To the member across, thank you very much for your presentation. The OEB ruling could, in fact, make building new homes more affordable because it means you would have to build only one type of energy infrastructure—the electricity—and not require a very expensive and obsolete second one. And it will be obsolete at some point as we move towards a climate-neutral economy.

Reversing the OEB ruling could result in building methane gas infrastructure that will take about 40 years to pay for—infrastructure that will be delivering fossil fuels into the year 2064, Speaker, 14 years beyond the time when the world has agreed to achieve net-zero fossil fuel consumption; infrastructure that will be made obsolete by the ongoing energy transition.

To the member across: What in this bill will actually meet the needs of the citizens of Ontario tomorrow, because this bill is being passed and pushed forward today, but we need to plan for the climate emergency?

Thank you to the member for her excellent presentation.

Infrastructure Ontario is, obviously, by way of this motion from the government, being offered more responsibilities and more authority. And they’re consolidating a number of different real estate assets under the ministry. I would say that when one gets more responsibility, it should be because one has done a very good job—better outcomes, better timelines, better management of facilities, better management of dollars—but we’re not seeing that. Instead, we’re seeing a ministry that’s rather secretive.

My question to you is, why would the government offer Infrastructure Ontario more responsibility when they seem to be struggling with the responsibilities that they have now?