THE TWO FACES OF GOVERNMENT

In 2009 the previous Liberal government unilaterally industrialized Ontario for the purpose of generating electricity.

.

The Green Energy Act (“GEA”) and ancillary legislation allowed developers to erect electrical generating stations anywhere in Ontario except: 1. where the harms test (hazard to health or species) could be proven; 2. areas closer than 550m to a “receptor”.

.

The policy was an unmitigated disaster. It produced unusable intermittent and expensive electricity that required spill-off of carbon-free energy when available and construction of gas turbine generators for periods when nonproductive. It rendered Ontario industry uncompetitive and households impoverished. These consequences were suffered across Ontario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=nemy4TD4I3A

.
But a community of people living in proximity to Industrial Wind Turbines (“IWTs”) suffered special damages. Because they lived or worked in “receptors” more than 550m from another they had IWTs imposed on them. These people can be termed “rural” because they don’t live in urban or suburban areas. The fact is that the 550m setback requirement drove all IWT installations into rural Ontario.

.

This is the root of the discrimination instituted by the GEA. Anyone who lived closer than 550m to his nearest neighbour suffered no special damages. Those who did not were exposed to all the hazards of living in proximity to industrial electrical generators.

.

Those people are the concern of CCSAGE, a federal not-for-profit corporation based in Prince Edward County, that has been pursuing an application in the Superior Court in Picton to have the GEA declared discriminatory and thus unconstitutional.

.

To give the respondent Conservative government its due, in opposition it opposed the GEA and made the policy a major issue in the last provincial election. It was rewarded by a majority and returned to office to rectify the failed GEA policy. After forming government, the Conservatives repealed the GEA and cancelled many renewable energy projects that had not been started and two that had. Its Ministers explained the rationale for this new policy in press releases.

.

Minister Greg Rickford is reported to have said: "The Green Energy Act represents the largest transfer of money from the poor and middle class to the rich in Ontario's history,"

.

Minister Monte McNaughton is reported to have said: (1)“Well-connected energy insiders made fortunes putting up wind-farms and solar panels that gouge hydro consumers in order to generate electricity that Ontario doesn't need.” (2) “The Green Energy Act allowed the previous government to trample over the rights of families, businesses and municipalities across rural Ontario.” (3) “Wells that have produced clean, clear water for decades have begun producing dirty brown, unpotable water since construction of turbines for the North Kent I wind project began.”

Minister Greg Rickford: “The Green Energy Act forced wasteful projects on unwilling communities while driving up the costs of hydro bills for families and businesses across Ontario.”

.

Minister Jeff Yurek said the previous Liberal government “forced wind projects into the backyards of unwilling communities in municipalities across Ontario.”

.

Minister Todd Smith: “[T]he major multinational corporation developing the [White Pines] project was charged not once, not twice, but three times by the province’s Ministry of Environment for multiple violations.”

.

But repeal of the GEA and cancellation of unbuilt industrial generators has done nothing to alleviate the conditions imposed on those living adjacent to built and operational IWTs. Their situations are dire and no measures have been taken to provide relief despite thousands of reports of complaints from across rural Ontario.

.

When CCSAGE asked to examine the Ministers to obtain the evidence they had to support the statements they had made in the press and in the legislature, they refused and hid behind a so-called “parliamentary privilege” against attendance in any legal proceeding while sitting or in session.

.

And on 17 January the Attorney General asked the Superior Court in Picton to strike down the CCSAGE application in its entirety. The government alleges that no reasonable party would seek the relief sought by CCSAGE. The CCSAGE response is that no reasonable government would impose on a significant minority of its citizens the burdens of an improvident, unnecessary and totally ineffectual industrial policy.

.

Fortunately, the court refused to hear the AG motion because the issue is too complex to resolve in one day. It has scheduled a series of hearings ranging from half a day to 5 or more days, but none before 15 May.

.

The obvious question is what happened to the Conservatives who deplored the impact of the GEA and repealed it? Have they changed their minds? 

Having secured the votes of rural Ontario to gain office, are they now abandoning us as their predecessors have done?

.

Alan Whiteley, 

Picton, Ontario

Links For More:

https://torontosun.com/2017/06/01/ontarios-fair-hydro-act-a-ponzi-scheme/wcm/9feb5d3b-9e1e-4567-96ab-e0709cd590f7

.

http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2017/09/17/lawyer-alan-whiteley-ontarios-electricity-ponzi-scheme/