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?

To the member: I noticed in her presentation the member repeated something that the Minister of Energy said as well. The claim was made that the Independent Electricity System Operator was not a participant in the OEB’s decision. I just want to direct the member to page 5 of the decision and order December 21, 2023. When you look at the list of, let’s see, 33 different names of people who applied for intervenor status, right there, item number 17, is, in fact, the Independent Electricity System Operator.

So the question I then have for the member is, was she aware of this factual inaccuracy in her presentation? Secondly, if the IESO sought intervenor status and didn’t actually follow through and participate, what’s the bigger issue here?

I want to thank the member opposite for his comments. I’d like to be clear on a couple of points before I pose my question. First of all, the decision and what this bill is proposing is not to change. What it’s doing is pausing the decision of the OEB, because already, in its regulations, it goes for a 40-year horizon. So we’re not changing any of that.

I’m on natural gas, and I, like all my neighbours who are on natural gas, share those costs over a 40-year period. The decision—and, I think, the dissent by Commissioner Duff—doesn’t say that we shouldn’t be shortening the window. What she does say, though, is that we’re shortening it from 40 years to zero years, and that’s no ramp at all. That’s no amortization period.

So what she’s suggesting is that we look and have hearings in which we examine the nature of the implications of shortening that window. And so, my question to the member opposite: Does he not agree that that is an important discussion to have to prevent stranded assets, but also to allow an on-ramp to prevent barriers for homebuyers getting a home and having reliable, safe heat?