfront costs for natural gas connections could deter new businesses from setting up in rural areas and hinder the expansion of existing ones. By restoring the previous cost structure, this bill will encourage more investment in rural Ontario, fostering economic development and job creation.

In rural areas, natural gas is often the most reliable and affordable heating option. The OEB’s decision threatened to limit this choice by making natural gas connections prohibitively expensive. Bill 165 ensures that rural residents can continue to choose natural gas, preserving their ability to access reliable and cost-effective heating.

This bill also maintains the existing treatment of gas transmission projects, ensuring that new customers do not have to pay upfront contributions. This is especially beneficial for rural areas, where the infrastructure costs can be significantly higher. By alleviating these financial burdens, we are making it easier to expand and improve essential energy infrastructure in rural communities like those in my riding of Carleton and across the province.

Bill 165 also addresses concerns regarding the leave-to-construct process. Municipalities and agricultural organizations have raised valid concerns that the $2-million threshold for pipeline projects, set two decades ago, is outdated. Inflation and increased construction could mean that many projects now exceed this threshold, leading to unnecessary delays and regulatory burdens. This bill proposes to streamline the LTC process by allowing the government to prescribe conditions to exempt certain small projects from requiring LTC. This change will reduce delays and costs, helping to build housing and transit infrastructure faster. It will ensure that we can meet the needs of our growing population efficiently and effectively.

Let me illustrate the importance of this bill with a concrete example from rural Ottawa, in my riding of Carleton. The community of York’s Corners recently benefited from a natural gas expansion project completed by Enbridge Gas. This project brought much-needed natural gas infrastructure to the area, significantly improving the quality of life for residents.

Prior to this expansion, families in York’s Corners relied on more expensive and less efficient energy sources for heating. The introduction of natural gas has provided these households, as well as local business Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm, with a more affordable and reliable heating option. This has not only reduced their energy bills but has also improved the overall comfort and quality of their homes. It’s also made the operation of Stanley’s Olde Maple Lane Farm more feasible and efficient.

The success of the York’s Corners project underscores the importance of making natural gas connections accessible and affordable across all rural communities in Ontario. By passing Bill 165, we can ensure that other rural areas will similarly benefit from natural gas expansions, fostering economic growth and improving the quality of life for residents.

In conclusion, Bill 165, the Keeping Energy Costs Down Act, is a comprehensive piece of legislation and I am proud to support it.

I really appreciate the energy minister’s question, and I appreciate his spirited defence for the independent regulator, the Ontario Energy Board, which is sort of perplexing for me. This independent regulator that has kept gas prices relatively affordable compared to Europe made a decision to protect gas consumers in the province of Ontario, and less than 24 hours later, the energy minister made the unprecedented decision and announced we’re going to overturn the independent regulator’s decision that protects gas consumers. I’m just confused now, because the minister is saying, on the one hand, that the regulator has done a pretty good job over the years and we should be happy with that, but on the other hand, he’s actually overturning the decision of the regulator to protect the people of Ontario.

I’m going to stand with the regulator that’s protecting the people of Ontario.

In a sense—I said this at committee—what the government is doing is kind of like socialism for Enbridge and capitalism for the rest of us, because a lot of this comes down to capital market risk. Who’s going to assume the risk of the death spiral of stranded assets as people transition away from fossil gas? Is it going to be Enbridge or is it going to be the people of Ontario? The OEB said it should be Enbridge, not the people of Ontario. The government is saying it should be the people of Ontario, not Enbridge.

Speaker, I’m going to stand up for the people of Ontario to help them save money, reduce their costs and fight climate change at the same time.

It was this government that cancelled 750 renewable energy contracts, saying we didn’t need the power. Now they’re getting up and saying we don’t have enough power to accommodate heat pumps. Which way is it?

I always find it unusual when this government that is about the free market decides to put their thumb on the scale and tip in favour of a huge monopoly like Enbridge.

The Ontario Energy Board found that it was cheaper to build homes designed in the first place for heat pumps than to retrofit them afterwards for natural gas.

Even the minister, at the committee, talked about—I think it was about 900 metres of pipe for a new home in Peterborough and how expensive that is.

So this idea of only relying on natural gas, this idea of doubling down on stranded assets that consumers were paying for makes absolutely no sense. I think it’s $14 billion in capital expenditures that will be stranded assets, paid for by consumers.

If developers want to put natural gas in new hookups, that’s on them. Why should consumers be forced to have natural gas and not be given a choice between heat pumps and natural gas? Let the market decide.

Questions, please?

I’d like to thank the leader of the Green Party for his always thoughtful commentary that he brings to the House. He does a great job. It was very enjoyable listening to his 10 minutes of comments. He cherry-picked a lot of interesting statistics that he threw out, and it’s a lot to unpack in a one-minute question.

He did touch on the fact that we do have very, very affordable and reliable natural gas home heating in our province. and it is rate-regulated. I think that’s really important.

The member talked about how people are moving en masse to heat pumps in Europe. Well, there’s a reason for that. It’s because the cost of natural gas across Europe has soared over the last number of years, far beyond the price of natural gas in our regulated province.

The question I have for the member opposite is, does he believe that the system operator, the IESO, is prepared to power all of those natural gas heaters—sorry, that would be coming off with heat pumps?

Does the leader of the Green Party believe in an orderly transition, or does he just believe in going all green and torpedoes be damned?