A Policy Resulting in Less Electricuty for More $$$

050902 Galway Column – A Policy Resulting in Less Electricity for More Dollars

     From my perspective, there is continuing evidence that rising costs for electricity in Ontario is a planned approach by the Provincial Liberals just as it was under the Harris and Eves governments. Some may disagree with me but there are at least two more indications suggesting that the actions of the government of the day are designed to move the price of electricity to astonishing heights.
     Wind power, a worthwhile addition to electricity generation in Ontario, has indications that the overall price paid to suppliers of electricity will increase dramatically. For example, there is a company investigating the potential for producing electricity via wind power along the northeast shore of Lake Simcoe from Port Bolster up to mid Ramara Township.
     Earlier this year, in a meeting with the Ramara council, it was stated that the company expected a guarantee of  8.1 cents/kwh, which is 39% higher than the rate of 5.8 cents/kwh currently paid by residential users when their monthly usage exceeds 750 kwh. That alone indicates the pressure to raise prices to at least this guaranteed level will become more and more difficult to ignore.
     Much more startling is a chart published by the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) at http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/media/md_supply.asp . It graphically portrays why electricity prices will likely escalate spectacularly. The bar graph shows that the median demand for electricity will increase from 2005's level pf approximately of 27,000 mw to just over 30,000 mw by 2014. An increase of approximately 12 - 13%
     The impact of this increased demand will be exaggerated by two major factors. The loss of approximately 8,000 mw due to the government's policy to close coal burning generating facilities without a workable plan in place to guarantee Ontario's electricity supply, a decrease of approximately 29%.
     Secondly, in the period after the closure of coal burning facilities the IESO's chart indicates that non-coal generators will decrease by approximately 1000mw or a decrease of 5% from the non-coal facilities.
     So what we have here is the IESO, an organization totally owned by the Ontario government, forecasting what must be either the planned decrease in electricity generation capability within the Province or the incompetence of our political leaders to take seriously the potential for lack of cheap, reliable electricity supply to ruin our economical future.
     When you add to this forecast lack of electricity self-sufficiency to a pricing mechanism that guarantees the highest price accepted from one supplier to the grid in a given time period sets the price for all producers at that time, we have formula for price gouging even the fossil fuel industry would envy.
     For the Ontario Liberal government to follow a course of closing generating capacity without replacement capacity in place and operational is mismanagement at the highest degree. It is so outrageous one can only wonder just who is sharing in the excess profits being gouged out of the economy now.
     There appears to be one difference between the McGuinty and Harris/Eves governments when it comes to electricity. There is little or no talk about the fallacy that private ownership of this essential infrastructure will mean cheaper electricity in the long run.

Osprey Media Group Inc. - Orillia Packet & Times

Osprey Media Group Inc. - Orillia Packet & Times - The Gloves are Off

Thursday's all candidates meeting must have been an off-night for Simcoe North's Liberal candidate and incumbent Paul DeVillers or it was an example of the inherent arrogance that comes from being elected three times in succession.

DeVillers is quoted as saying that he was "offended that voters in Simcoe North are considering Conservative Peter Stock". It is one thing for a politician criticize another Party or even its candidate for their views on any or all platform planks or values. Indeed, it is why there are all candidates meetings. But berating the electorate for giving careful consideration to any candidate or any party is quite another.

I thought, that back at the beginning of this campaign, the Liberal party had put aside the attack strategy of calling it unCanadian to consider any party or view that was not originated by the Liberal Team.

DeVillers comment makes one wonder just what type of government we would get if the Liberals are elected for the fourth time. I suggest it means if you think the last government was arrogant, you ain't seen nothing yet.

From my perspective, DeVillers desire to condemn any thought process not orginated by a fully sanctioned Liberal may not be a reason to vote for Simcoe North's Conservative candidate Peter Stock, but it is a reason for not voting for a Liberal.

The Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail

The Conservative's promise to scrap the gun registry in favour of a sexual offenders registry is to paraphrase Neil Armstrong, "one small step for a political party but a giant step for Canadian justice".

Scrapping of the gun registry, particularly the long gun portion, in favour of a sex-offender registry will prove in the long run to be far more useful in solving crimes as well as provide far more protection for Canadians. Personally, I would like to see estimates of the costs of maintaining the hand gun portion of the registry before it was scrapped. However, the concept of registering every hunting rifle and shotgun in the land cannot be justified as an effective preventative measure or an effective use of government funds.

The federal government has been far too long in putting in place a nation-wide methodology for keeping track of those who would sexually prey on others, particular our children.

There are those who would argue that when you pay your time for your crime you should regain total freedom, including the ability to move about freely without being required to report your whereabouts to any government agency. I would argue not in the case of sexual offenses. The recidivism rate for these crimes is historically high, which dictates the need for restrictions on the freedoms of those who commit such crimes. Harsh as that sounds, it is nowhere as harsh as the impact of such crimes on the victims.

From my perspective a major design criteria for a sex-offender registry must be the inclusion of links to similar registries in every other country with similar files. This requirement is particularly crucial for providing an integrated approach in North American for keeping track of sexual offenders.

Harper's suggestion of a 'three strikes and you are jailed forever' rule being applied to sexual crimes is a too lenient for some of these crimes; e.g. in the case of sex-crimes against children, it should be two strikes and you are out. Another, major requirement of the law should be the elimination of any ability of a judge to minimise the sentence.

Lastly, in conjunction with the elimination of the gun registry, the Conservatives must also pass a nationwide law making the use of a gun in any manner, in the course of committing a crime, a criminal offense with a mandatory full five year sentence to be served at completion of the sentence for the crime committed.

TheStar.com - PM hurt by McGuinty tax hike: Poll

TheStar.com - PM hurt by McGuinty tax hike: Poll

The assumption from this poll is that the implementation of Health premiums, maybe that should be levies or, better still, taxes, are the real cause of the Liberal's slide in the national polls.

From my perspective there are two possible reasons that could be true.

1. The unique structure of the health tax. The lowest income earners, $20,000/year, will have to pay 1.5% of their income. Like most taxes, this one is also a sliding tax. However, what makes it truly unique is that, as income rises, the percentage decreases. The person who earns $200,000 only pays a 0.45% tax rate for health care.

In one sense I am not against a health premium as a means of educating the public that Health care is not free. However, the goal this time was just to raise cold hard cash. The obvious problem is that premiums must be related, at a minimum, to the coverage provided; i.e. The same for everyone. Apparently for the Ontario Liberals, who have an underlying belief that services provided and income redistribution are forever linked, a premium was unacceptable.

Hence McGuinty & Co. had to implement a tax, which could tie the amount you earn to the size of "premium" you will pay. Surely the answer should have been to set at least a flat tax rate based on income. I, for one, wonder if they had picked a flat rate of 0.5% and applied that to whatever income was earned beyond the $20,000 minimum, how much would have been raised. Regardless of what percentage was picked to raise the amount specified, the lowest income earners would have paid less.

The only reason to implement a downward sliding tax rate as income rises combined with a maximum tax of $900 would seem to be to curry favour with the higher income earners.

2. Fear of the Martin promise. Martin's problem is that he was short on specifics; where did the $9 billion suddenly appear from and/or how was it to be raised. Those in Ontario, the key province to Martin's success, had just been bitten by a similar promise which, in the end, saw the implementation of the previously mentioned health tax.

Generally speaking, specifics seem to strike fear in the minds of politicians because they limit their ability to manoeuvre or change their mind. The secret to political speak normally is to sound specific while leaving gaping holes to escape through in the future.

From my perspective, the drop in the polls is indicate of an electorate that is in no mood for political speak.

Toronto Sun: NEWS - Martin vows to quit if he breaks word

Toronto Sun: NEWS - Martin vows to quit if he breaks word

One of the truly interesting aspects of following politics is its absurdity at times. The above article provides a prime example.

Thanks to the contents of Dalton McGuinty's budget, plus other promise-breaking actions since his election that was based on promises and the need for change, the veracity of Liberals of all stripes has been called into question.

Add to this the previous federal Liberal campaign promises of such things as getting rid of GST or providing $500 million for Toronto's waterfront, trust of Liberals is deserving of voters cautious scrutiny.

When you combine all the various aspects of provincial and federal Liberal campaign promises and governing actions, you are left with a very sizable credibility gap. This leaves a very important question to be considered.

Does the promise to quit by Paul Martin, if he breaks his word on putting $9 billion more in health care over the next five years, have any validity? While considering your answer, remember that the average length of time of the last three Liberal governments has only been 3 1/2 years.

Somehow or other, I do not think a Liberal promise to quit, if another promise is broken, is going to attract many voters.

From my perspective, the only thing more absurd would be if this Liberal promise attracted a single voter, much less slowed down their slide in the polls.

Is Canada Going Awry

Almost everyday there seems to be yet another example of our country going awry. Campaign funding, the price of gasoline, price of beef, promises of no tax increases and no deficits are some of the latest examples that come to mind.

A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, upholding the limiting of third party spending in election campaigns, gives weight to the concept that money can and does influence voting, i.e. money buys votes.

Fair enough. But, why then, is it reasonable that the Bill C24 amendments to the Canada Elections Act calls for the major portion of campaign funding to come from the public coffers, which will be allocated to the political parties based on the number of votes received in the previous election. In other words, it favours the majority party, if money does indeed buy votes.

I object to this bias. I believe any election funding derived from our tax money must establish a level playing field for all official parties trying to get their message to eligible voters; i.e. in every riding, each party should get the same amount per voter.

I wonder why there hasn't been an unholy uproar over the C24 self-serving funding formula from the other political parties, their supporters and the media.

Gasoline pricing raises the inevitable question of; who's gouging us now? The universal answer is "not us". Well, whoever it is appears to be sharing 30-35 cents/litre and neither the federal nor provincial governments seem able or willing to identify the culprits.

In 1991, the last time a barrel of oil cost $40, the price of gasoline in our nation's capital was 58.9 cents/litre (the product cost 33.5 plus 25.4 tax). This Monday, gas was over 92 cents/litre at some Ottawa stations. Since the cost of a barrel is relatively the same now as in 1991, it isn't the oil producers gouging us. Most agree, it also isn't the retailers.

This leaves two groups; the refiners/distributors and the taxing authorities. I'd think with these two clues our federal and provincial governments just might get a hint about who is ripping us off. Another hint for them, just look in the mirror to find one of the two.

The pricing that really angers me is the price of beef, and not because steak is my favourite food. Not long ago a farmer told me of having to sell some cattle, getting just slightly more than $100/animal, a significant loss. Last week, we purchased a complete steak piece for $10/lb for a total of $168.

Surely, someone in the morass of government ministries and agencies could ensure that our cattle producers get their fair share of the money consumers are paying for beef.

Then, there is the debacle of the Liberal budget announced last week with its increased taxes called Health levies, increased fees, increased hydro costs plus a whopping deficit, all contrary to election promises. Although these promises were not met, it did not deter the promise-breakers from promising a balanced in budget in four years.

The Mike Harris experience taught voters the need to carefully evaluate campaign promises because of what their implementation might entail. Unfortunately for Premier McGuinty, a side effect of the Harris lesson is that voters are more aware of what is promised and more critical and angered by non-delivery and/or unexpected impacts.

On Sunday, Paul Martin, arguably the man most responsible for the funding crisis in health care due his funding cuts, promised during the opening salvo of the election to be its saviour by now pouring our money into health care.

Apparently, not only does the Premier seem reluctant to buy into Martin's health care promises (maybe he is worried that birds of a feather really do flock together), he seems determined to implement his health tax whether Martin's promises go the way of his or not.