McGuinty govt directive over green energy projects anti-democratic?

Check out this Globe and Mail article entitled: “Ontario Liberals make it harder to cancel green energy programs ahead of election.” (H/T Joanne at Blue Like You)  As the article states: “A directive signed by Energy Minister Brad Duguid effectively leaves the province’s electricity planning agency with much less leeway to cancel contracts, thereby giving companies greater assurance that their projects will go ahead as long as they meet certain conditions.” (Highlighting mine.)

What I find puzzling in the article, almost like partisan spin, are phrases like “less leeway” and “greater assurance.” Further along in the article the writers also use the phrase: “creating stability.” Less leeway for whom?  Greater assurances for whom? Creating stability for whom? Wind turbine and solar energy investors? There certainly are no assurances and stability for the energy paying Ontario taxpayer and consumer.

Look, I am not an energy expert. I just know what most Ontarians know, that you can’t keep spending more money on creating energy than you take in, or paying other governments for surplus energy you don’t need (while continuing to create that energy), or claiming that you are creating jobs in the green sector when we don’t know to what extent they are being created at the expense of other sectors.  

Then, of course, there is the McGuinty Green Energy Act, an act that is described as havingsweeping powers.” (See also this Google page on the topic.)

So, if the McGuinty Liberals already have a law with sweeping powers and they add in a “directive from the Energy Minister, Brad Duguid,” what have you got? A governing party that is anti-democratic, coercive, arrogant and desperate?

Whatever! It’s now just short of sixty days until Ontarians get a chance to let the McGuinty Liberals know how they feel about all this. October 6th!  Of course, I plan to vote PC (Progressive Conservative) but whether you are an NDP or PC supporter, mark that date on your calendar!

12 thoughts on “McGuinty govt directive over green energy projects anti-democratic?

  1. The McGuinty Liberals are both desperate and arrogant, as they approach the October election.

    Too bad they can’t be honest when pushing their green energy schemes which are a blueprint for financial disaster. They are not cost effective and no where near it decades down the road IF EVER.

    So, yes, they’re both dishonest and anti-democratic setting up contracts on the eve of an election that will not only cost big bucks to cancel which effectively gives the people no choice in the matter even if they vote in the Conservatives.

    We ought to be taking to the streets in droves!

    Like

    • Hi Liz J — Thanks for stopping by. As I just wrote on another thread, I am going back on my summer hiatus for awhile. However, I will leave comments on partial moderation. Hope the rest of the summer is good for you.

      Like

  2. Just to let you know, I and I am sure others, keep stopping by to check in. Will be waiting for you and bly to get up and running again. Enjoy your summer.

    Like

    • Nice to hear from you Marry T. I am assuming that my blog wouldn’t accept the MaryT with one “r.” Have no idea why. Anyway, I know who you are. LOL

      If there is an emergency or something unusual crops up, I’ll be back, otherwise the break will do me good since I have other things to do right now — beading, gardening, having the g/grandkids over for lunch. You know, the fun stuff! 😉

      Can you believe it that my oldest g/grandson will be 3 in September. It seems only a year ago that I had his infant photo up on my blog. Yet, in another year he’ll be in JK. And, his brother is already six months old!

      Re the federal scene, I don’t think this NDP leader being a former separatist is going to go away as much as the NDP would like it to. So, come the end of September, I suspect things are going to get interesting, but in a different way — e.g., hysteria about spending cuts. I am also concerned about their being another recession. Thank goodness we have a solid conservative gov’t in Ottawa.

      Like

    • Marry T — Just put up a post that has been on my mind. I am working on one about the London riots as well. Hard to stay away when things are happening. But, at least, Jo and I have slowed down a bit!

      Like

  3. Sandy:

    The problem is that when you put something into place, it needs support until it grows to fruition. Take the Ontario tradition of tree-planting, for example. Prostrated by the Rae and Harris governments, the nurseries which had served Ontario well since 1905 were just about wiped out by the time McGuinty took power.

    With the 50 Million Trees program they have come back, but the commitment increases each year if we are going to get tree production back to what it was in the fifties and sixties, let alone what Canada needs to help counteract climate change and sequester carbon. Trouble is that there is a minimum three-year lag between the planting of seeds and the planting of seedlings. There has to be some stability here. That’s just logical.

    Then there are the solar farms: within two miles of my home there are seven of these at various stages of planning, with another two in initial stages. Each involves an initial outlay of about forty million dollars. These things don’t turn on a dime.

    I have to support farsighted initiatives like tree planting and solar farms. One initiative is cheap and has been highly successful. The other is very expensive, but may well prove cost effective in the long run.

    I do have issues with the McGuinty plan to increase the length of teacher’s college, though. The salary grid could be construed to produce the same effect, though without the flashy political bonus of getting tough on the teaching profession.

    Later,

    Rod Croskery

    Like

    • Rod — I simply will not support McGuinty on any of his green initiatives because they cost more than we as a people can afford. Like the Ontario government cannot continue to pay investors double compared to what we pay. It just doesn’t make sense. Talk about making policies that are 100% ideology driven!

      The teachers college issue is a red herring. All concurrent programs now are four years. When students finish, they have two degrees, a B.Ed and a B.A or B.Sc or B. PysEd. The number who take the one year consecutive program are few and far between. It is just a gimmick. Plus, it will have nothing to do with the salary grid which now has four levels. That is totally based on university degree and additional qualification courses. Having a B.Ed is simply the starting point at level one. However, anyone who has a four years honour degree or master’s degree, over and above their B.Ed is level four.

      Frankly, the teaching profession’s salary grid is one of the fairest there is. Women are judged the same as men. Where you are placed is based only on paper qualifications and years of experience, not who you know or golf with.

      Like

    • Rod — One other thing. You make a huge assumption when you refer to climate change and carbon. Climate is always changing. Always has and always will. Should we be better stewards of our environment? Absolutely. But, to suggest that man has an effect is the ultimate arrogance IMO. In other words, man-caused hypothesis is pure politics, otherwise it would not have been linked to redistributing the worlds wealth to the poorer countries.

      It is the sun’s cosmic rays that influences climate, not what we do or don’t do. Yet, this “climate change” so ingrained in people’s heads, it will take a few years to get back to protecting our environment, rather than the pocket books of wind and solar investors.

      Like

  4. Actually at the secondary level one needs an honours degree or honours equivalency to get to category four. The master’s can only count as an additional allowance, its eligibility indicated by a Category 4 with Star on the evaluation council’s rating.

    Over many years as an associate teacher and as a frequent member of hiring committees, I found the one-year candidates were generally superior to the concurrent students. My point in my blog entry on the subject is that the future of teaching and of schools in Ontario lies in attracting the right individuals to the classroom. Why can’t the salary grid be set up to allow an apprenticeship, with higher pay grades accruing to those who upgrade after they have had enough experience in the classroom to make their learning worthwhile?

    Why bias the selection process in favour of the scions of wealthy families unless there’s a good reason to do so?

    About the climate change bit: I’m currently reviewing Two Billion Trees and Counting: The Legacy of Edmund Zavitz, by Dr. John Bacher. Zavitz’s photos of the wastelands north of Toronto are enough to make you sick. Picture 6′ diameter pine stumps suspended on their roots, up to 8′ above the blowing sand which was all that was left in the 1920’s after logging, fires from passing locomotives, and slash-and-burn settlement had devastated the Oak Ridges Moraine. Zavitz devoted his life to setting up reforestation projects in Ontario based upon, of all things, the example of India.

    Ontario’s pleasant climate today owes a great deal to the efforts of this man whose biography was published last week by Dundrun Press.

    Like

  5. Climate “change” as it’s being flogged today is a farce. We all recall our parents and grandparents talking about early springs, wet summers, dry summers, cold winters mild winters and so on. Indeed we continue to experience the same today.They never once assumed anyone was responsible, it was just weather.

    As for planting trees in specific places that man has ravaged for some reason or another, go for it, but take a drive across this country from East to West and witness all the lush forests, a wilderness of miles and miles of uninhabited land as far as the eye can see. Then tell us there’s a problem with our environment or we’re short on forestation. It’s BS.

    Pollution control is another story, for the health and safety of humans we have control it and we are.

    It’s rather strange there’s little crying from “Environmentalists” when the CPR tears up rail lines that could be used to transport goods long distances instead of huge trucks rolling down our highways burning gas and polluting the atmosphere.

    Funnier still is McGuinty the Tax Man is flogging electric cars that are over-the-top expensive and not suitable for ordinary families or the climate we live in.

    Common sense has long since left the scene, no more evident than in McGuinty’s Ontario. Let’s take it back before it’s really too late.

    Like

  6. I think when pollution control first entered the vocabulary, and we jumped on it, we thought they were talking about dumping raw sewage into rivers and lakes, throwing garbage out of car windows, leaving garbage on beaches, in parks etc.
    How wrong we were. Look at the sites after a riot, or outdoor concerts, look at the floors of a theater after a show.
    During this past winter, and all the blizzards and snow storms, I did not see many smart cars on the road, or electric ones.

    Like

Comments are closed.