Monte McNaughton offers Hope, for Wind Victims, and Ratepayers!

McNaughton: I will end the failed Liberal wind energy experiment

January 12, 2015
SHARE THIS:

(London, ON) – Today Monte McNaughton, MPP for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex and candidate for the Ontario PC Leadership, pledged to end the failed Liberal wind energy experiment.

“I will end the Wynne Liberals’ wind energy ripoff of Ontario consumers,” said McNaughton. “As Premier, I would propose specific legislation to repeal and decommission wind turbines in Ontario.”

Wind power is not needed in Ontario – in each of 2013 and 2014, Ontario dumped more than double the amount of power generated by wind turbines into other jurisdictions at money-losing rates: less than 3 cents /KWh, representing a 75% discount of the money wind generators are paid to produce the wind power in the first place.  In 2013, 13.4TWh of excess electricitycapacity was dumped, followed in 2014 by another 13.1TWh.  This loss on excess electricity – paid for by the Ontario consumer — is just another way Ontario loses money with wind power.

 “The only winners under the Liberals’ wind-power scheme are the wind industry and developers, while the losers are Ontario consumers who are forced to pay for expensive electricity even when it isn’t needed,” said McNaughton.

In 2013, Ontario consumers paid over $600 million for a mere 5.2TWh of wind power.  This accounted for only 3.4% of Ontario’s total electricity generating capacity, but represented 20% of the total commodity cost of electricity in the province.

In 2015, it is projected that Ontario consumers will be forced to pay out a startling $1 billion on their hydro bills for a mere 9TWh of expensive wind power at 12 cents / KWh. This figure is expected to continue to rise year after year.

“Ontario consumers simply cannot afford to be gouged to the tune of billions of dollars a year for the next 20 years,” said McNaughton.  “If we do not take action, this failed experiment will cost Ontario consumers between $20 billion and $60 billion over the next 20 years.”

Under McNaughton’s plan, all wind turbines would be decommissioned but some compensation would be offered to contract holders using a formula developed by experts to mitigate any losses. Independent analysis has shown that such compensation would represent only a fraction of the wind-power costs currently forced on consumers by the Liberals’ wind power scheme.

“Wind energy is not only extremely expensive, but it was built in many cases over the opposition of local residents and municipalities. Under my leadership a PC government will introduce specific legislation to end the wind energy contracts and begin the decommissioning of existing turbines,” said McNaughton.

The Ontario legislature has the ability to enact specific legislation to repeal the wind-power program and decommission the wind turbines, saving Ontario consumers from unnecessary costs on their electricity rates for power they do not use.

Visit www.Monte.ca to learn more about McNaughton’s plan to end Ontario’s wind energy experiment, and other issues that are part of his plan for Ontario.

Once Again….I have reached out to the Gov’t, to help My Son, and all Children!

November 10, 2014

The Right Honourable Stephen Harper

Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Prime Minster Harper,

I am writing to you, as supporter and friend of the

Conservative party. I am hoping that you will be able to intervene to help protect

all Canadians from intrusive health damaging  noise from industrial wind projects.

As you know, I have a personal interest in this issue. The large Niagara wind

project near my home has just received approval. It is no coincidence that its

approval was announced immediately after Health Canada Issued its flawed,

fraudulent report which claims it’s research sows that “there are no health

problems” from wind turbines

.

This Health Canada report was funded to the tune of $2.1 million from the

Canadian taxpayers, and therefore as Prime Minster, you are ultimately

responsible for it, and the consequences which flow from it’s use in Canada.

It is inevitable that many MORE Canadians will be harmed from wind turbine

noise as result of this study which has been widely criticized for adopting

methodology designed to hide and deny the health problems, rather than

properly investigate them. It is telling that

x   Health Canada ignored the advice of professionals with expertise in this

are who are independent of the wind industry

x   Health Canada used various parties who have conflicts of interest

including commercial conflicts of interest with the wind industry, and did

not disclose them

x   Health Canada issued the report without the date, making it impossible for

others with extensive experience working directly in this area, to critique it

properly

x   The report gives very appearance of being “made to order” by the wind

industry and delivered by our government, in order to be able to continue

to knowingly harm vulnerable Canadian citizens, by pretending “there is

no problem”

With respect other project just approved near my home, the closest wind turbine

would be 550M from the center of our home. The wind developer has admitted

that it would be producing noise, at the maximum allowable levels. These

decibel levels were arbitrarily established, and only with healthy brains, in mind.

There is no evidence to demonstrate that the current levels of noise pollution

from wind turbines in Ontario are safe, and there are Ministry of Environment

Field Officers who have admitted these levels are not safe. No consideration has

been given to individuals, who suffer from sensory processing issues, such as

my son, Joey.

Joey’s specialist wrote a letter for me to share, which is enclosed, explaining that

the noise from a  wind turbine in close proximity our home would be very

harmful, for my son. The cyclical, and uncontrollable nature of wind turbine noise

is especially unbearable.

I also have realized, during my struggles with the Provincial government, and

their many branches, that there has been nothing put in place to protect anyone,

regardless of what problems may arise, as result of the industrial wind projects

being forced into areas where they are not appropriate. I have met, and spoken

personally, to Premier Wynne, Minister Chiarelli, Agatha Garcia ­Wright, from the

M.O. E., and many more gov’t branches, trying to get some sort of assistance,

in finding a solution to my problems, but to no avail. Getting help Federally, is my

only option, at this point, because the only suggestion they would give me, is

“get a lawyer”. Unfortunately, I live in Ontario, and we are struggling to pay our

ever­ growing electricity bills, on top of sky­rocketing prices for the basics that

families need. Paying fora lawyer is not something many families can afford,

and the Liberal government knows that.

As you can see, I desperately need help to protect my son. The recent Health

Study was woefully incomplete, and did not even mention children, or any type of

special needs individuals. Indeed children were explicitly excluded.

Please help us find a solution to this very serious problem – for Joey, as well as

for ALL Canadians.This Health Canada Report, needs to be withdrawn, and

immediately subjected to rigorous peer review, with all of the data made public

immediately, to professionals and researchers with expertise in this area.

Reviews of all the possible conflicts of interest of all involved with this report, need

to be conducted, and made public.

A failure to take these steps, and to allow the Health Canada study to escape

proper critical scrutiny and peer review could eventually lead to charges of public

officials being complicit with torture occurring, given the widespread occurrence

of serious prolonged sleep deprivation alone, That, along with all the other health

problems residents are experiencing and health practicioners such as Joey’s

paediatrician are warning about. Such possible legal action against public

officials is being seriously considered internationally.

Sincerely,

Shellie Correia, Founder and Director,

Mothers Against wind Turbines

A Brilliant Explanation, of the Difference Between Conservatives and Liberals….

A Father and Daughter Discussion

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so
many others her age, she considered herself to be a very Liberal
Democrat, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of
higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words,
redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch
conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that
she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she
felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to
keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher
taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs. The
self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the
truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how
she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and
let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was
taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which
left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She
didn’t even have time for a boyfriend, and didn’t really have many
college friends, because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked , ‘How is your friend Audrey
doing?’ She replied, ‘ Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are
easy classes, she never studies, and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She Is
so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She’s always invited
to all the parties and lots of times she doesn’t even show up for
classes because she’s too hung over.’

Her wise father asked his daughter, ‘Why don’t you go to the Dean’s
office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your
friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA, and
certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.’ The
daughter, visibly shocked by her father’s suggestion, angrily fired
back, ‘That’s a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I’ve worked really
hard for my grades! I’ve invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard
work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played
while I worked my tail off!’

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, ‘Welcome to The
conservative party.’ If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between conservative and Liberal I’m all ears.

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on,
this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn’t like guns, he doesn’t buy one.
If a liberal doesn’t like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat..
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for
everyone.

If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn’t like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don’t like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
(Unless it’s a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative reads this, he’ll forward it so his friends can have
a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he’s “offended”.

Visiting With Prime Minister Harper…

Another step forward, in my fight to protect our children….

Meeting with the Prime Minister, was a very exciting experience.  In person, you see the true warmth and caring, in his personality.  He has a wonderful sense of humour, and is very easy to speak with!   Now that we have met, I can begin the process, of sharing my information, and seeking his assistance!  The Provincial Liberals have not made any avenues available, to protect our children, or citizens of any age, from wind turbines being placed too close to their homes, and in fact, are denying the negative effects, their wind projects are having on people.  We need to look for help, Federally, because this is indeed, a health issue.  One more step forward!   Shellie Correia

Meeting with the Prime Minister...

Meeting with the Prime Minister…

Angus Taylor…..An Australian Hero! Putting Windweasels on Notice!

The Wind Industry’s Worst Nightmare – Angus Taylor – says: time to kill the LRET

Nightmare (1962) Jerry wakes up

Member for Hume, Angus “the Enforcer” Taylor has taken the lead on behalf of the Coalition in Tony Abbott’s quest to bring the wind industry to its knees. While there’s been a lot of huff and puff emanating from Ian “Macca” Macfarlane and his faithful ward, young Gregory Hunt about saving the mandatory RET with magical “third ways”, STT says keep your eyes focused on Taylor and the PM.

To give you some idea of where Taylor is coming from – and where the wind industry is headed – here’s an interview he gave last week (9 September 2014) on Sky News (transcript follows).

*****

http://blob:https%3A//www.youtube.com/fe2546b4-a7de-461e-8946-528eaf70770e

*****

Graham Richardson: Angus Taylor is the member for Hume, and he’s in our Canberra studio. G’day Angus how are you?

Angus Taylor: G’day Graham.

Graham Richardson: Now I’ve got to say that if I was a minister, I’d be looking behind me and saying there’s a Rhodes scholar on the backbench, we can’t have him there for long. I mean, you’d have to get, you’d have be promoted – I don’t see how they can keep a Rhodes scholar on the backbench.

Alan Jones:  He is a patient man, he’s a farmer’s son. He’s a patient man. Angus, just explain to us would you, in layman’s language, what is the Renewable Energy Target.

Angus Taylor:  Alan, it’s a scheme designed to increase the level of renewable electricity in Australia. And the way it works in practice is it gives big subsidies to renewable projects and it builds those subsidies into our electricity prices ….

Alan Jones:  Sorry to interrupt you – go even simpler – the Renewable, Angus, a renewable project – just explain what a renewable project is.

Angus Taylor:  Well, so there are two schemes, the large scale scheme, which is essentially wind – there is a bit of hydro in there but no new hydro. So that’s the large-scale scheme and that is the majority of it. That’s about 90% of the total. And then there is the small scale scheme which is largely rooftop solar. So they’re the two schemes, and we pay for those big subsidies in our electricity prices, in our bills – they’re not transparent.

Alan Jones:  And that energy is infinitely dearer to produce than coal-fired power so isn’t it fair to say that without massive subsidies, these outfits couldn’t survive. Now if the government is not going to give money to the motor vehicle industry, and it’s not going to give money to SPC Ardmona, why is it giving billions of dollars to Qatari owned wind turbines?

Angus Taylor:  Well that’s a good question. I mean we’ve just had a review of this, led by Dick Warburton, and what the review concluded was that these are expensive schemes, very expensive schemes, but as importantly they’re very expensive ways to reduce carbon emissions. They did come to different conclusions on solar and the large-scale, the wind subsidies, and what we know is rooftop solar in remote areas can be economic, but large-scale wind it’s very clear that it’s not economic on any grounds.

Graham Richardson: If it is not economic, tell me how uneconomic is it? How much dearer? You know, is it 50%, is it 80% dearer than coal-fired power? How much?

Angus Taylor:  Well, put it in perspective. A wind project to get investment will probably need a price somewhere in their long-term contract of somewhere close to $100. And we’re buying electricity now, wholesale electricity at about $30 a megawatt hour. So say three times is a good rule of thumb … What we also know is the cost of reducing carbon emissions this way – it’s something like $60-70 and of course the carbon tax was far less that and we think still way too high.

Alan Jones:   Let’s just go  … just go to where our viewers are involved in all of this. Let me just ask you a simple question, right, I’m a big Qatari investor, because I know that Australians are suckers, we know the Australian government is just shelling out money, now I come from Qatar and I want to build wind turbines and I’ve found this farmer, Angus Taylor in Goulburn and he’s got this a big hill out there – and I think this would be a good place to build wind turbines, so go to Angus Taylor and I say to him I want to put 70 wind turbines on your property. Just basically rule of thumb, how much would you expect to get from me, the big Qatari Guru, how much would you expect to get from me per wind turbine? And I want 70 of them on your farm.

Angus Taylor:  You’d get about 10 to 12 thousand dollars so if you going to have

Alan Jones:  So I kick in $700,000 to you, that’s right. So I build the 70 wind turbines. Enter the taxpayer. So I’m from Qatar, I’m a big wind power man, what’s the taxpayer going to fork out to me in order that I so-called ‘produce’ this wind power?

Angus Taylor:  Look on average you’d expect it to be about $400,000 per year, per turbine.

Alan Jones:  For 30 years.

Angus Taylor: In fact in the next few years – yes for 30 years (GR Wow). 400,000 per turbine.

Alan Jones: Start again

Angus Taylor: So if you had 70 turbines, that’s $28 million a year.

Alan Jones:   28 million on his farm – on his farm – 28 million – so the people watching you – say it again – I’m a Qatari I’m not even an Australian – $28 million a year for one farm. How the hell can this be sustainable?

Angus Taylor: For 70 turbines – and of course we are all paying for that in our electricity bills that’s how it’s coming through.

Graham Richardson:  Can I ask you Angus – at the moment what is the energy target and how close have we got to it?

Angus Taylor:  Right so the energy target is supposed to be 20% of total demand. It’s turning out that it is way above that. The unit is 41 terawatt hours – but what’s important is we’re overshooting the 20% target by a long way. Now the problem with that, the problem with that is from here on in, we would have to build a Snowy Mountains Scheme every year for the next 5 years to reach the target. That’s a Snowy Mountain every year, for the next 5 years to reach the target. And the target will take us well over the 20% mark. The reason it’s going to take us way over the 20% mark, which was the original target, we were originally set ourselves a target of 20%, the reason we’re going way over is that electricity demand has actually been going backwards in Australia and the expectation was it would keep growing. So we’ve got this very high target, huge amount of renewable capacity to be built to reach it, and it’s going to take us way over what we originally expected to do.

Alan Jones:   And Angus isn’t t fair to say that written into the budget there is an expenditure figure of $17 billion – 17 thousand million dollars, to build between 700 and 10,000 of these. Now can I just ask this? If the Abbott Government is not going to give money to SPC Ardmona, and if it’s not going to give money to the car industry – and out there is tax payer land they say, nor should they, why the hell are we subsidising Chinese and Qatari wind farmers jacking up the price of energy, pushing manufacturing out of business? Why are we doing it?

Angus Taylor:  Well, look this is the good question. We are paying these massive subsidies out in our electricity bills we are going way over the target we originally set ourselves and really what this is becoming now is just industry assistance, it’s becoming industry assistance and primarily for the wind industry.

Alan Jones:   It’s industry welfare on steroids.

Graham Richardson: How much investment goes into it? How much private investment goes into it?

Angus Taylor:  Well look, you know, it depends on what’s being built Graham but it is a big number, 17 billion is probably not a bad number to go with, which is the number that Alan mentioned earlier. So there’s a lot of investment- but remember what’s happening here – it’s not creating jobs, we’re actually taking jobs away from other places. In fact, Deloitte tells us that we’re actually going to lose in total 5000 jobs as a result of this – now we gain some in one place and lose them in the other, but the net, we are going to lose 5000 jobs and the reason for that is that it is inefficient investment – we are actually replacing electricity generation we don’t need to replace because demand is going backwards, not forwards. So this is costing us a lot.

Alan Jones:   Yes, it is costing us. Isn’t it valid to say – and it may be an oversimplification, you can either have a manufacturing industry, or a Renewable Energy Target – you can’t have both.

Angus Taylor:  Well, the other part of this, of course, is if it’s pushing electricity prices up, and in the next 5 years it’s likely to push them up quite a lot, if it’s pushing electricity prices up, not only is that hurting households, it’s hurting businesses in exactly the same way that the Carbon tax was hurting businesses. There’s no difference. It’s pushing up electricity prices and that’s hurting all of us.

Alan Jones:  But you said …

Angus Taylor: We’ve gone from being a low cost energy country to a high cost energy country and this is continuing to be one of the contributors. So if all of this was for a good purpose, if it was a cheap way to reduce carbon emissions, depending on your view on whether that’s a good thing to do, then you might be able to justify it. But it’s not and the Review Panel told us that very clearly.

Alan Jones:   Terry McCrann, the very experienced economist said many many years ago, if you want to de-carbonise the Australian economy, your writing yourself a national suicide note. Now here we are forcing manufacturing overseas, forcing jobs, Deloitte said that, up to 6000 jobs. Now at what point do we say to Macfarlane, you said it in the party room, Macfarlane is the Energy Minister, he said this week, there’d be no changes, there’ll be no changes, we’ll make no changes that damage or end the Renewable Energy Target. This is the Energy Minister. You’ve got a Rhode scholar here saying – hang on – this is an inefficient use of resources, this is welfare on steroids and you’ve got the Minister – don’t ask me what I think of that bloke – but you’ve got this Minister saying the exact opposite. What is the party room saying about this?

Angus Taylor: Look, there’s clearly some concerns about solar in the party room, but the overwhelming view of the party room has always been that we have got to contain electricity prices. There’s no question about that. I think, to be fair to the Minister, in the last 48 hours he’s made it very clear that he’s concerned about the rise in electricity prices we’re likely to see in the next few years. He’s made that very clear. You know, look if there’s one cause that we took to the last election, aside from stopping the boats, it was that we needed to contain electricity price increases. That was a view that the party room held…

Graham Richardson:  But the argument was … Angus , the trouble is you ran the argument about the Carbon tax being the cause and it was only a small part of the cause, so you actually didn’t really tell the truth about the Carbon tax, because I think it was about 9% and everybody tried to make it sound like it was a great deal more.

Angus Taylor:  Well, 10% on someone’s electricity bill Graham is a big number for the average Australian and remember the people who are hit hardest here are those are least well off, and energy-intensive businesses which have been the core of Australia’s strength over the years. So 10% impact on electricity bills, and we are seeing that come off now, now that the Carbon tax is gone, that’s a big deal, it’s a big deal for your average Australian and it’s a big deal for Australian businesses.

Graham Richardson:  If we dropped these massive subsidies, which by the way are far greater than I’d ever believed, what would be the effect on electricity prices then?

Angus Taylor:  Well look, it depends but it will be 3-5% over the next few years, but the real problem is this, over the next 5 years, we are not likely to reach the target that was set. We’re not likely to reach it. Now when that happens, the price of these subsidies, they’re caught up in these certificates, the price of those certificates, which goes into your electricity bills, will go sky rocketing.

Alan Jones:  Correct.

Angus Taylor:  And this is the worry – and to be fair to the Minister – he has voiced this concern in the last 48 hours – the real worry is that the sky rocketing price of these subsidies because we can’t get enough of this large scale renewable capacity coming on, the wind turbines, we can’t get them on fast enough, the cost of this scheme is going to go right up in the next few years. And that’s the real concern and it’s a concern that I think the Labor party should share too, I mean they know. You only have to go door knocking in the less well off parts of my electorate or in any other electorate, to know that electricity prices and cost of living are right at the top of the list – so anything that’s pushing that up they’re concerned about.

Alan Jones:   But manufacturing is moving offshore. Jobs are being lost all over the place. Deloitte said that. But you talked at the beginning of this program Graham ‘what’s this bloke doing on the back bench?’ What kind of an Energy Minister would he make? You’re being very charitable to Macfarlane – I will tell you what Macfarlane said about the Renewable Energy Target. These are his exact words. ‘Anything the government does, will not effect any existing investment in renewable energy’. ‘Any existing investment’. I mean, is this bloke off his head? Manufacturing is closing down, jobs are being lost people out there can’t turn on their electric blanket because of the escalating cost of electricity and there should be a comprehensive movement by the Abbott government to reverse all of that.

Angus Taylor:  Look the concern the Minister voiced there is that people have invested to this point in good faith and we should respect investments they’ve made in good faith. I think what he has also said in the last 48 hours is the real issue is here is do we want more of this investment, accelerating over the next 5 years and costing us all a great deal and I think that is the real concern – I mean, do we want to just keep going – and do we want to miss this target.

Alan Jones:  But the real concern, just finally, Angus, isn’t the real concern if there is no money for Holden in the car industry, and no money for SPC Ardmona, why are there billions and billions of dollars for this industry?

Angus Taylor:  I think that’s a good question. I think unfortunately a lot of these schemes set out with the best of intentions and end up being industry assistance, industry pork-barrelling on steroids, as you say, and that’s the concern here. And it’s why there is a legitimate debate – a very legitimate debate in my view, about scaling it back. The Review Panel has said to us that that’s its preferred option. It gave us 2 options on the large scale, on the wind subsidies, and you know, I have made no secret of the fact that I think that we should scale it back. I think, as I say, to be fair to the Minister, he knows that if we don’t scale it back, we have a very serious risk of big increases in electricity prices and escalating subsidies.

Graham Richardson:  I’ve really got to say we have to leave it here. Now I am not concerned about being fair to the Minister. If the Minister is fair dinkum, then he’ll do something about it, and he will do it quickly. Because this is a debacle. And it is just something that you can’t wait. You can’t sit and look at it. It’s got to be addressed immediately. And I don’t understand why he doesn’t. I can’t get it. But we have got to leave it there. Well go on have one last word, very quickly…

Angus Taylor: I was just going say we need the Labor party to help us, we’ve got to get this through the Senate. Either the Labor party or the cross-benchers have got to help us as it needs legislative change so it is incredibly important.

Graham Richardson: Well we will see what we can do.

Alan Jones: good on you Angus

Graham Richardson: I don’t actually hold out a great deal of hope on that front – but I will see what I can do because I think you are right.

Alan Jones:  Hope of the side – this bloke.

Graham Richardson: Certainly is – as I said if I was a Minister looking behind, I’d be on my toes. Angus Taylor, a pleasure to have you on the show. I hope to talk to you again soon.

Alan Jones:  Thanks Angus.

Angus Taylor: Thanks Graham.

Angus Taylor

Tim Hudak is an Honest Man, and a Man of Compassion and Integrity. We Will be Lucky to Have Him!

Hudak vows to protect people who ‘are falling through the cracks’

Credits: Mike DiBattista/Niagara Falls Review/QMI Agency

ANTONELLA ARTUSO | QMI AGENCY

TORONTO — Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak stressed his softer side Tuesday with a pledge to help people with disabilities and disadvantages realize their potential in the workforce.

At a campaign stop in Toronto, Hudak said his plan would deliver jobs for those who currently struggle to find work.

“Who’s closest to my heart? Those who are falling through the cracks today, those with disabilities, the disadvantaged, young people graduating from school with a lot of energy and hope but no job. That’s who I’m going to fight for every day,” Hudak said.

Hudak noted that 20 unions, many of them representing public sector workers, have joined with his political challengers in a barrage of negative messages about him and his party in the lead up to the June 12 vote.

His opponents would have voters believe that the sky would fall if the PCs gain government, he said.

“I’m going to set the record straight. The sun is still going to shine. Cows will still give milk. The sky’s still going to be blue,” he said.

The PCs have said they will not cut teachers or educational assistants who work with children with special needs, or social workers who help people with disabilities overcome their difficulties.

David Lepofsky, chair of the Alliance of Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, said the organization analyzed the commitments of the three major political parties.

Hudak, he said, has refused a request to protect regulations that ensure accessible workplaces for Ontarians with disabilities.

“We aren’t happy with any of the leaders,” he said. “With that, we have to say that Tim Hudak’s position on disability-accessibility is by far the weakest.

Hudak has said this issue is “personal” for him as one of his two daughters has developmental needs.

Proud to Stand With the Aussies Against Destroying our Economy!

Stephen Harper and Tony Abbott won't let climate policies kill jobs

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (L) with Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott during welcoming ceremonies on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on June 9, 2014.AFP PHOTO/ Cole BurstonCole Burston/AFP/Getty Images

Photograph by: COLE BURSTON , Ottawa Citizen

The political leaders of Canada and Australia declared on Monday they won’t take any action to battle climate change that harms their national economies and threatens jobs.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Australian counterpart, Tony Abbott, made the statements following a meeting on Parliament Hill.

Abbott, whose Liberal party came to power last fall on a conservative platform, publicly praised Harper for being an “exemplar” of “centre-right leadership” in the world.

Abbott’s government has come under criticism for its plan to cancel Australia’s carbon tax, while Harper has been criticized for failing to introduce regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada’s oil and gas sector.

Later this week, Abbott meets with U.S. President Barack Obama, who has vowed to make global warming a political priority and whose administration is proposing a 30-per-cent reduction of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030.

At a Monday news conference, Harper and Abbott both said they welcomed Obama’s plan. Abbott said he plans to take similar action, and Harper boasted that Canada is already ahead of the U.S. in imposing controls on the “electricity sector.”

But both leaders stressed that they won’t be pushed into taking steps on climate change they deem unwise.

“It’s not that we don’t seek to deal with climate change,” said Harper. “But we seek to deal with it in a way that will protect and enhance our ability to create jobs and growth. Not destroy jobs and growth in our countries.”

Harper said that no country is going to undertake actions on climate change — “no matter what they say” — that will “deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country.

“We are just a little more frank about that.”

Abbott said climate change is a “significant problem” but he said it is not the “most important problem the world faces.

“We should do what we reasonably can to limit emissions and avoid climate change, man-made climate change,” said Abbott.

“But we shouldn’t clobber the economy. That’s why I’ve always been against a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme — because it harms our economy without necessarily helping the environment.”

Abbott’s two-day trip to Ottawa was his first since becoming prime minister and it quickly became evident he is on the same political page as Harper.

They are both conservative politicians who espouse the need to balance the budget, cut taxes, and focus on international trade.

Just as Harper once turned to former Australian prime John Howard for political guidance, Abbott is now turning to his Canadian counterpart as a model.

He recalled how he met Harper in late 2005, just before the federal election that brought Harper to power.

“You were an opposition leader not expected to win an election. But you certainly impressed me that day. And you’ve impressed not only Canadians but a generally admiring world in the months and years since that time.”

“I’m happy to call you an exemplar of centre-right leadership — much for us to learn, much for me to learn from the work you’ve done.”

Harper paid tribute to Abbott for the work he has done as chair of the G20, which will hold a meeting in November in Australia.

“You’ve used this international platform to encourage our counterparts in the major economies and beyond to boost economic growth, to lower taxes when possible and to eliminate harmful ones, most notably the job-killing carbon tax,” said Harper.

mkennedy@ottawacitizen.com

 

 

Tim Hudak and the Conservatives will End the Money-Grabbing Wind Scam!

wilson
Simcoe-Grey Progressive Conservative candidate Jim Wilson (second from right) makes a campaign announcement during a stop at the Collingwood Regional Airport, Friday, May 23, 2014. With Wilson are, from left, pilot Alexander Younger, pilot and airport board chair Charlie Tatham, and pilot Kevin Elwood. Morgan Ian Adams/Collingwood Enterprise-Bulletin/QMI Agency

CLEARVIEW Twp. —The Progressive Conservative candidate for Simcoe-Grey says he’d put a stop to a company’s plans to erect wind turbines near the local airport should his party form the next government.

In a campaign stop at the Collingwood Regional Airport Friday morning, during which he slammed the existing Green Energy Act and the impact he says it has had on electricity bills, Jim Wilson promised a Progressive Conservative government would do what it could to halt WPD Canada’s plans to erect turbines near the facility should his party win the June 12 provincial election.

WPD’s proposal is to erect eight turbines in the area north of County Road 91; at least two of the proposed 500-foot-tall turbines are within an area the municipal services board that manages the airport say are a potential safety hazard to aircraft, especially in the landing or take-off phase, while another three turbines are considered on the edge of that area.

WPD’s plans are presently under technical review by the Ministry of Environment.

“We’ll do whatever it takes to stop WPD Canada from putting the wind turbines in this vicinity,” said Wilson. “It is in process, and it may end up in a lawsuit, but we just can’t allow it.”

“If you’re going to prevent death, you do everything you can to do that — you have a moral obligation to do that.”

The airport board, and several landowners in the area, have been fighting the proposal for several years; both Collingwood and Clearview Township municipal councils have also voiced their opposition.

One of those landowners, Kevin Ellwood — who has a private aerodrome on his farm on County Road 91, and is faced with the prospect of having a turbine in the path of his landing strip — has filed 39 access-to-information requests of various ministries on WPD’s proposal.

Some of those requests are now before an adjudicator to see if the information will be released.

The turbines, said Ellwood, are “dangerous and significant threats to pilots and their passengers.”

Ellwood and Wilson both point to a crash in South Dakota in April that killed four, after a Piper 32 aircraft collided with a turbine in poor weather conditions. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating, but authorities have not released any details on the crash.

Regional airport board chair Charlie Tatham, who was on hand for Wilson’s announcement, said he’s tried to point out to provincial officials that the location of the turbines “pose a lethal danger… yet they choose to ignore it.

“To ignore it could lead to someone’s death at some point,” he said.

WPD’s position has been the location of the turbines will have a negligible effect on airport movements.

Wilson, however, remains unconvinced, and says the location of the turbines is just one of the problems with the Green Energy Act, which the Conservatives claim will cost electricity customers $46 billion over the next 20 years, paying out contracts for wind and solar power at rates that far exceed current electricity prices.

“Hopefully we can stop it, that there’s some escape clauses (in the agreements)… but I don’t know the full extent of these (contracts and what’s hidden in them,” said Wilson. “There are thousands, tens of thousands of these contracts that are essentially secret and covered up from the public. This one just keeps on rolling ahead and (government) doesn’t seem to be listening to anybody.”

Wilson said a former provincial Liberal cabinet minister warned the legal costs of putting a halt to some of these contracts would be in the billions of dollars, but that point is irrelevant when considering the long-term cost of paying out energy contracts — or worse, if someone dies because a plane hits a wind turbine located close to the airport.

“It’s a lot cheaper than paying people 20 years of contracts when they get paid whether the wind blows or the sun shines. It’s going to bankrupt the province, so you might as well just cut your losses,” said Wilson.

“It’s a moral choice, it’s an expensive choice, but it’s one we’re going to have to make. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this on day-one (of a new government)… it may require that we talk to our lawyers, it may require new legislation to undo the Green Energy Act, and if we have to do that… well (the legislature) is supreme.”

By Morgan Ian Adams
Published in the Barrie Examiner, May 23, 2014