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.

I just want to welcome, from Humber River–Black Creek, Mutahar Anwary, who is participating in the model Parliament here today. Welcome.

I am honoured to rise today and pay tribute to the late Dr. Donald James Henderson, better known as Jim Henderson, who served as the Liberal MPP for the riding of Humber, later renamed Etobicoke–Humber, for three terms ranging from 1985 to 1995. He served as the parliamentary assistant to the Ministers of Community and Social Services, Colleges and Universities and for the province’s anti-drug strategy, and then as the official opposition critic for culture and communications.

As a medical doctor and psychiatrist, he worked in the medical field before and after his terms in office, holding various positions, ranging from being a director to an associate professor, to organizing and leading trade and medical delegations in developing countries. In fact, when you see his name formally written, it is buried in a sea of degrees and designations.

Born in Sudbury in 1940, he spent the majority of his life in Etobicoke. However, he never lost his love and affinity for northern Ontario. It is impossible to summarize the life of anyone, much less someone as accomplished as Dr. Henderson, within a few minutes. So all I can do is merely scratch the surface here today. And while I never had the honour to know him, it is an honour to have learned about his life and to speak about him here.

Dr. Henderson was an academic and medical doctor with a conviction and an adventurous spirit which never dimmed but, I would argue, only grew stronger in the later part of his life. He had an active and brilliant mind. A medically trained doctor and psychiatrist, Dr. Henderson had a natural talent and understanding of human behaviour, which he drew upon throughout his political career.

He often relied on his knowledge of human behaviour and used this frequently in debate. “If psychology teaches us nothing else in politics, it teaches us that no group in society is likely to contribute to its fullest if it feels its collective needs, feelings, views and expertise to be unattended or ignored.” He spoke about the importance of the parent-child bond on a biological and psychological level and went on to quote an interesting study that showed that “nurturance and bonding are as fundamental ingredients to human growth and development as are any physical, nutritional or other amenities that we can offer to our children.”

Another interesting debate centred on whether to televise the House proceedings, and Dr. Henderson spoke strongly in favour of televising our proceedings in the Legislature because he believed that it “is in line with our philosophy of democratic government and will strengthen and promote a sense of participation by the people in the affairs of the state” and that “it is desirable for the health and responsiveness of good government....”

He was innovative. For instance, he diverted used public transit buses that were at the end of their service life and headed to the scrapyard and ensured that they were donated and sent abroad, where they continued to run for years in places like the streets of Havana. As well, he arranged for hundreds of boxes of prescription drugs that Ontario hospitals had no use for to be donated and sent abroad, and much more.

After his career in politics ended, he maintained his interest in international development, including teaching himself Spanish to such a high degree of fluency that he became a guest lecturer at the University of Havana, where he reintroduced the country to psychoanalysis.

Dr. Henderson loved the outdoors. He had a love of the outdoors and wrote about his deep and long-standing attachment to Ontario’s north. He recalled visiting the Sleeping Giant and Silver Islet.

His father was a general manager of a hardware store and would occasionally take him along on business trips in northern Ontario, including Thunder Bay. He once shared details of a fishing trip near Red Rock, where he didn’t catch a single fish, but the “majesty of North Superior was forever imprinted on his mind.”

Dr. Henderson was a man of conviction. He believed that MPPs should have more freedom to vote their conscience as opposed to always falling in line with their party. He was quoted as saying that MPPs’ “first role is to represent the views of their constituents,” even if those views sometimes violate party policies. Best summarized in his own words, he said, “Personal liberty is not just a slogan. I speak of personal liberty because it means a lot to me. As a practising physician and counsellor I devoted myself to helping people liberate themselves from a tyranny from within—the tyranny of neurotic conflict and suffering. I cannot support legislative measures that compromise personal liberty from without. To me freedom is not negotiable.”

Dr. Henderson had the respect of all sides of the House and developed lifelong friendships such as that with NDP MPP and Speaker David Warner, who is here with us today.

Jim was truly a loving family man and dear friend to many.

He is survived by his wife, Karen; his children, James, Chris and Kevin; his grandchildren, Iris and Emma; his sister, Carol; and his nieces and nephews, Bob, Jane, Ann, Bill, Sandy and Tracey.

Again, I welcome and thank his wonderful family and friends who are here with us today.

I had the pleasure to speak with Chris, who spoke of Jim as a young father when he entered politics, having sons aged two to six years old. I can certainly relate to this. In 1985, when his father, Jim, was the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, Chris remembered being brought to his dad’s office. As a five-year-old, he joyfully ran up and down the halls and unfortunately discovered a bunch of ink stamps and pads. I will not relay the chaos that ensued at that time. Almost 20 years later, in 2004, Chris returned to Queen’s Park as an intern in that very same office, where he walked rather than ran the halls and was much more subdued in his use of ink.

Jim lives on in his immortalized words in the Hansard and the results of his work under the many hats he wore throughout his life. But most of all, he lives on in the lives and memories of his loving and proud family and all who had the pleasure of knowing him.