Tag Archives: MPP Toby Barrett

Politics

Tinkering Won’t Fix Crisis In Ontario Corrections And Jails

1 Comment

In December of 2015, I toured the aging Thunder Bay District Jail. The nearly century-old jail had recently been the scene of a riot that led to a correctional officer being taken hostage – 70 inmates took control of the upper floor for a period of 20 hours.

In Ontario, assaults on correctional officers and other staff have more than doubled over the past seven years.

Last year, a report by the Independent Advisor on Corrections Reform described shocking abuse and disorder in Ontario’s detention centres – centres that are overcrowded and violent.

After violent incidents, inmates are often held in solitary confinement without access to rehab programs, and lockdowns are often the only recourse because of short staffing.

Much of the violence in Ontario’s detention centres is derived from smuggled weapons and drugs – but officers are restricted in their ability to conduct searches.

Front-line officers tell us they feel they are in danger – they are outnumbered, and they have little recourse when they’re attacked.

Ontario’s probation and parole system is a joke — that’s exactly what criminals have called it. Our probation and parole officers are not to blame. In many cases, they are actively discouraged from checking up on criminals by making house visits because of insufficient resources. Offenders are often left to self-report but, obviously, very few do.

Over 45,000 former inmates are out on parole or probation being forced to self-report. And 60 per cent of these individuals are deemed medium to high risk, that’s 27,000 individuals free to roam  our province.

How can this out of touch government make the claim that our communities are safe?

Why did this current government allow this to happen? That’s the question that needs to be asked.

The present provincial government recently introduced Bill 6, to supposedly deal with the issue. But this government has a history of producing incomplete, skeletal and poorly-thought-out legislation, and Bill 6 is no exception.  The Correctional Services Transformation Act is supposed to be a thorough overhaul of a broken correctional system, but it has the same deficiencies as most other legislation of late.

Obviously, the Liberals are inclined to think more bureaucracy is a solution to every problem, but more paper-pushing isn’t going to solve that problem.

Minor tinkering isn’t going to fix the crisis in corrections. The government must take serious and thorough action.

Has this government decided that the needs and wants of incarcerated criminals are more important than the rights of correctional officers and the order and safety of our detention centres are secondary to making criminals feel comfortable. Obviously, this legislation – Bill 6 — must be compliant with the written portion of our Constitution and our common-law traditions. But it must be said corrections officers and all prison staff have rights as well.

As my colleague MPP Rick Nichols, our critic for the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services has been saying, there has been a crisis in corrections for years in the making. Now with an election looming, the Liberals want us to believe — with Bill 6 — they’re experiencing a deathbed conversion. For the Silo, Toby Barrett, MPP for Haldimand-Norfolk. 

 

 

 

 

Politics

Why Ontarians Continue Having Trouble Paying For Electricity

22 Comments

high electricity bills

[See Comments at the end of this article for updates Ed.] “All my pension goes to pay my electricity” – constituent.     With Ontario boasting the highest energy prices in North America, quite honestly I don’t know how some people get by. When people bring their electricity bills into my office, it provides a line-by-line window on just how difficult it has become to pay the bills.

Recently I met with a couple who live in a modest 790 square foot house – they heat with one electric space heater, have been wearing heavy sweaters all winter and are doing absolutely everything they can to keep costs down. But their hydro bill for January was $641.67 — $233.89 of which was delivery charge. During the meeting I was told: “All my pension goes to pay my electricity.”

Nowadays if you can’t afford your electricity, in many cases, you don’t have the option of paying interest or getting caught up later – your service is simply shut off. To have service reconnected is often hundreds of dollars. If someone can’t afford their bills in the first place how will they ever be able to pay exorbitant fees for reconnection? Apart from closing down cheap coal generation, there are many reasons why hydro has skyrocketed.

For example, the Feed-in-Tariff (FIT) Program pays out massive subsidies for wind and solar contracts to produce power we don’t need. This continues to drive up the cost of electricity which rose by 26 per cent between 2008 and 2010 – projected to rise another 46 per cent by the end of this year. The FIT Program, with its overly-generous payments, will cost taxpayers $4.4 billion more than the previous Standard Offer Program. Wind generators operate at 28 per cent capacity and their output is out of phase with electricity demand during certain times of the day.

You can’t store electricity, so we pay the U.S. and Quebec to take the surplus power off our hands. We’ve paid them $1.8 billion over the past six years. Their industries use this cheap power to compete even harder with our manufacturers, and so the downward spiral continues.

If you’re a large user, look for the words ‘Global Adjustment’ on your hydro bill. Simply put, Global Adjustment covers the spread between market price and guaranteed price paid to generators, plus the cost of paying standby natural gas plants not to produce electricity, as well as paying for conservation programs. One North Bay manufacturer had a Global Adjustment — nonexistent on their 2009 hydro bills — of $1,700 on their electricity charge of $1,400 for that month. The Global Adjustment is expected to increase tenfold, from $700 million in 2006 to $8.1 billion in 2014. This will certainly cause more Ontario manufacturers to close up shop and move to cheaper locales.

Also, watch for the Smart Meter charges to hit home. The computer system cost $250 million, and the bill is now due.

Let’s not forget the cancellation of the Oakville power plant and cancelling, demolishing and relocating the Mississauga power plant. These cancellations were nothing more than political ‘seat savers’ for the last election and will cost taxpayers $1.1 billion.

Click Me!

In many ways the Green Energy Act  put the desires of the renewable power industry ahead of the needs of people and Ontario businesses – a perfect formula for killing jobs and crippling consumers. For the Silo, MPP Toby Barrett

DID YOU KNOW?- Norfolk Power (and in fact all Ontario Municipal power companies to the best of our knowledge-CP) has a 13 days past due policy for Service Termination Proceedings. Even small “ma and pa” businesses provide 30 day terms and even 60-90day terms before sending out Collection Letters or Warning Letters. We contacted Norfolk Power and were told that “it’s standard policy- set by Ontario’s Energy Board”. Hmmm- that sounded like a standard “sub-standard” explanation to us, so a bit of research showed that the Ontario Energy Board is a self-regulated, internally filled board that sounds impartial but is anything but- in fact we were unable to determine exactly who or how board positions are filled, never a good sign for impartiality. If you decide to call them at 416 481 1967 be ready for one of the most confusing answering services you will ever find. Messages prompt you with a never ending supply of websites and telephone numbers- finally if you are persistent enough you will be asked to “press 9” to consent for your personal information to be gathered, recorded and used by the Ontario Energy Board- not exactly consumer friendly. I suppose you could always speak with one of the Public Information Officer but then they will refer you to media relations. You won’t be transferred (we were told they aren’t allowed to) so keep a document open and handy- 416 544 5171 and then the process begins again only this time you are immediately connected with an answering machine asking for your credentials.  *sigh Fifteen minutes later from when we started our initial inquiry we realized we might as well be prospecting for dare we say it “oil”. [Update- Many Municipal aka “County” Hydro companies including Norfolk Power have sold their electricity services to Hydro One but have held onto their Water services. Ontarians will now receive a separate bill for Water and a separate bill for electricity. Perhaps more confusing, in Spring of 2015 Ontario announced that it would sell 15% of its Hydro One holdings in an IPO plan that will eventually sell off another 45% in order to raise money for debt repayment, transportation and infrastructure programs. Targeted buyers would be Canada’s largest pension plans. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-16/ontario-to-sell-15-of-hydro-one-one-of-biggest-ipos Ed. ]

If you have the brain power – take a look at this excerpt from the Energy Board’s website- listing (in broad terms) changes to Ontario’s energy act- which ultimately affects consumers in Ontario and their payment and use of energy:

1907-1959
The Natural Gas and Oil Wells Act marked the Province’s early concern for the proper management of its energy resources – a concern that evolved through the Natural Gas Act of 1918, the Natural Gas Conservation Act of 1921 and the Ontario Fuel Board Act of 1954.

1960-1998
The Ontario Energy Board Act, 1960 created the Ontario Energy Board (OEB) as a successor to the Ontario Fuel Board. The OEB was authorized to set just and reasonable rates for the sale and storage of gas and to make orders granting leave to construct pipelines for the transmission of oil or gas to expropriate land for oil or gas pipes.The Ontario Energy Act, 1964 clarified certain powers of the OEB and strengthened the sections dealing with gas storage. An amendment to this Act in  1965 set out the ground rules for the OEB in determining the rate base of gas utilities and giving the OEB power to make regulations prescribing a uniform system of accounts for gas companies.On June 7, 1973, the Premier announced the establishment of the Ministry of Energy which would include the OEB. Further amendments were made to the Ontario Energy Board Act which included provisions for the appointment of additional board members and making the OEB responsible for annual reviews of rate and rate-related matters of Ontario Hydro.In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the oil crisis developed in the Middle East, causing natural gas prices to soar. Ontario Hydro turned to nuclear generation and the public became conservation conscious. During that time, the Board decided on hundreds of natural gas applications and conducted major reviews of Ontario Hydro rates.

1998
The mandate of the Board changed significantly with the passage of the Energy Competition Act, 1998 (ECA)  The ultimate goal of the ECA was the creation of a competitive market in the electricity and natural gas industries.To achieve the goal of creating a competitive market in the electricity industry, the former Ontario Hydro monopoly was replaced by several business entities including two distinct commercial companies, Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and Hydro One Inc., and one Crown corporation, the Independent Electricity Market Operator, now known as the Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO). OPG has taken responsibility for the generation of electricity while Hydro One owns and maintains transmission and distribution wires. The IESO manages the province’s electricity system and operates the wholesale electricity market.  The OEB had varying degrees of regulatory authority over all three corporations as well as the province’s municipal electric utilities.The OEB became responsible for regulating local distribution companies and  for ensuring that the distribution companies fulfill their obligations to connect and serve their customers. The OEB also became responsible for licensing certain participants in the market.  The OEB regulated all market participants in the province’s natural gas and electricity industries and it provided advice on energy matters referred to it by the Minister of Energy and/or the Minister of Natural Resources.

2002
On May 1, 2002, Ontario’s new electricity market opened. The new market was the culmination of over five years of work by the electricity industry, government, the OEB, the IESO and many other market participants. The generation of electricity became a competitive activity, with electricity bought and sold on the new spot market at competitive prices. The IESO successfully began operating the wholesale market.Over the summer of 2002, record-high temperatures drove up the demand for electricity as well as the market price, which resulted in considerable consumer concern. In response, the government introduced the Electricity Pricing, Conservation and Supply  Act, 2002. This legislation, which received Royal Assent on December 9, 2002, capped the price of electricity at 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour for residential, small-business and other designated low-volume consumers, effective May 1, 2002 to May 1, 2006. This legislation also provided refunds, retroactive to May 1, 2002, to compensate those consumers for any costs in excess of the 4.3-cent cap.All transmission and distribution rates were frozen at existing levels until at least May 1, 2006. Utilities were required to receive written approval from the Minister of Energy before any application for rate changes could be submitted to the OEB. This legislation also deemed any interim rate order to be final. In addition, the new legislation modified the OEB’s objectives in the areas of energy efficiency and conservation with respect to both natural gas and electricity from “facilitating” to “promoting.”

2003
Proclaimed on August 1, 2003, the Ontario Energy Board Consumer Protection and Governance Act, 2003, established the new OEB as a self-financing crown corporation and gave the OEB the opportunity to do its work more efficiently and effectively. In particular, the legislation provided for a management committee to manage the activities of the OEB. The legislation further enhanced the OEB’s role in protecting and educating energy consumers.In December 2003, the government introduced the Ontario Energy Board Amendment Act (Electricity Pricing), 2003, which put in place a new interim electricity pricing structure, replacing the 4.3 cent per kilowatt hour (kWh) price cap as of April 1, 2004. Under the interim structure, residential, low-volume and other designated consumers paid 4.7 cents per kWh for the first 750 kWh consumed per month, and 5.5 cents per kWh for consumption above that level.The Act called on the OEB to develop a new electricity pricing mechanism. It also charged the OEB with the responsibility to protect and renew Ontario’s electricity grid by ensuring reasonable charges for the delivery of electricity.The legislation also required the OEB to allow local distribution companies to recoup costs (called “regulatory assets”), the recovery of which had been put on hold in 2002 by the Electricity Pricing, Conservation and Supply Act, 2002. These recoveries would be spread over a four-year period so that they would have only a modest impact on the final price to consumers.

2004
In June 2004, the Government of Ontario proposed a restructuring of the province’s electricity sector in order to encourage new electricity supply, energy conservation and stable prices at a level reflecting the true cost of electricity.The Electricity Restructuring Act, 2004, received Royal Assent on December 9, 2004. The new legislation amended the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998, and the Electricity Act, 1998.The OEB became responsible for developing a transparent mechanism for establishing electricity commodity prices for eligible consumers who have not signed contracts with electricity retailers. The Regulated Price Plan, which took effect May 1, 2005, replaced the interim two-tier pricing of 4.7 cents per kilowatt hour (¢/kWh) and 5.5 ¢/kWh hour that had been in place since April 2004.The OEB also assumed responsibility for the Market Surveillance Panel, previously the responsibility of the IESO.A new agency, the Ontario Power Authority (OPA), was established to ensure an adequate, reliable and secure supply of electricity in Ontario for the medium and long term. The OEB was given the duty of approving the OPA’s fees and its integrated power system plan and procurement process. The OEB is also responsible for licensing the OPA.

2009
The Green Energy and Green Economy Act, 2009 received Royal Assent on May 14, 2009.  Among other things, the legislation amended the Ontario Energy Board Act, 1998 and the Electricity Act, 1998.  It established important responsibilities for the OEB and other entities in achieving the objectives of conservation, promotion of renewable generation, and technological innovation through the smart grid.The OEB’s three new objectives are:

  1. The promotion of renewable energy, including the timely connection of renewable energy projects to transmission and distribution systems;
  2. The promotion of conservation and demand management; and
  3. The facilitation of the implementation of a smart grid.

The OEB has an important role to play in ensuring the government’s objectives in the legislation are achieved. That includes ensuring that electricity distributors meet the requirements for renewable generation connection, smart grid implementation and conservation and demand management.

2010
In 2010, Ontario passed the Energy Consumer Protection Act, that would ensure Ontarians have the information they need about electricity contracts and bills, as well as the comfort of knowing they can rely on fair business practices. The new rules come into effect in January 2011.

Silo reader “Jack” sent us this scan of his hydro bill- over 500$ for two months of service for a small 2 Bedroom basement apartment. Notice that he was unable to pay his bill on time due to the fact that his bill accounted for almost 50% of his rent.

The first bill was $237 and the next month was even higher at almost 300$ for a single months worth of hydro service CP
The first bill was $237 and the next month was even higher at almost 300$ for a single month of hydro.
Culture

Silo Reader Says All Products And Services Should Compete In A “Free Market”

Leave a comment

Letters to the Silo

The [ image that is shown with Toby Barrett’s recent letter ] is certainly worth a thousand words. Government is consuming too much.

But why do we continue to feed government? Why would we participate in any political or economic system that is not serving our best interests?

Government is basically unproductive and can only give what it takes. Bigger government takes more and gives less.

The fruits of our labour are controlled, confiscated, and redistributed through taxation, inflation, interest, and government spending. There is also a systemic shortage of official currency, which leads to a shortage of paid employment, and the jobs that are available might be completely unproductive. We are forced to compete for currency that is systemically scarce, even though there are plenty of worthwhile activities that can be done and there are plenty of people who are willing and able to do productive work.

There seems to be an increasing level of dissatisfaction with government and the political process, but there certainly isn’t a consensus in defining the problem or offering a solution that will sufficiently address all of our concerns or satisfy everyone. This poses a challenge, but it also presents us with an opportunity to carefully examine the form and function of government, and explore a full range of possible alternatives.

If we have freedom of choice and a free market then we should be able to individually select the goods and services that we wish to purchase from a variety of producers and providers, who should be able to compete for customers based on the quality and price of their products and services. All products and services, including government programs and services, should be able to compete in a free market.

Trade and exchange should be voluntary and mutually beneficial. We should not be forced to pay for anything that we don’t want or don’t use, and we should not have to do business with anyone who consistently offers poor quality goods and services or who does not pay their legitimate debts.

If we have economic freedom then we should be able to negotiate agreeable prices, accept or refuse any form of payment, control the allocation of our credit, and use any method or medium of exchange. We should not be compelled to use a systemically scarce currency that is created as interest-bearing debt.

If the purpose of an economic system is to facilitate the production and exchange of goods and services then it should be possible to create numerous ways to serve this purpose, with various concurrent systems operating in any location. This would give us more control over our time, labour, skills, and resources.

If government is a provider of services then it should compete for customers based on the quality and price of any services that it is actually willing and able to provide, including education, health care, and defence. If government services were the best ones available then we would presumably choose to use them. Our wealth should not be confiscated and redistributed to pay for anything that we don’t want or don’t use.

We can already seek membership in various communities, organizations or other groups, based on our own political, religious, social, recreational, or business interests. If we have freedom of association and political freedom then we should even be able to choose a apolitical system and type of government, without having to move to a different place, and without imposing or choice on anyone else. This would give us the option to hire people to manage our affairs and make decisions on our behalf, but we would not be represented or lead without imposing our consent.

Crony Capitalism Warren Buffett

Any imposed political system or government is a method of control. Political freedom does not exist if an individual is forced to accept the decisions of any other individual or group, even if it calls itself a majority.

Imposed political systems and territorial governments with their restrictive geopolitical boundaries can be replaced with a variety of voluntary communities, mutual benefit associations, and autonomous protective groups, with overlapping membership in any location. Multiple communities can exist in any geographic region, without any imposed territorial monopolies for the provision of services.

Individual participation in any economic or political system should be entirely voluntary, based on choice and consent, rather than coercion and compulsion. No person is an island, but everyone should essentially be able to individually decide how he or she would like to organize and manage his or her economic and political activities.

Government is a human invention that has changed over time and will continue to change, but the direction of this change will be determined by the way we think and the choices we make.

Diverse methods and arrangements can co-exist simultaneously in any location to facilitate the production, provision, distribution, and exchange of goods and services, for the mutual benefit of all voluntary participants, at their own risk and expense. James Clayton

Note- boldfacing was not indicated in the original submitted letter to the Silo.

Wagon Wheel Corn Maze

 

Politics

A Need To Rethink Health Care

2 Comments

Amongst all the vital issues of provincial significance that get discussed at this time of year, there is no doubt that health care remains as the number one priority for people in Ontario.

Unfortunately, while health sector spending accounts for about 46 cents of every tax dollar allocated, the size and scope of our health system obscures the most important person: the patient.

All too often, care in Ontario is structured around forms, processes, long lines, and bureaucracy, when it should be built from the patient out.

Over the past eight years, money that should have gone to nurses, emergency rooms, and frontline patient care was instead diverted to salaries and expenses for fancy health care consultants. The lessons learned from the billion dollar e-health boondoggle should not be forgotten.

As Ontario’s Opposition we have watched too long as we pay more and get less in health care services. It’s time for patient-centred reforms that make the patient – not bureaucracies, not administrators – the focus of our health care system.

Tim Hudak has announced plans to grow our investments in health, while instilling the patient centred focus we deserve.

Specifically, we will increase annual investments in health-care by $6.1 billion by the end our first term. At the same time we will introduce a rigorous system of patient satisfaction and health outcome measures including the establishment of wait time guarantees for emergency room visits.

To accomplish our goals we will need to take aim at eliminating fraud and waste in health care and reducing administration.

The Ontario PC plan will target the costly health bureaucracies that take money from direct patient care. We will put a stop to scandals like eHealth and limit health care dollars towards ever-expanding salaries for administrators.

For example, the LHINs are unelected, unaccountable, faceless bureaucracies that the Dalton McGuinty Liberals hide behind whenever there are beds to close, emergency rooms to shut, or nurses to lay off. To date, $300 million health care dollars have been diverted from frontline care to pay for salaries and administration. We will close the LHINs and redirect those dollars to patients.

We continue to advocate bringing more doctors to communities that need them. We will do this by encouraging doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants to work collaboratively. We will increase residency placements for medical students from Ontario who have training outside Canada and want to return home to practice. Locally, the excitement surrounding plans for a new Port Dover Health Centre – ideally building on the success of the Delhi Community Health Centre – will go a long way to attracting and retaining physicians and other health professionals.

Our plan also includes improvements in health care for Ontario seniors with 40,000 long-term care beds – 5,000 new and 35,000 upgraded. And we will give homecare users more dignity, more flexibility and more say in determining where they acquire these important services.

For all we pay in taxes, we should receive the highest quality services in the country. In many cases, it’s not about more money but rather about rethinking and revitalizing the way our services work. We will work to ensure we receive the world class health care services we deserve.