Wow.

Oakville mayor Rob Burton has just published a fascinating timeline on his website.  If you care about Ontario politics – if you care about the truth – you should take a few minutes to read it.  It provides facts about the gas plant controversy, not conjecture and bullshit.  Among other things, it exposes the Opposition/media narrative about the gas plants to be wrong, wrong, wrong.

Among the revelations in Burton’s post:

• In August 2009, Burton meets with Premier Dalton McGuinty to protest the plans of the Ontario Power Authority/Ford Canada/TransCanada Energy to locate a gas plant in a largely residential area.  McGuinty listens to Burton, and starts an inquiry into Oakville’s concerns.
• In February 2010, the Ontario PCs also come out against the OPA/Ford/TransCanada desired location for the plant.
• In April 2010, all three parties in the Legislature vote for a Liberal private member’s bill to keep power plants away from neighbourhoods.
• In June 2010, McGuinty’s inquiry releases its recommendations – and it recommends against what OPA/Ford/TransCanada want. McGuinty listens – and, three months later, cancels it.
• In September 2010, the PCs appear to reverse themselves, and start advocating for the plant to go in Ward Four, which borders the QEW, a creek, and thousands of homes. (Why? See October 2012, below.)
• In October 2010, McGuinty cancels the plant, and shuts down OPA/Ford/TransCanada.  The decision is hugely popular in Oakville, and the local paper thanks McGuinty, saying they are glad he made the right decision.
• In September 2011, PC leader Tim Hudak says he wants to cancel the Mississauga gas plant.  For the government hopes to lead, the cost will be “one billion dollars,” quote unquote.  He says Oakville’s cancellation, which he supports, was also a billion.
• In the same month, his Mississauga candidate says “a Tim Hudak government will cancel this plant” – which, Burton dryly notes, “matches a Liberal promise” made earlier.
• In October 2011, McGuinty wins re-election, one seat short of a majority.
• A year later, in October 2012, the Toronto Sun reveals – as Burton puts it – “the Hudaks get a $40,900 pay-out from TransCanada.”
• In March 2013, Burton appears before a legislative committee to talk about the gas plants.  He writes:  “I point out all three political parties promise to kill the power plant during the fight and ask them how their cancellation costs would be different.”
• At the end of his timeline, Burton places the blame for the gas plant mess – and the price tag – squarely on the OPA:  “[they are] responsible for this costly mistake.” They were “reckless,” he writes.

To summarize: all of the political parties were against the gas plant locations.  All acknowledged there’d be a cost for cancellation.

And the ultimate responsibility for the gas plant mess, and the costs?

It lies with bureaucrats.  Not Dalton McGuinty, his staff, or his cabinet.

Comments (25)

Compared to 1988’s Free Trade Agreement (FTA), this year’s Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is getting a pretty easy ride.

In 1988, Liberal leader John Turner vowed to “tear (FTA) up” if he became prime minister — and, owing to a very strong debate performance, he very nearly received the opportunity to do just that.

Turner and Ed Broadbent’s NDP told Prime Minister Brian Mulroney the FTA would destroy Canadian sovereignty.

But, on election day, Mulroney won a second massive majority — 169 seats to Turner’s 83 and Broadbent’s 43.

Since CETA was announced last week, we haven’t seen similar political blowback. Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau issued a carefully worded statement: “We are broadly supportive of CETA, though we have yet to see its details.”

Thomas Mulcair’s NDP struck a similar tone — also in a statement, but (oddly) issued by a backbencher, not Mulcair: “New Democrats welcome progress towards a comprehensive new trade agreement with the European Union.”

For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, so far so good. No one wants to fight an election over CETA. Yet.

In the coming 2015 election, Messrs. Trudeau and Mulcair may be fiercely competing for progressive voters, who traditionally are unenthusiastic about such trade agreements. A similar scenario played out in the 1980s.

What, then, are the parts of CETA that could be vote winners for Trudeau or Mulcair? There are five.

One, there may be a lot of job losses.

Much-quoted Unifor economist Jim Stanford projects as many as 150,000 jobs could perish, mainly in the manufacturing sector.

Given there were, in fact, many plant closures in the wake of the FTA, this prophecy does not seem all that far-fetched.

Two, there will be higher drug costs.

Pharmaceutical companies will argue CETA’s extension of patent protection will boost health care research and innovation — but an aging Canadian population is unlikely to be convinced. Under the terms of the deal-in-principle, drug companies are to receive up to two years extra patent protection, potentially costing provincial treasuries (and citizens) billions.

If the Grey Power lobby is angered, watch out, Team Harper.

Three, “buy local” or “buy Canadian” programs may be in peril. Farmers and rural Canada are now warily eyeing prohibitions in CETA against efforts to boost local businesses, and particularly family farms.

Leaked trade documents suggest such popular programs — and even pro-Canadian government procurement — will be wiped out under CETA. Already, influential rural lobbies like the dairy farmers are loudly voicing their opposition.

Four, some natural resources may be on the table. Other leaks, for instance, imply that even Canada’s water — and its delivery — may be offered up for privatization. If the final deal does so, there will be political fireworks aplenty.

Five, the entire agreement is shrouded in secrecy. Free trade advocates will argue that one can’t negotiate a complex deal in the media, and they’d be right. But it’s equally true that, until all of CETA is public, the deal is ripe for all manner of political mischief-making.

Will CETA be at the centre of the 2015 election campaign?

Time will tell.

But if coming polls show Trudeau and Mulcair splitting the big anti-trade progressive vote, you can count on it.

Comments (12)

Right?

Don’t raise expectations you can’t exceed, Chretien used to tell us.  Some people should heed that advice, but they won’t.

Comments (2)

I just got these at an antiques place we always stop at, in Brighton. I’m going to send a picture of this to Bobby Jr.

Comments (2)

As in Monday’s Hill Times column, here.

Comments (18)

“Maybe his girlfriend knew more tricks than a monkey on a flagpole.”

Comments (3)

Click on the logo for more.

Comments (8)

Last night we auditioned (if you can call it that) a new guitarist, because our old one has recklessly decided to pursue respectability and a Parliamentary sinecure.  The new guy, formerly of The Snipes – and I think we should name him Steve Deceive, but that’s ultimately up to his manager, lawyers and publicity team – knows quite a few SFH tunes already, including our huge Summer 2013 hit, ‘Mayor On Crack.’ Here it is again, for your viewing and listening displeasure.

Meanwhile, SFH rides again!

Comments (4)

Date and location still to be determined – but, given how determined censorship expert Mark Bourrie is to have Warren imprisoned for words – it’ll happen sooner than later.

Mark, meanwhile, has commenced civil lawsuits against Yours Screwly in Quebec and Ontario, has threatened my web site host in the United States, made a complaint against me to the Law Society, and – as noted – is trying to get me thrown in jail for publishing words he doesn’t like. He’s a bit angry.

Thus the party.  Invites going out soon.  Be there or be indicted!

Comments (13)

All the sordid details here – in the Sun.

Comments (0)