Ontario Election

[Edward Campbell]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail

 

[George Wallace]

Reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail

That about sums it up.  However, the artist left out the flare gun shot to the plane as he ejects.  With his prorogue of the Ontario legislature, he has put all kinds of government programs and projects on hold which I am sure is going to cost the Ontario Taxpayers billions of dollars.  I doubt any premier has the hold on bankrupting a province as much as McGuinty.....but he is following in good footsteps behind Bob Rae.









[Interesting:  Spell Check doesn't recognize "McGuinty".  Surprised it didn't suggest "maggot".]

 

[a_majoor]

The next election shoudl be fought on energy, and here is a primer for you to get started. It may actually be worth taking the hit and paying cancelation costs to end all the various Liberal "initiaitves" and crony capital deals to get a fresh start:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/16/ontario-needs-an-energy-moratorium/

Ontario needs an energy moratorium

Tom Adams, Special to Financial Post | Oct 16, 2012 9:04 PM ET

Then we can debate the huge power-rate hike that is pending


Dalton McGuinty, the Liberal premier of Ontario’s minority government, has announced his resignation amid a controversy over electricity. But even as he walks away, the mess he created is getting worse by the day.

As he leaves, proroguing the legislature, it is time for a moratorium on energy development across the province. All major electricity projects in Ontario that can be delayed without severe penalty should be frozen immediately.

Public concern about cancelled gas plants is the straw that has brought down the government. McGuinty is trying to blame the opposition for resisting his public-sector wage-control plan, but that is just a red herring to cover his getaway. McGuinty is trying to dodge testifying about the gas fiasco. Despite his bloviating about caring for future generations, his actions are designed to conceal the costs he has imposed on future ­ratepayers.

Even the most stalwart Liberals must be able to see that if McGuinty has a shred of concern left in him about the future of the province, he will use the vast executive powers he has granted himself to bring down a moratorium on spending any more money or entering into any more commitments on electricity infrastructure.

Ontario’s official electricity cover-ups have been so deep and pervasive that consumers do not know what they are on the hook for. They do have enough information to know that Ontario will have the highest rates of any jurisdiction in contiguous North America by next year and that the pace of rate increases will accelerate dramatically in 2014 and 2015.

The legislature is not being allowed to work. Citizens must either take up the responsibility to uncover the truth or suffer the consequences.

Stop the wind turbines, the solar panels, the phony conservation programs, the transmission “enabler” lines, the new gas plants, the nuclear refurbishment deals, the “smart” grid, the Mattagami expansion, the East-West Tie, repowering Atikokan Generating Station and gassing Thunder Bay Generating Station. Masses of bureaucratic busy work must stop, including restructuring the distribution utilities, merging the Ontario Power Authority (OPA) and the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), and developing “incentive regulation” plans for crown corporations. All these and more must be reviewed for overall value.

The legislature needs time to change the laws. For starters, Ontario needs to restore independence and integrity to the Ontario Energy Board, the IESO and the OPA — now under cabinet and ministerial control. The Green Energy Act must be scrapped. Ontario needs real and independent environmental assessments.

Cleaning up the operational and legislative mess McGuinty leaves needs a new vision.

Between now and the next election, the people of Ontario need to debate their electricity future. More government ownership or less? How to mitigate the massive rate impact coming over the next three years? How to retool agencies like the IESO and OPA so that consumers don’t get the worst end of every bargain? Should Ontario have a market for electricity or should government set the price? Should Ontario keep the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit that shifts 10% off residential bills onto the deficit?

After the next election, a new government will have to decide all of these issues and more. The interests of future ratepayers have been ignored too long.

Financial Post

Tom Adams, an electricity consultant, blogs at www.tomadamsenergy.com.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Twitterverse says the Ontario Liberal leadership vote will be during weekend of 25-27 Jan 13.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Sadly this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, will not get the attention it deserves because it is too full of numbers and probity issues which are beyond the ken of most Canadians, including most Canadian journalists:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/10/31/terence-corcoran-mcguintys-dark-secrets-revealed/

McGuinty’s dark secrets revealed

Terence Corcoran

Oct 31, 2012

Documents show cancelling Oakville plant alone will cost $1-billion

As Premier Dalton McGuinty prorogued the Ontario legislature and announced his retirement last month, he would have known that some of the darker secrets of his government’s handling of energy policy would soon come to light. Today, those secrets — until now buried in 56,000 pages of released but unreadable documents — are appearing in the open.

In sordid and alarming detail, the documents show that the McGuinty government’s cancellation of gas plants in Oakville and Mississauga are likely to cost as much as $1.3-billion, possibly more. Killing the Oakville plant and moving it to Bath will alone burden Ontario ratepayers and taxpayers with costs that exceed $1-billion.

These numbers — openly discussed in documents as part of the government’s legal negotiations with TransCanada Energy and other companies — are a far cry from the $40-million Energy Minister Chris Bentley recently announced as the cost of killing the 900-megawatt Oakville Generating Station.

More than the numbers, the documents — analyzed by Toronto energy consultant Tom Adams in a posting to his website Tuesday and in FP Comment Thursday — also show that the premier’s office played a role in the gas-plant debacle. Under instruction, bureaucrats and government agency staff, especially at the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), were also dragged into litigation negotiations aimed at containing the major liabilities the government had created.

In May 2011, a presentation to the board of directors of the OPA, which runs electricity policy under cabinet directives, outlined the negotiation spiral. Titled “Winding Up the Oakville Generating Contract” and “prepared in contemplation of litigation,” the presentation summarizes the history of the government’s battle with TransCanada Energy (TCE), which had a signed contract to build the plant. In March 2011, the government offered TCE a settlement worth $462-million, which TransCanada rejected.

In April, the government came back: “OPA was instructed by the government to make a second counterproposal to the TCE proposal…. It had an effective financial value of $712-million. On 29 April TCE rejected the government-instructed counter-proposal.”

The government was clearly over a litigation barrel. The same OPA board presentation spelled out the stark options. A graphic shows the “worst case” cost of going to court at about $750-million that could be awarded to TransCanada in compensation for the government’s breach of contract. TransCanada asked for more than $900-million. Mr. Adams says that so far he has been unable to find the final settlement number within the 56,000 pages of documents.

But there are clearly more costs to ratepayers than the TCE settlement. Moving the Oakville plant to Bath requires building transmission lines, a point made in an October 2010, email from Rick Jennings, assistant deputy minister at the Ministry of Energy. The OPA, he said, estimated that “the transmission investment required would be in the order of $200-million … [including] a combination of three transmissions projects” that would run through urban areas.

But that also would not cover all the added costs. Moving the gas plant out of Oakville still created a vacuum in the Toronto electricity market, said Mr. Jennings. “It is worth noting that the new transmission alternative would still require new generation to be built at another location capable of delivering power to the Greater Toronto Area.”

Mr. Adams estimates that building a 300-megawatt plant to service Toronto as a replacement for Oakville could run to $350-million. Adding that number to the new transmission costs and the settlement with TCE brings the total cost of getting out of the Oakville plant to more than $1.2-billion.

Exactly how much leverage TransCanada held over the government isn’t clear, but it appears to be a powerful incentive for the government to settle on a big number. Mr. McGuinty plays a role. In March 2011, JoAnne Butler, vice-president of energy resources at OPA, wrote to staff and executives at the OPA describing what she called a “no win” situation.

“Litigation is not preferred. It is not cheap; we will not necessarily win and the ratepayer will get no [megawatts] out of it. TCE will litigate based on the promises received by them from the premier’s office.”

The nature of these “promises” from Mr. McGuinty isn’t stated, and Mr. Adams says he has not found any direct clues in the documents. It is clear, however, that the PO — the premier’s office — crops up as a player in the documents.

So do big-name Toronto law firms, such as Osler Hoskins and Lang Michener, which were copied on email after email as the litigation threat grew.

Meanwhile, the costs of the other project cancellation, the 300 MW Greenfield South Project in Mississauga, appear to be higher than the $190-million disclosed. In November 2011, OPA chief executive Colin Anderson asked his staff to provide a breakdown of the Mississauga cancellation. He received a table titled “Summary of Costs Associated with Winding Up Greenfield South Project.” It showed evaporation of $150-million in sunk costs, $70-million in lost profits on clean energy contracts and other costs of $20-million, for a total of about $240-million.

Mr. Adams, in his posting Tuesday, identifies that other transmission-line costs related to Mississauga are still unaccounted for.

Mr. Anderson, CEO of the power authority, was concerned about the impact of these breach of contract settlements on ratepayers. “What is our guestimate of ratepayer impact and when?” he asked in an email. He wondered if the costs could also be spread over four years, to make the numbers look small.

The final costs are still unknown. The Mississauga price tag is not readily discernible in the documents at this point, says Mr. Adams. In both Oakville and Mississauga cancellations, the OPA and government appear determined to keep the litigation risks and the costs out of the public eye.

Ms. Butler, OPA vice-president of energy resources, exchanged emails with Michael Killeavy, OPA director of contract management, over what to say about the Oakville cancellation. “If anyone asks about the costs or where we are on the [Oakville Generating Station], I will say: ‘TransCanada and the OPA are currently discussing the disposition. … Costs, if any, associated with the disposition … are undetermined at this time.”

During negotiations, OPA — under government oversight — seems to want to deny TransCanada’s right to lost profits on the Oakville cancellation. Michael Killeavy wrote to lawyer Sabastiano Rocco at Osler, Hoskin in February 2011, asking: “When might we get your opinion on whether residual value of a project might reasonably be considered as damages for a breach of contract? We need to meet with TCE next week to ‘negotiate’ alleged loss of profit on [Oakville] and it would be helpful to have your opinion before we meet.”

Mr. Rocco’s response was that they might be wise to bring in a financial expert from one of the financial firms to get a “commercial/business” perspective as opposed to simply a legal interpretation of the issue.”

Mr. Adams, in his posting on the 56,000 documents, runs through other disclosure issues. But there is clearly more to come out of the documents. As more and more experts and media review their content, the more the McGuinty government’s handling of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plant projects will loom as a major policy and fiscal disaster, part of a pattern that reaches throughout the province’s electricity industry.

It is pretty clear that Premier McGuinty, during an economic crisis, misused the provincial budget to achieve minor partisan political ends. Ontarians ought to be howling at the gates at Queens Park ... but they aren't. Equally, it ought to be clear to Ontarians that we need a new, fiscally and politically responsible government ... but it isn't. It should also be clear that the free spending, anti-business NDP is ill prepared to govern Ontario ... but that isn't obvious to Ontarians, either. Finally it should be clear that the PC Party has a leader who is ready to govern in a fair and responsible manner ... and that isn't clear either, not even to me.

 

[a_majoor]

In any rational polity, this should result in jail time, but I predict nothing will come out of this and "we" will be paying for years to come:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/11/01/ontarios-power-trip-dalton-mcguinty-power-puppeteer/

Ontario’s Power Trip: Dalton McGuinty, power puppeteer

Parker Gallant, Special to Financial Post | Nov 1, 2012 9:09 PM ET | Last Updated: Nov 2, 2012 11:40 AM ET

Premier’s Office overwhelmed bureaucrats on gas-plant scandal

The 56,000 pages of documents associated with the Ontario government’s decision to kill two gas plants originally planned for Mississauga and Oakville show clearly the top-down role of politicians, both in the decisions made and in the attempts to hide the costs. They show, in numerous instances, how Premier Dalton McGuinty was in absolute control through his cabinet ministers to the officials he had appointed to the agencies involved.

As I read the documents so far, including board briefings and emails among the many players, it’s the Liberal strategists attached to the Premier’s Office and Ministry offices who are invested in hiding the mess the gas plants created. As energy consultant Tom Adams suggests in his review of the documents, the evidence suggests the total cost of plant cancellations is likely greater than $1.3-billion, the burden to be borne by electricity consumers. The documents show that McGuinty strategists managed the gas files to benefit the Liberal party rather than taxpayers and ratepayers. Once the plants were cancelled, in October 2010 and September 2011, the top-down political influence is very noticeable. Post-cancellation negotiations to cover the costs of breaking contracts fell to Liberal party officials who tried to cover up the mess, not to energy experts.

One early sign of the Premier’s Office control came early, in November 2010, a month after the government announced it would cancel the $1.2-billion contract to TransCanada Energy (TCE) to build the 900-megawatt Oakville plant. One of the 56,000 documents is a presentation made to the board of directors of the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), the agency that runs the provincial power system under government oversight. One slide in the presentation captures the essence of the issues:

Premier’s Office staff advised TCE that Ontario has other needs for gas-fired generation

z OPA staff [is] advised that Province would be pleased if the following or a combination of the following criteria were achieved:

z Negotiated solution does not exceed $1.2 B

z No cheque issued to TCE

z Good location for replacement facility (i.e. rural and meets

setback requirements of Bill 8)

z Per unit cost close to that of similar generation technology…”

Regarding the Oakville plant, therefore, it looks like the Premier’s Office is well aware of the liability created by cancelling the TCE contract, and that it wants a settlement that “does not exceed” $1.2-billion — the cost of the plant — and that “no cheque” is to be issued to TCE. What we now know, however, is that while no cheque was issued, TCE was awarded another site in Bath, Ont., and other concessions. No cheque was issued by the government, but ratepayers will be paying through their electricity bills.

Among the strategists on behalf of the government was David Livingston, then the CEO of Infrastructure Ontario. Mr. Livingston, now the premier’s chief of staff, used Infrastructure Ontario staff to put together “term sheets” that would be used in negotiations with TCE. One option involved transferring part ownership in another gas plant, Portlands, to TCE as compensation for loss of Oakville. The offer appears to have been made without consulting the owner of the asset, Ontario Power Generation. TCE rejected the idea. It also rejected the possibility of building a 1,000-MW gas plant at the Lambton, Nanticoke or Thunder Bay coal facilities, also owned by Ontario Power Generation.

These offers were obviously meant to avoid a lawsuit or the possibility of having to cut a cheque from the provincial treasury.

While both the Mississauga and the Oakville projects were the responsibility of the Ontario Power Authority, OPA played a minimal part in the eventual settlement agreements struck. The Greenfield plant in Mississauga contract was negotiated and signed by Ministry of Energy (MEI) officials before the Act creating the OPA occurred. It was assigned to the OPA to administer but responsibility for the settlement fell back to the MEI as the original party to the agreement. The OPA did negotiate the Oakville contract, however, played no role in its cancellation and wanted no part of any payment for settlement, either negotiated or ordered by a court of law. On the latter contract, the OPA concluded an agreement with the Crown (read taxpayer) exonerating the OPA from almost all costs of settlement.



Cancelling the TCE Oakville contract, according to Energy Minister Chris Bentley, will only cost Ontario taxpayers $40-million. Technically, Bentley spoke the truth. The documents have now shown the cost of the Oakville cancellation will top the $1-billion mark but only $40-million will be allocated to taxpayers. The balance will be paid by Ontario’s ratepayers.

The irony is that Jim Hinds, chair of the OPA board of directors, raised the issue of loading the cost of the Oakville liability onto ratepayers. In an August 2, 2011, e-mail to the CEO, Colin Andersen, Mr. Hind said he raised the ratepayer issue with the PO (Premier’s Office): “Just got a call from PO checking in and thanking OPA for burning midnight oil to get all this stuff done…. I took the opportunity to raise TCE arbitration, and mentioned the difficulty that we were going to have entering into arbitration agreement without in some way limiting ratepayer exposure. Mentioned that I believed discussions were underway broaching the issue with Finance and that we would need to resolve this issue soon. He was open to the conversation and was going to check with Finance to see where they stood…. I mentioned that this ratepayer cap concept involves only Gov and OPA; it does not involve TCE.”

Despite the best intentions of Mr. Hinds to protect ratepayers, Ontario’s Finance Department or minister were not willing to limit the ratepayer exposure and accepted responsibility for only the $40-million Mr. Bentley announced. The real costs, as much as $1.3-billion, fall to ratepayers.

The ratepayer allocation was the result of interventions by Mr. McGuinty’s “Liberal strategists,” including: Sean Mullin, deputy director of policy, Office of the Premier, who became involved in meetings with OPA staff and others on mediation efforts with TCE; David Livingston of Infrastructure Ontario, who championed IO’s involvement to take over negotiations with TCE; Steve Jamison, Veteran Liberal Strategist who was copied on legal documents from TCE’s legal counsel (Thornton, Grout); and Craig MacLennan, Chief of Staff, Minister of Energy, who was involved in all the Energy Ministry’s related activities on the negotiations and received regular updates from OPA staff. These key strategists were key McGuinty people directly involved with various parties and also subtly conveying directions to bureaucrats to hide cancellation costs from public scrutiny. Those names pop up often in the search of those 56,000 documents, copied on emails and indicated to have participated in meetings.

Susan Kennedy, a lawyer with the OPA, wrote on Jan. 20, 2011 to Rocco ­Sebastiano at the law firm Osler, Hoskin, saying that a directive from the minister of energy instructed the OPA to say “nothing about costs” in formally notifying TCE of the Oakville plant cancellation. Michael Killeavy, director of contract management for OPA, wrote in a July, 2011, note to Mr. Rocco “they have conceded everything TCE asked for.” The “they” presumably refers to IO and the Crown.

The political players overwhelmed the bureaucrats, who appear in the emails to be attempting to look after ratepayers. On the bright side, the documents show Ontario does have officials who are concerned about Ontario’s overburdened ratepayers despite their political masters.

So far there is no obvious smoking gun to be found in the hands of either Mr. Bentley or his predecessor as energy minister, Brad Duguid. Their role, even as cabinet ministers, appears to be to step out in front of the media and field questions. How much they know or knew, or when and how they were performing for Mr. McGuinty and his appointees, remains unknown and without a public enquiry may never be known. So far, they appear to be mere puppets.

The power of the puppet master is that his puppets will do his bidding and from all evidence it certainly appears that McGuinty and his strategists were in charge of their performances.

The whole exercise can be summed up in a quote from Glen Wright, former chairman of Hydro One, who recently said his retort to Americans complaining about spending $1-billion on presidential election campaigns is: “hell, that only covers two seats in Ontario.”

Financial Post

Parker Gallant is a retired bank vice-­president who looked at his electricity bill and didn’t like what he saw.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Glen Murray, MPP for Toronto Centre, announced today that he is a candidate to become the next leader of the Ontario Liberal Party.

“It’s time for renewal, for our party, our government and for Ontario,” Murray told a packed crowd today at Maple Leaf Gardens, where the new leader will be chosen January 25-26.

“We are a party of ideas, of action and achievement. I have new ideas that will renew our vision and build on our successes - ideas that will work so we can keep Ontario great.”

Murray said his campaign will be built on five main ideas for renewal for Ontario families and our economy:

• Tax cuts for the middle class and small business
• No-money-down university or college tuition
• Cities and towns that work
• Government that listens
• Smart government

His no-money-down university and college program will let students enter postsecondary school without having to come up with large amounts upfront for tuition and fees.

The next Ontario Liberal leader automatically becomes Premier, succeeding Premier Dalton McGuinty. In keeping with the rules for the leadership race, Murray called the Premier on Saturday to resign from his cabinet post, Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Murray was elected MPP in 2010 and has also served as Minister of Research and Innovation. He is a former Mayor of Winnipeg and has also served as President and CEO of the Canadian Urban Institute and Chair of the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy.

He is the first Ontario Liberal to officially announce his candidacy for the leadership.

“It’s time to begin the next chapter - to renew the Ontario Liberal Party and to renew Ontario,” Murray said.

Glen Murray Info-machine, 4 Nov 12

 

[GAP]

Seeing how Glen Murray got run out of Winnipeg on a rail..... :

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Seeing how Glen Murray got run out of Winnipeg on a rail..... :

Another knee-dipper that got ran out of town (in Murray's case, literally) and who decided to move to greener pastures and hope no-one would remember their past record.

You must of also been in Winnipeg while Murray was in power?

 

[GAP]

Oh yeah....we've had a succession of winners for mayor....Murray the most egregious ......

 

[a_majoor]

He will have lots of competition:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/06/scott-stinson-race-to-replace-mcguinty-stuck-in-the-middle-as-candidates-plot-centrist-course/

Scott Stinson: Race to replace McGuinty stuck in the middle as candidates plot centrist course

Scott Stinson | Nov 6, 2012 2:51 AM ET

The competition to replace Dalton McGuinty as Premier of Ontario officially became a race on Monday night with the announcement of its second contestant. But with long-time cabinet minister Kathleen Wynne following former Winnipeg mayor Glen Murray into the fray, so far, it looks like a race to the middle.

Ms. Wynne, speaking to a crowd of several hundred at a Japanese-Canadian cultural centre in her midtown Toronto riding of Don Valley West, was unapologetic about associating the Liberals with what is sometimes called the mushy middle, preferring instead to call her vision for the party one that stakes out the “strong middle ground.”

“The party to our right does not have the corner on fiscal responsibility and the party to our left does not have the corner on compassion,” she said, according to prepared remarks.
Related

    Scott Stinson: McGuinty Liberals’ dream of renewable energy has not come to pass

    McGuinty spills the beans: Kathleen Wynne seeking Ontario Liberal leadership

    Scott Stinson: Ontario Liberals prepared to coast through four months off the job

Along with other references to the “solid foundation” that Mr. McGuinty built over nine years in the premier’s office, and pledges to “stay on our government’s fiscal plan of balancing the budget” by 2018, Ms. Wynne’s remarks seemed aimed at countering suggestions she would seek to pilot the Liberals sharply to the political left, away from the deficit-fighting agenda of the past year and back into the free-spending ways of the first eight years of the McGuinty government.

“We must stay the course in aggressively paying down the deficit and that will require tough decisions,” she said.

In the three weeks that have passed since Mr. McGuinty announced his sudden resignation — and the subsequent prorogation of the legislature — Ms. Wynne has frequently been mentioned as a possible front-runner in the campaign to replace him. Most recently the minister of municipal affairs and aboriginal affairs, though she resigned those portfolios last Friday in other to pursue a leadership bid, Ms. Wynne was the minister of education from 2006 to 2010, at a time during which the Liberals had a rosy relationship with the province’s large teachers’ unions. But if her past positive experience in the ministry — which included, not coincidentally, repeated healthy raises for teachers — was supposed to help thaw the Liberals’ ice-cold relations with the big unions, there was little indication on Monday that Ms. Wynne was ready to concede that the hard line taken by Mr. McGuinty and his Finance Minister, Dwight Duncan, was the incorrect one. She said she would not tear up Bill 115, the legislation passed in September that will impose new contracts on teachers’ unions that fail to negotiate agreements that meet the government’s strict pre-conditions, including a two-year wage freeze and a sharp reduction in bankable sick days.

Instead, Ms. Wynne spoke of “rebuilding our relationships with teachers,” but said she hoped that the holdout unions would return to bargaining and reach negotiated settlements. This is no different a position than that espoused by Mr. McGuinty, Mr. Duncan, or Laurel Broten, the current Education Minister. It also falls far short of what the unions have been demanding — repealing Bill 115 because, they maintain, it trampled on bargaining rights by setting out those pre-conditions of what would constitute an acceptable settlement. On Monday night, about a dozen protesters lined the walkway outside Ms. Wynne’s event, holding placards that decried the teacher bill and chanting, not all that originally, “Hey hey, ho ho, Bill 115 has got to go.”

Ms. Wynne’s decidedly centrist take on where she would lead the Liberals, though short on actual policy ideas, occupies much of the same space as the general ideas put forth by Mr. Murray, who promised “no money down” tuition for post-secondary education but also said he would make middle-class tax cuts.

Both of the contenders already in the race are thought to represent the Liberals’ left flank, which would leave room for someone like former cabinet minister Sandra Pupatello to theoretically push more of a centre-right agenda. Mr. Duncan, for one, said he would support his long-time friend and fellow Windsor native should she choose to enter the race. When Mr. Duncan announced he would not seek the premier’s office himself, Ms. Pupatello’s entry was widely seen as a given. She has said nothing official.

But for those expecting that the leadership race would see Liberals talking of charting a new course, early suggestions — and they are still very early — are otherwise. Ms. Wynne saved her harshest words for Mike Harris — hardly a new line of attack for Ontario Liberals.

“We have to know,” she said, “that the middle ground is the firmest place to stand.”

Perhaps, but it’s also some distance from renewal.

National Post
• Email: sstinson@nationalpost.com

The Liberal candidates must be using  Office 2012's dictionary, since their definitions of "center" and "fiscal responsibility" don't seem to match the ones most people use....

 

[The Bread Guy]

"They" say the next ones to allegedly throw their hats into the ON Liberal leadership ring are....

Sandra Pupatello (former McGuinty cabinet minister - more on her (usual Wikipedia caveats) here

Charles Sousa (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) - more on him here

 

[The Bread Guy]

Latest Ontario move:  province imposing contracts to August 2014, repealing Bill 115 on ratification:

Ontario is moving forward with the implementation of collective agreements for all teachers and support staff that meet the province's fiscal targets while protecting the classroom experience and the gains made in education. All new contracts are retroactive to Sept. 1, 2012 and will expire on Aug. 31, 2014.

Today, Laurel Broten, Minister of Education, approved all 65 locally negotiated and ratified  agreements submitted by school boards prior to the Dec. 31, 2012 deadline set out in the Putting Students First Act.  CUPE has been given until Jan. 14 to ratify 110 local agreements.   


Through an Order In Council, the Lieutenant Governor in Council - on the advice of the Minister - has implemented contracts for all school boards and unions that were unable to deliver ratified and approved collective agreements by the deadline. This does not include those that have received an extension until Jan. 14 for local ratifications. The authority to put in place contracts after Dec. 31, 2012 is granted under the Putting Students First Act.

The Putting Students First Act was introduced and passed by a majority of the House to ensure that we could maintain the progress we've made in our schools and minimize labour disruption during the extended negotiation period. The Putting Students First Act has now accomplished this goal. Therefore, following the ratification period for CUPE and before the end of the month, the Minister of Education will move to repeal the Act ....

 

[a_majoor]

The problem here isn't the ideas (most of which are common sense and have been successfully applied in many different times and places), but rather a combination of the political willpower to apply these ideas, and the will of the voters to accept that something radical needs to be done in order to break the cycle of spending, debt and regulatory failure in Ontario.

Of course union front groups like "Working Families", not to mention the hundreds of other special interests that the McGuinty government pandered to over the last decade can be expected to come out and fight to the last taxpayer to keep their perques and privileges gained over the last decade, and the Legacy Media will pull out the tired "hidden agenda" playbook as well:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/01/03/terence-corcoran-ontarios-policy-revolutionary/

Terence Corcoran: Ontario’s policy revolutionary

Terence Corcoran | Jan 3, 2013 8:26 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 3, 2013 8:43 PM ET
More from Terence Corcoran | @terencecorcoran

Hudak’s ­conservative plans would unravel McGuinty’s statism

The last days of Dalton McGuinty’s ultra-progressive 10-year reign as premier of Ontario are not going to be pretty. Nor all that progressive, judging by his Liberal government’s decision Thursday to impose a contract on the province’s public schoolteachers.

After a decade of pandering to unions, and to every other favour-seeking interest group from green-energy corporate giants to frozen pizza makers, the McGuinty era is unwinding in a whirlwind of blundering policy reversals and fiscal turmoil. Ontario’s annual deficit is $15-billion and provincial debt is up over $260-billion. Growth is slow, jobs are few, and prospects are bleak.

As Mr. McGuinty exits stage left in disorderly chaos, entering on the right is Tim Hudak, the Conservative leader who has been calmly and systematically unveiling radical reform of Ontario government policy, along with a dismantling of much of the McGuinty legacy.

The Hudak Revolution, it could be called. Hudak doesn’t quite rhyme with Hayek, the Nobel-winning free-market economist, but Hudak conservatism is slowly laying out a policy agenda that aims to roll back significant parts of the Ontario state.

In a series of brief and general “white papers” released in recent months, Mr. Hudak has outlined broad agendas in key areas that are unmistakably driven by a Conservative political and philosophical approach that is in direct opposition to the big-spending squishy big-government liberalism of the McGuinty era.

From one of those white papers — Paths to Prosperity, Mr. Hudak calls them — comes this:

    Government intrusion into the free market always distorts the natural balance between competing industries, products and services. The current government’s approach of picking winners and losers with grants, loans and subsidies has failed. This Paths to Prosperity white paper — the fourth in a series — proposes a very different approach of smaller, more-focused government and a level playing field for all to succeed through lower taxes, freer trade and less government interference.

Such talk, along with the policy prescriptions in the Hudak agenda, has drawn outraged commentary from the left and droopy-eyed yawns from a media gallery that cannot fathom anything other than a government that panders and promises a golden future built on big government and more spending. “Tim Hudak’s leaner, meaner Ontario,” said the Toronto Star in an editorial that described Mr. Hudak’s plans for the public sector as a “26-page blueprint for strangling the public sector.”

What the Hudak paper does call for is a two-year wage freeze for public employees, a move that would cut $2-billion a year from spending. “We also need to make do with fewer government employees.” As for collective-bargaining rights, Mr. Hudak argues — reasonably and as the McGuinty Liberals now belatedly argue — that it is legitimate for a government in dire fiscal condition to take drastic action to avoid calamity.

So far, the Hudak Conservatives have issued seven policy papers: on energy, growth, labour markets, health care, retirement security, children and youth, and health care. Not all of the papers are dazzling blueprints for detailed reform, but they do contain a long list of substantial proposals and some targeted prescriptions that are firm and radical — exactly what Ontario needs to begin pulling out of its current slide.

Scores of government agencies are to be cut, including — to pick one of dozens — the Ministry of Economic Development, which “exists primarily to hand out individual grants to private, for-profit corporations.” Reform of Ontario’s legendary alcohol monopoly grabbed attention, as have plans to get the government out of much of the gambling business.

In energy, there are calls to begin selling off the government-owned corporations Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One. Premier McGuinty’s FIT — feed-in tariff — subsidy regime for wind and solar power is to be phased out and the sectors forced to compete in the market.

In an Ontario wallowing in a decade of liberalism, with Mr. McGuinty the pious Pied Piper of big government and nanny-state extremism, the Hudak agenda is shaping up to be a revolutionary antidote. It is an agenda that will be fought hard by the opposition parties.

But as time passes, and as the ruins of the McGuinty era become more apparent — in labour relations, energy policy, health care, regulatory excess — the Hudak path to reform could become not just appealing but esssential to the future of Ontario.

The Paths to Prosperity papers are posted on the Conservative party website. They provide a way of thinking about government that has been lost in Ontario for more than a decade. The ideas, if not the specifics, would also serve as guides to provincial governments across Canada. The Hudak revolution represents a policy shift that could — and maybe must — become a national trend.

 

[kevincanada]

I have to agree, I am happy the premier is done and going out the door.  I thought I take a this opportunity to show the obvious blatant waste with the liberal policies regarding energy.  I work in housing, looking into solar installations and the cost of equipment with training I speculated it would cost $5000 to $7000 for training.  This is on top of existing resources, (tools, vehicles my company already owns).  On the surface it looks worth it and it is if you can get the contracts.  Plus solar is green, it's win win.  Not So...

Most people reading this have likely seen the big bulky solar panel installations while out and about in towns.  i won't go into to many numbers, due to lack of efficiency, those panels are subsidized back to the buyer at 80cents, (now 50cents) per kilowatt.  Power from the grid is 12cents; double it for taxes.  In short it creates a 300% to 500% shortfall or a waste of tax payer money versus simply buying power from the grid.

Good for the consumer/corporation - Bad for Ontario as a whole in the form of taxes.  It's gets worse.  The Americans have a rubber/adhesive style of solar panel system that you just roll out onto the roof fasten and walk away.

- Benefits are less materials, easier installation, less labour costs, less purchasing costs, higher electrical out put.  It exceeds in every single category when compared to the way we are doing solar in Ontario.

Now to top it off, The Americans as per the last time I looked into it being Summer of 2012 are expecting new more efficient solar products to be replacing the design I just described in the near future.

Here we are installing, and subsidizing a solar installation system in Ontario, that is Archaic in comparison to the Americans.  I have to ask the Premier.  Why?

 

[a_majoor]

Ask rather who benefits from this?

The person who is getting a MiroFIT payout to have a panel on the roof neither knows nor cares what is actually on the roof (unless they are a solar geek), they love the cheque coming in. The installer gets a nice slice of pie, as do the manufacturers (with the added benefit of not even having to invest in new products in order to compete).

Who loses? The taxpayers.

 

[kevincanada]

Ask rather who benefits from this?

The person who is getting a MiroFIT payout to have a panel on the roof neither knows nor cares what is actually on the roof (unless they are a solar geek), they love the cheque coming in. The installer gets a nice slice of pie, as do the manufacturers (with the added benefit of not even having to invest in new products in order to compete).

Who loses? The taxpayers.

I know who benefits from this.  It was the reason why I was considering the training.  What stop me was looking at it long term.  Would there be work in the years to come?  The answer was no when looking at Ontario debt levels.  I took the educated guess and said the program will be scrapped.

The premier would of known this.  Yet he did it anyway.

Oh well doesn't matter now.  We will likely see a Conservative government and Hudak has already said he going scrap the program if he wins.

 

[a_majoor]

The Premier knew this and did it anyway because the short term political gain was far higher than the long term economic payoff (and he wasn't about to be stuck with those costs anyway).

Completely dysfunctional plans have been mooted and enacted not because they are not known to work, but because they make great "sound bites" and can be sold to voters. Politicians also know that few people can link causes to effects, so escape the blame for the problems their programs cause.

The various now coming true predictions about Obamacare were echoed in the 1960's against the "Great Society" plan, Medicare and Medicaid, and further back in the past, there was well reasoned opposition to the "New Deal". In every case, politicians were warned the programs would not deliver what was promised, and that the various costs projected were wildly unrealistic, yet the pols went ahead anyway. Who, after all, blamed FDR for extending the Great Depression for another seven years? Few African Americans spit on LBJ's grave for the destruction of African American families, and almost no one pins the stagflation of the 1970's on the spending extravaganza of the Great Society programs. Similarly, who is blaming FDR and LBJ for the coming destruction of American entitlement programs as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid approach bankruptcy?

 

[a_majoor]

Ontario's home made electrical disaster:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/01/17/ontarios-power-trip-mcguintys-legacy/

Ontario’s Power Trip: McGuinty’s legacy

Parker Gallant | Jan 17, 2013 8:52 PM ET | Last Updated: Jan 17, 2013 9:01 PM ET
More from Parker Gallant

Billions spent but no new deliverable power


Over the next few weeks Ontario will get a new Liberal premier to replace Dalton McGuinty, who abruptly announced his resignation last October. One of the biggest challenges facing the new Liberal premier, to be selected at a party convention next weekend, will be to set out a plan to extricate the province and the Liberals from the McGuinty government’s most costly and disruptive policy failure.

None of the contenders, as far as I can tell, have even mentioned the topic: electricity. Over the last decade of McGuinty rule, through seven energy ministers, the government of Canada’s industrial heartland virtually eliminated market forces from the electricity market and created a top-down regime that will cost the Ontario economy — consumers and industry — billions of dollars.

The costs to the economy have yet to be fully acknowledged, although it is worth noting that just this week Honda Canada’s executive vice-president, Jerry Chenkin, told The Windsor Star that the Japanese automaker sees rising transport, labour and rising electricity costs as competitive factors for auto plants in Ontario.

It began in 2004 with the creation of the Ontario Power Authority (OPA). Four years later, under a new energy minister, the Liberals brought in the Green Energy and Economy Act (GEEA). Using authority under the GEEA, North America’s first feed-in-tariff subsidy regime was launched and the OPA was assigned the task of signing juicy above-market-price contracts for wind and solar development. Over the period, various so-called long-term energy plans were created using expert advisors. But they were abandoned. Eventually, the government moved everything into the offices of the premier and whomever happened to be energy minister.

From about 2005 on, Ontario’s power sector was controlled and developed via ministerial directive, arbitrary instructions to the power authority instructing it to launch massive new capital spending programs and expensive and uneconomic new green energy projects. The directives also ordered closing coal plants.

These costs have only just begun to show up on consumer bills, but they will dramatically rise in years to come. How do the Liberal leadership candidates plan to deal with these major cost increases, on consumers and industry?

The capital expenditure costs that will have to be absorbed are significant. New hydro transmission lines will have to be built to accommodate the costly hydro, gas and bioenergy plants. See the table for the main items. Total capital costs on the list approach $18-billion. The annual cost for each ratepayer in Ontario (assuming 4.8 million ratepayers with costs amortized over 25 years) is about $150.

Despite the high capital spending, all decreed by the energy minister, no new electricity will be added to the grid. The hydro developments at Niagara Falls and Mattagami will add power during the spring, when additional electricity generation is not needed. These capital costs also do not include any capital costs for nuclear refurbishment at Darlington or the planned 2,000 megawatts in “new nuclear” plants proposed in government plans.

On an annual basis, the new capital costs seem small. And they are compared with the move to grant wind and solar generation “first to the grid” rights at above market prices. New wind and solar generation, to be paid subsidized rates, will alone add almost $4-billion to the annual bill of Ontario hydro consumers. Smart meters and a smart grid have been ordered up. The total cost of these government-decreed projects, along with few others, come to $7.35-billion per year. Spread over 4.8 million ratepayers, the annual cost is $1,530.

The third government-decreed price increase comes from taxes. In 2009 the government slapped an 8% HST on electricity. This increased tax revenue to the province by $1.2-billion on existing power costs. The tax will also be applied to all the new costs. The new wind and solar power costs, for example, will be hit by the new HST. Total cost per ratepayer: $375.

The total new cost to ratepayers of all these mandated projects and spending is $2,055 per ratepayer per year, probably sometime by the end of 2016, based on an average ratepayer with annual consumption of 2141 kilowatt hours (kWh) per month. That works out to 8¢ per kWh. The present rate (until April 30) is set to average 8.2¢ per kWh. What the foregoing means is that the cost of electricity in Ontario will almost double within the next four years. It is worth noting that delivery costs are not included in this estimate, but they normally represent about 25% of the average electricity bill.

There’s actually more to the McGuinty electric power bill than this. Not included are the direct costs to taxpayers such as the 10% Ontario Clean Energy Benefit (OCEB) of up to $1.5-billion a year, due to expire at the end of 2015. Also missing is the taxpayer-related costs of moving the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants ($230-million) and the costs of unfunded pensions at Hydro One and the OPG (in the billions). Grants are being handed out to GE, the MaRS Discovery District and others working on the development of the “smart grid.” The government also hands out grants and sponsorships to the numerous environmental non-government organizations (ENGOs) so they are able to attend “climate” conferences in Doha, Copenhagen and Rio. Also missing are the grant monies handed out to anyone who purchases an electric vehicle (EV grants of $5,000 to $8,500) or a charging station for that EV ($1,000).

Two other significant costs of energy are also laid at the doorstep of taxpayers through the Northern Ontario Energy Credit (up to $210 per family annually) and the Ontario Energy Property Tax Credit (up to $946 per property owner or renter and up to $1,078 for seniors annually). These two programs will collectively cost taxpayers in excess of $1-billion. If the above taxpayer costs and EV grants are continued, taxpayers will be picking up additional costs of about $10-billion for the “greening” of Ontario.

Some day somebody — the provincial auditor? — should do a full objective audit of Ontario’s electricity-policy regime and provide taxpayers and ratepayers with a clear tally of the costs.

A final note: All of the spending identified above has been principally aimed at shutting down Ontario’s “dirty” coal plants, originally slated for closure in 2007. Last week, in one of his last announcements as CEO of electricity, Premier McGuinty said they will finally be closed by the end of the current year. Despite the billions we have spent and are still spending to rid the province of those coal plants, it turns out they will remain available for high-demand days to back up intermittent wind and solar generation during the upcoming summer when wind generation often fails to produce any meaningful power.

The impact of the McGuinty decade of electricity management has been to set the province up for the annual removal of $10-billion in new ratepayer costs — or $2,055 per ratepayer per year — and another $2-billion or so annually from taxpayers’ pockets by 2016 and beyond. At that time, Ontario will have no more deliverable electricity generation than when Mr. McGuinty began his management of the system after gaining power in 2003, when Ontario had 30,006 megawatts.

Maybe the candidates to replace Mr. McGuinty as the next Liberal premier can explain how Ontario got into this mess and how they plan to get the province out of it.

Financial Post

Parker Gallant is a former Canadian banker who looked at his Ontario electricity bill and didn’t like what he saw.

Not sure what the fix is, or even if it is fixable in any reasonable time frame. This will hobble any succeeding government, and it will be interesting to see how the finger pointing is handled by the legacy media.

 

[kevincanada]

The Premier knew this and did it anyway because the short term political gain was far higher than the long term economic payoff

Completely dysfunctional plans have been mooted and enacted not because they are not known to work, but because they make great "sound bites" and can be sold to voters. Politicians also know that few people can link causes to effects, so escape the blame for the problems their programs cause.

The various now coming true predictions about Obamacare were echoed in the 1960's against the "Great Society" plan, Medicare and Medicaid, and further back in the past, there was well reasoned opposition to the "New Deal". In every case, politicians were warned the programs would not deliver what was promised, and that the various costs projected were wildly unrealistic, yet the pols went ahead anyway. Who, after all, blamed FDR for extending the Great Depression for another seven years? Few African Americans spit on LBJ's grave for the destruction of African American families, and almost no one pins the stagflation of the 1970's on the spending extravaganza of the Great Society programs. Similarly, who is blaming FDR and LBJ for the coming destruction of American entitlement programs as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid approach bankruptcy?

You have touched a lot of different and complex subjects in the matter of one paragraph.  I will not attempt to be so crazy to address them all.  But instead leave you with two things that maybe of interest regarding these expensive items.

1.  Look at japan medicare, ironically given their financial woes probably the best in the world in both service and cost.

2.  All countries are technically bankrupt.  We could argue "Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid approach bankruptcy?"  We both know if it comes crunch time.  The President will go to congress and say give me money or it will be disaster "xyz" reasoning.  They'll say "approved!" and it'll add to the debt and a slightly higher Debt to GDP ratio.  We do the same thing here in Canada.  Just the way it is. They are always on the verge of some major bankruptcy.

I was about to get a Google data history chart, when i punched it in, Coincidentally the search returned a Warren Buffet article on this exact subject came up dated January 20th, 2013.  He reiterates what I just said.  Everything is Debt to GDP ratio's.  As long as they are in range, they can still afford social security, medicare and medicaid.

The article
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/buffett-us-debt-on-its-own-not-a-problem-2013-01-20