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?

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.

Do you know what? I’m trying to wake up government members, because I’m trying to get them to fight for the interests of their own constituents. They know the people who right now have gas hookups are going to pay more. Are these government members going to send out a newsletter and say, “Do you know what? You’re going to pay more thanks to me, thanks to the decisions that we made”? They’re absolutely not going to do it. They’re going to spin it like a laundry machine, like they always do.

And so here’s the decision that’s made by the OEB—and I’m going to give a couple of quotes. Someone mentioned there was a dissenting position; the one dissenter said the amortization period of 40 years is too much and to reduce it by half, but the other OEB members looked at it and they said, “This is not fair to the consumer.”

I would have expected a government of the little guy to get out there and say, “No, this isn’t fair. Everyone else is tightening their belts. No one can afford to pay. Graham’s constituents can’t afford to pay an extra amount.” They can’t. So is he or are the rest of them going to get up and say, “Do you know what? This isn’t fair. Cut into that”—

Interjections.

What did the OEB say? In their own quotes:

“The risk that arises from the energy transition ... from gas customers leaving the gas system as they transition to electricity to meet energy needs ... gives rise to assets that are not fully depreciated but are no longer used and useful. This results in stranded asset costs that Enbridge Gas would seek to recover from the remaining gas customers. This in turn would increase rates for those gas customers, leading more customers to leave the gas system, potentially leading to a continuing financial decline for the utility, often referred to as the utility death spiral”—something that Graham, Lisa and Ross, forward-thinking constituents here in Ontario, are concerned about. And so—

The OEB, the regulator, looked at what Enbridge wanted to do—the monopoly that has seen an increase in their profits; the monopoly that has seen profits of $16.5 billion. And the monopoly owner tried to pull a fast one, saying, “Let’s pass this cost on to consumers.” And constituents that I named before—they don’t want their last names to be said here in the chamber, so I referred to them by their first names. The reality is, they don’t want to pay those costs, because the monopoly, Enbridge, could.

The regulator made a decision in the public interest. As usual, this is a government that doesn’t like to take no from experts, doesn’t want to hear no. This is a government that simply wants to do what it wants to do, and when it doesn’t get what it wants, like a little child, it tries to rip up the rules. It’s like playing a card game with someone who flips the table. That’s what they did. They did it because they got the phone call from Enbridge saying, “Don’t do this.”

The OEB is looking to the future of energy production. The minister sees the future and has a heat pump in their home; the parliamentary assistant does the same.

This decision will incentivize the future of energy production in this province. It is a forward-thinking decision, a decision that was made with a lot of thought, and it was a decision made to benefit the existing customers, in the public interest.

Shamefully, this government chose to put more money in the pockets and the profit margins of Enbridge, the monopoly, instead of their own constituents, the Enbridge purchaser right now.

I just can’t see this government, with a straight face, get up and say they’re for the little guy, because they’re just not.

Interjections.

I’ve laid out the rationale. The OEB laid out the rationale. I wish, for once, that this government, maybe in caucus—that the members, even the ministers, would stand up and do something for the little guy in this province, not just what the big, big corporations want, for once. Please, please do that. Please do it for the constituents I named. Do it for all Ontarians, just for once, please.

It’s always an honour to rise on behalf of the people of Humber River–Black Creek who, thanks to this government, will be paying more for their gas bills as a result of this legislation. And you know what? They’re not going to be happy. They’re got not going to buy the line that this is the government for the little guy because, as we see more and more, it is not.

I’d like to go through how a decision like this actually unfolds. So we’ve got an OEB decision that happens last year. The OEB, which is a regulator that’s tasked at looking at all aspects of energy production, distribution, sale, all of it, makes a decision, not just for the present, but for the future—in fact, a decision that the minister and the parliamentary assistant made for themselves choosing a different form of heating their own home. The decision was, “You know what? The investors of Enbridge, the monopoly that provides the gas doesn’t want foot the risk.” And the OEB says, “We don’t think it’s acceptable to pass that risk on to consumers, so guess what? The answer is no.”

So what do you think happened when that occurred? I’ll tell you what happened: Someone high up in Enbridge made a phone call in moments—probably the decision is rendered, and they’re on the phone and they’re making a phone call. I don’t think it’s to the minister or to the parliamentary assistant, because we all know that the decisions that are made by this government come from a cloud, a shadow that exists around the leadership, that calls the shots. And those shots are dictated to ministers who have no decision-making in this process—zero. I know this. It certainly is not the backbench members but, shamefully, I don’t think it’s the ministers, for a large part.

So Enbridge makes this phone call and says, “What are you doing? What are you doing? Guys, what are we paying you for? What are we paying you for? Reverse this. Reverse it.” Then, developers who are paying them call and say, “Oh, my god. I don’t want to have to pay for this.” And they’re certainly not going to pass that down in savings of new home purchases. It’s simple economics. Home builders will charge what they can charge. If they can charge $500,000, $600,000 or $1 million to sell a home, they’re going to charge it, because the cost of construction does not necessarily equate to the cost of sale. It’s economics. This is the party of capitalism. They understand it crystal clear. But then they get up here and they read prepared notes and talk about something else. It’s outrageous.

So, the power behind this government says to them, “No. You have to go in. Forget democracy. Don’t respect what the regulator wants. Do what we say.” And you know what this government says?

“You call the shots, Enbridge. Of course. Big business always calls the shots with this.” Now, did whoever that member was stand up for the little guy and say, “Wait a sec, Enbridge. While all of us are struggling, while all of us are suffering, you, the monopoly, made 6% increase in profits. You’re now at $16.5 billion. Get your investors to pay for this. We’re the government of the little guy”? Absolutely not. They said, “Let’s take that money and put it on the backs of the consumers.”

Interjection.

Interjections.

You know, it is really astounding to hear. Does the member understand that if you reduce, let’s say, the cost of construction to a developer by a couple of thousand dollars—let’s say $4,000, as he’s been quoting—that this does not necessarily mean that the cost of purchase to a new home purchaser will be minus $4,000? Home builders will sell for whatever they can sell for. If they can sell for more, they’ll sell for more. Cost of construction does not necessarily equate to cost of purchase, so why do you keep simplifying it? Why does he keep saying it in this way? Because that’s simply not correct.

I want to thank the member for his presentation and his speech today. The member was here when the Conservative government, their members, were actually in the official opposition at the time. And at the time, they were very, very critical, from what I hear, about the politicization of energy, energy delivery, the entire energy system. Liberals at the time used a lot of politics to influence decision-making, not listening to experts, not listening to regulators, just making decisions based on phone calls possibly from donors and others.

How do you feel, considering what the Conservatives are doing now in light of their criticisms before?

I listened intently to the government member’s speech, and I have to admit I was a little surprised to hear that quote—“The OEB is a regulator, not a consumer protection agency.”

My question is this: Do you believe that the job of a regulator is to simply look at the interests and to benefit the interests of the people they’re regulating and not the actual people of Ontario, who in many cases are the consumers? What the OEB said in their ruling was that this was not in the best interests of consumers. Why does this member think that the decisions of the OEB should be so much in favour of the energy providers and not at all for the consumers themselves? Please explain this.