Green energy subsidies from the Ontario Power Authority

The IESO website has changed since the recent merger with the Ontario Power Authority (OPA).  The page outlining details of the “Conservation Fund” (paid for via the Global Adjustment or GA) says this about its purpose: “If you have a bright idea to help Ontarians conserve energy, we’ll help you turn it into reality.”

For 2013 the grants handed out by the Conservation Fund for “bright ideas” amounted to $8.5 million, which is only about 2% of the annual OPA conservation budget (consistently in excess of $300 million annually) and jumped to $483 million in 2014.   That amounts to about $100 per year on your electricity bill. 

What we should know about the OPA’s “Conservation Fund” hand outs:

Did you know that that since the Conservation Fund began, the OPA dispersed well over $2 million to just Toronto Hydro and the City of Toronto for “bright ideas”?

Did you know the OPA also disbursed funds to the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority ($235K for school education programs, sustainable schools, even condominium combined heat and power evaluation), and they disbursed funds to University of Toronto ($354K)?

Did you know MaRS (MaRS again!) got $149K for demonstration of new green technologies?

Did you know the OPA even provided funds to a Toronto-owned funding organization? The Toronto Atmospheric Fund ($150K),  gave Loblaw $1 million “ to validate the potential of pay for performance models as a next generation approach to conservation programming,and handed out $160K to the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-op (Exhibition Place wind turbine) “With the ultimate goal of providing students and at-risk youth with pathways to the green energy industry.”

Did you know that in the same period they disbursed $720K to Enerquality, Clean Air Foundation ($125K) and $25K to Summerhill, all of whom Bruce Lourie, (a former Board member of the OPA and a recently appointed Board member of IESO) claims he created?

Did you know you can find names like these otherwise well-funded organizations? WWF ($400K for: “The “Living Planet @ Work” initiative [to support] employee networks and executive leaders in reducing tenant electricity use in office workplaces”); Pembina ($75K to: provides teachers and students with web-based, curriculum-linked materials on energy and the environment.); Ryerson University 1, ($1.9 million for: “ …a founding sponsor of the Centre for Urban Energy/CUE at Ryerson, the OPA will support the three fellowship positions and student awards”.)

Did you know the OPA also handed out $2.9 million to the Ontario Centres of Excellence, Windfall where Brent Kopperson 2. (one of the authors of the GEA) got $55K;  $300K went to Temporal Power who also received $20 million in grants from the Province and a contract for energy storage from the OPA;  and, $450K was given to Electrovaya who announced a couple of years ago it has received approval for a C$16.7 million grant from the government of Ontario to develop its Lithium Ion SuperPolymer® battery technology.

Did you know this Portfolio list numbers over 160 grants, not including any from 2014?

It is worth noting that the OPA even handed our grants for concepts/projects located in other provinces and grants to foreign companies trying to establish “green” initiatives, etc.

The OPA handed out  $284K for the Now House Project in Windsor and the riding held by a former Liberal Energy and Finance Minister, Dwight Duncan, to retrofit five small homes built for returning veterans from WW II, at a total cost of over $1 million (over $200K per home).  That money might better support some of Canada’s veterans but the optics for the Liberal government in Ontario mean support must go to their objective to get us all to conserve electricity, no matter the cost.

©Parker Gallant,

February 15, 2015

The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Author notes:

  1. Ryerson University also received another $5 million from Hydro One and Toronto Hydro.
  2. Windfall also obtained approval for a 20-MW wind turbine development on Georgina Island and negotiated a loan with Toronto Atmospheric Fund to help finance it; the loan was cancelled by the previous Toronto Mayor and council.

Subsidies and grants for green entrepreneurs

ONE can be a lonely number, especially on Valentine’s Day, but not in Ontario where ONE, according to their website, is the “Ontario Network of Entrepreneurs.” That’s their current name anyway: “In June 2009, the Ontario Government introduced the Ontario Network of Excellence (ONE) –Ontario’s revitalized, client-focused, province-wide innovation network. In May 2013, the ONE was re-branded to the Ontario Network of Entrepreneurs.”

Sounds impressive; even more impressive are some of the claims they make about their network of 90 branches throughout the province and their funding sources such as MaRS and provincial agencies including the three regional Development Funds.   ONE will be hosting the “Discovery” Conference April 27, 2015 and says this about their efforts to entice attendees and sponsors:  “Discovery is a showcase of leading-edge technologies, best practices and research from sectors such as health, manufacturing, digital media and cleantech, including energy, environment and water.”

Now let’s look at some of their claims:

What we should ask about the government’s definition of “entrepreneurs”

Why would you call a network (90 offices) of government programs administered by bureaucrats, an network “entrepreneurs”?

Why would 20 colleges and several not-for-profit foundations dependent on government grants be considered an “entrepreneurial network”?

Why would ONE claim they have created or retained 192,000 jobs in a document released January 1, 2014 but show only two examples of those “jobs”? (The document included two examples with one of them named “Desire2Learn” which received a $4.25 million grant from the Ontario government. As recently disclosed one of those Desire2Learn jobs might represent ONE job for our former Premier, Dalton McGuinty now registered as their lobbyist in the Ontario Lobbyist Registry.)

Why is the Liberal Government showing investments in “clean tech” via the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation or OCGC of $74 million (as of March 31, 2012) which represented 18% of the total investments of OCGC, when MaRS and other Liberal government creations are handing out our tax dollars in the same market to the same parties?

The March 31, 2014 Financial Statements under “Revenues” for OCGC indicate they received $15 million directly from the province, $50 million from the Ontario Emerging Technologies Fund or OETF 1. and $1 million from Northleaf Venture Capitalist Fund (NVCF) 2..  They claim they generated $13 million in “Realized gains on sale of investment funds” but the latter is not even mentioned in the auditor’s notes.

OCGF  in their March 31, 2014 annual statement under “Assets” claim they invested $59 million in OETF and $44 million in OVCF 3.and $2.6 million in NVCF; their “Investing Activities” show them buying and selling OETF investments, selling investments in OVCF and obtaining a “Return of capital from OVCF” as well as a “Purchase of Investments in NVCF”.

So exactly what is happening between these various investment funds that the Liberals created? Is someone actually auditing the success or failure of these entities?  Are the bureaucrats using our tax dollars to pick any “winners” or are they trading assets to make it look like they are creating value?

Perhaps this is another area that the Auditor General should tick off as an area for future review, as well as the power system in Ontario under review for 2015.

©Parker Gallant

February 14, 2015


1. Ontario Emerging Technologies Fund (OETF)

OETF was launched in July 2009 with a commitment from the Province of Ontario to provide funding of $250 million. OETF, as a direct co-investment fund, makes investments into innovative high potential companies alongside other qualified investors with a proven track record of success. Investments are in three strategic sectors: (a) clean technology; (b) digital media and information and communication technologies; and (c) life sciences and advanced health technologies.

2. Northleaf Venture Catalyst Fund (NVCF) is a joint initiative between major Canadian institutional investors and the Governments of Canada and Ontario to invest in Canada-based venture capital and growth equity funds and direct investments that support innovative, high growth companies.

3. Ontario Venture Capital Fund LP (OVCF)In June 2008, the OVCF was established with an investment commitment from the Province of Ontario of $90 million. OVCF is a $205 million joint initiative of the Government of Ontario and private institutional investors,formed to invest primarily in Ontario-based and Ontario-focused venture capital and growth equity funds  that support innovative, high potential companies.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Green energy subsidies: who picks the winners in Ontario?

Corner of MaRS building with empty retail space (signs say it's been leased): where is the return on YOUR investment?
Corner of MaRS building with empty retail space (signs say it’s been leased): where is the return on YOUR investment?

Visiting the OCE (Ontario Centres of Excellence) website one notes their “Vision” is articulated as “vision is prosperity from innovation − an Ontario where bright minds connect to create prosperity.”

On the MaRS (Medical and Related Sciences) website the “Vision” is “Our future matters. The quality of that future depends on innovation.”

In both cases their “Vision” is almost entirely dependent on the largesse of the Ontario government which passes out tens of millions of taxpayer dollars annually to pick the leading edge technology that will generate “winners” for Ontario.  MaRS was founded in 2000 but didn’t really take root until the Liberals came to power and in 2005 ramped it up.  Their original purpose has been distorted to the point where they formed a “Clean Tech” group and got into the business of trying to prevent “climate change.”   (As we all know they also got into the office realty business resulting in a bailout from Ontario’s taxpayers of $309 million.)

OCE on the other hand was formed in 1987 when David Peterson was Liberal Premier; he set up seven “independent centres” which Dalton McGuinty amalgamated in 2004. The OCE now claims “OCE drives the commercialization of cutting-edge research across strategic market sectors to build the economy of tomorrow and secure Ontario’s and Canada’s global competitiveness.”

What are these agencies really all about?

Why did the Liberals believe seven “centres” amalgamated into one $30/40 million annually funded government entity “Ontario Centres of Excellence” (OCE) would produce better results?

Why does the OCE lend money to “entrepreneurs” and immediately write the loans down to $1. As an example OCE in the year ended March 31, 2013 provided loans of $749,995 and wrote them down to $3. For 2012 the write off was $1.1 million, and for 2011 $2.6 million.

Why have OCE’s investments in 46 private companies been written down to $46? Is it because as the notes on their financial statement indicate, “OCE has recognized a provision for impairment on the investments in private companies due to uncertainty in the future performance and viability”?

Why is the federal government via FedDev Ontario supporting OCE with another $9 million plus the Ontario Government’s grant of $9 million to support the concept that OCE’s staff and members (principally bureaucratic organizations) can pick winners?

Why does the OCE claim “Ontario has long shown itself to be a leader in smart grids for improving the electricity system” when the Auditor General’s report noted failure of its data centre in response to data-retrieval requests from distribution companies?

Why does so much of the OPA’s (Ontario Power Authority) Conservation Fund find its way to OCE?  The OPA has sent over $2.9 million to the OCE since the OPA’s creation via 14 grants.

Why does OCE invest in clean energy despite funding availability from other provincial agencies like MaRS, the OPA, etc.:  “Since 2005, OCE has invested $37 million in clean energy projects, including smart grid technologies. …OCE now has smart grid projects underway involving researchers at 10 Ontario universities and colleges.”

Why does the Provincial government also provide tens of millions ($26 million year ended March 31, 2014) in grants to MaRS Discovery District, duplicating the same roles available via the OCE and the OPA including the MaRS “Investment Accelerator Fund”?

Why does MaRS claim “$1 billion in capital raised by MaRS venture clients (2011-2013), $450 million of which was raised in 2013 alone (78% from private sources)” when those with some common sense recognize the last statement means 22% came from taxpayers and $100 million for MaRS to hand out.  That was additional to the $300-million bailout for the MaRS Centre and $150 million MaRS received in grants since 2005.

Why doesn’t MaRS publish an annual report? Their CRA filing for March 31, 2014 tells us nothing about the Phase 2 building showing land and buildings with a value of $134 million, but no apparent liability outstanding, yet Infrastructure Ontario (IO) has provided them with $216 million based on their March 31, 2014 annual report. Where is the missing debt?

Why have we not seen a return on our investments?  The publicly funded investments made by OCE and MaRS do not appear to have generated any returns for the Province’s taxpayers despite the activities of both the OCE and MaRS and the numerous investments made in the green “energy” sector.

Governments and bureaucrats are notoriously bad at picking winners. That is painfully evident from what we have seen over the past decade from these two gobbling up tax dollars.

©Parker Gallant,

February 13, 2015

The views expressed are those of the author and do not represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Wind farm property owner liability: liens filed in Nova Scotia

On Tuesday we ran a story on liens being placed on title for property owners associated with the wind power project on Manitoulin Island–we are aware that this is happening in other places in Ontario too, but don’t have the documents. Here is a story now from Nova Scotia on property owner liability when a wind “farm” developer doesn’t pay debts.

N.B. company claims it’s owed $323,000 for work on South Canoe

A New Brunswick-based rebar installer has filed another lawsuit against the 34-turbine South Canoe wind farm over alleged unpaid bills.

Acadia Rebar of Saint-Leolin, N.B., launched the action in Nova Scotia Supreme Court on Tuesday, saying it is owed $323,000. The suit names contractors and subcontractors working on the $200-million wind farm, which is under construction near New Ross, Lunenburg County.

The project’s majority partners, Minas Basin Pulp & Power and Oxford Frozen Foods, and minority partner Nova Scotia Power are also included in the action. In addition, turbine supplier Acciona Windpower North America is named, as are site landowners.

Last week, Acadia Rebar launched a similar action, claiming it’s also owed $550,000 due to extra costs caused by changes to its contract. The changes stemmed from delays installing turbine bases, the company says. According to court documents, Acadia Rebar was hired by another subcontractor, Olympic Metals Ltd., a Caraquet, N.B., steel fabricator. Olympic was working for Zutphen Contractors of South Mabou in Cape Breton, the filings say.

Besides asking the court to order payment, Acadia Rebar has also filed a lien against the properties on which the wind farm is located.

A South Canoe spokeswoman said Wednesday the project is aware of the lawsuits and will be respecting the legal process underway between the subcontractors.

“We will let the process take its course and remain hopeful for a resolution between the parties involved,” Mary-Frances Lynch said.

South Canoe missed a Jan. 1 deadline for supplying electricity to Nova Scotia Power. The project, which will become the province’s largest wind farm, is now slated to be operational by April. Lynch said there are now 24 turbines on site and in various stages of assembly.

Ontario “charities”: giving to other “charities”

Rick Smith's 2009 book; next, The Slow Death of the Ontario Taxpayer?
Rick Smith’s 2009 book; next, The Slow Death of the Ontario Taxpayer?

What we should know about Liberal government-created charities

My previous article on Green Energy subsidies focused on those that grew directly out of the Ontario Ministry of Energy but in the quest to find further information on how the taxpayers are involved (beyond the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit) I was led to Liberal government-created charities.

This is just one of those that we taxpayers should question as to its purpose in life.   The first annual report of Friends of the Greenbelt contained the following message: 

“The physical area of the Greenbelt is enormous and the challenges inherent in pursuing our mission are significant. As such, we need to concentrate our resources over a short time period in order to achieve our ambitious goals and we intend to gift the $25 million endowment over a period of five years.”

Details follow on the success of gifting:

Why has the Ontario Liberal Government created charities focused on anthropogenic global warming or AGW?  One example isthe aforementioned “Friends of the Greenbelt” (FOG), created in 2005, funded almost entirely by the Ministry of the Environment and, now, Climate ChangeDalton McGuinty‘s 2003 Speech from the Throne included the following:  “It will keep its commitment to introduce legislation that will establish a permanent greenbelt across the Golden Horseshoe, and a new commission to protect it.”

Why has FOG used the $45 million in taxpayer dollars to hand out money to the likes of other charities such as: Environmental Defence (5),NB: David Suzuki Foundation (3), Sierra Club (5), Toronto Environmental Alliance (5),  Pembina, Tides, etc.

NB:  Brackets ( ) indicate the number of grants those charities received.  Also one should note Rick Smith, formerly Executive Director of Environmental Defence, is a Board Member of FOG.

Why has FOG doled out tax dollars to the likes of Ecojustice (2), University of Toronto (2), TV Ontario, Corporate Knights, OSEA and another charity that the Liberal Party have supplied with over $150 million of tax dollars as grants and recently bailed out at a cost of $300 million?  I am referring of course to the MaRS Discovery District.

Why does FOG even have “charity” status, having raised only $5,779 in charitable donations in their last reported year-end of March 31, 2014?

Why did FOG’s staff compensation in 2014 ($1.1 million) exceed annual grants ($1 million) and represent over 50% of their expenses?

I am sure the likes of Environmental Defence, David Suzuki Foundation, the Sierra Club, and the others loved the fact that fund raising was made so much easier by having an entity focused on doling out $25 million of taxpayers’ money, and to see it replaced with another $20 million as soon as the first “endowment” was gone.

©Parker Gallant

February 12, 2015

Ontario’s green energy subsidies: inflicting financial pain on captive customers

"Profits" from government subsidies for some; losses for a whole lot of other people.
“Profits” from government subsidies for some; losses for a whole lot of other people. [Pictured: Toronto’s only wind turbine]
My interest in the energy sector was originally sparked by a bill from Hydro One.  The information I subsequently discovered has been eye-popping: this sector preys on its captive customers.   The monopolies running the sector however, are not nearly as preying as our provincial government.   The damage done by the elected representatives is not as obvious as it should be; I will attempt to shed some light on how our lives, our per-capita debt and our ability to survive in a democratic society has been affected.   It may be disturbing reading.

Those following my writing know that my concerns cover a lot of ground.  That ground is related to what I personally view as waste and a wealth transfer founded on the as yet unproven concept of  Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).   The ability of the lobbyists to persuade governments to follow a certain course has burdened Ontario’s electricity customers and taxpayers with the costs of the measures promoted toward “saving the world.”

Here are some of the steps taken, with your money.

Green Energy Subsidies—some of what we know

We know industrial wind energy developers were given lucrative 20-year contracts and paid to produce electricity guaranteeing 13.5/kWh no matter the time of day power was generated.

We know that industrial wind energy developers were given 20-year contracts that included a cost of living benefit up to 20%.

We know industrial solar under the feed-in-tariff (FIT) program paid contracted parties, e.g., IKEA, the Township of Markham, etc., over 70 cents/kWh for generation, while those same companies/municipalities purchased power for their use at the same rate as the rest of us. We ordinary customers pick up the tab for the difference.

We know that the Office of the Auditor General (AG) on two different occasions clearly noted the Ontario government failed to conduct a cost/benefit analysis for just about everything associated with the Ministry of Energy’s portfolio.

We  know “smart meters” cost us about $2 billion but failed to produce any meaningful benefit other than allowing local distribution companies to bill us on a time-of-use basis.

We know energy costs have doubled since 2003.

We know we are exporting well over 10% of all power generated in the province and annual revenue from the sale of this surplus is $1 billion less than the cost of production; Ontario’s electricity customers pay for that loss.

We know that we pay for “curtailed” or constrained power for wind, solar etc., and for idling gas plants surplus to our needs but which are needed to back up unreliable wind generation.

We know we pay for development of a “smart grid” which the AG recently noted fails to include data-retrieval for 800,000 smart meters.

We know we pay for steamed off nuclear power and now pay full costs for all hydro generated power as well as spillage of hydro power.

Sounds bad, and it is, but the financial pain inflicted on Ontario’s ratepayers and taxpayers actually goes much deeper.  Next: we explore the depths of the negative financial effects.

©Parker Gallant,

February 11, 2015

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent Wind Concerns Ontario policy.

Wind farm liens evidence of serious liability for property owners

Wind power agreements are very detailed and complex: not everyone knew what they were getting into, says lawyer Eric Gillespie
Wind power agreements are very detailed and complex: not everyone knew what they were getting into, says lawyer Eric Gillespie

A story out of Illinois recently revealed that when furniture giant IKEA (which is engaged in a PR campaign to offset its “carbon footprint” by investing in wind power) and an associated wind power developer failed to pay one of their suppliers, liens were placed on title of the land owned by the farm owners/property owners who had leased their land for the wind power project.

When Wind Concerns Ontario published this story, we received news that this is happening in Ontario, too. In fact, documents were filed in court last year to place liens on property owned by 24 people on Manitoulin Island; the property owners had leased land or received payments for transmission lines on their properties. The sub-contractor, R.M. Belanger, had not been paid $2.03 million owing to the company by another sub-contractor, which was hired by the wind developer for the McLean’s Mountain project, Northland Power.

Northland Power has been approved by the Independent Electricity Systems Operator/IESO as a Qualified Applicant for new renewable power contracts to be let during 2015.

The liability for the $2+ million debt for the Manitoulin Island project is now shared by the 24 property owners, which works out to more than $83,000 liability per owner.

Toronto-based environmental lawyer Eric Gillespie, who has represented community groups fighting wind power projects and private land owners seeking to get out of wind power options and contracts, commented to WCO on the Manitoulin Island situation: “One of the major problems for landowners is the detail and complexity of agreements. Often, people don’t know what they are really getting into. What seems to be happening in Manitoulin right now highlights the fact that what seemed like a ‘good deal’ at the time, can potentially end up being a very bad deal.”

“This is yet another example of how wind power as it is being implemented in Ontario is having a negative impact on farming communities,” said Jane Wilson, president, Wind Concerns Ontario. “All the benefits go to a few corporate wind developers, while the property owners, their neighbours, and Ontario’s rural and small-town communities have to live with side effects.”

Ontario is launching a new Request for Proposal process for renewable power projects on March 2. Emphasis will be on new development in Eastern and Northern Ontario.

“We hope that property owners make sure they know the full range of potential results from signing any type of agreement, including liability for legal actions from developer sub-contractors, and for property value loss and health problems experienced by others in their communities,” Wilson said.

Thanks to Wind Concerns Ontario community group member Manitoulin Coalition for Safe Energy Alternatives (MCSEA) for linking us to the court documents, which may be found here: ManitoulinLienCourtDocs


Did Minister Murray mislead the Legislature?

Why didn't the Minister assure Ontarians that aviation safety is foremost in approving wind farms?
Why didn’t the Minister assure Ontarians that aviation safety is foremost in approving wind farms?

Last fall, in answer to a question from Ontario’s Opposition Leader Jim Wilson (PC Simcoe-Grey) about wind turbines and aviation safety at the Collinwood airport, Minister of the Environment Glen Murray told the Legislature that if there were any issue with aviation safety it is up to the federal Ministry of Transport to decide and further, that his office had been trying to reach Transport for guidance on this issue, but their telephone calls were not returned.

Here is his comment from Hansard, November 18, 2014 (our emphasis):

Airports and airport standards are regulated by the federal government. We’ve had this debate with members opposite. We have a federal transportation minister who doesn’t like to return provincial ministers’ calls, and that’s always a challenge. We’re really looking for some leadership from the federal government here, because you cannot build things in the pathway of an airport contrary to federal government fly-in approach and rules.

Wind Concerns Ontario wrote to the federal Minister of Transport Lisa Raitt (who has been away for health reasons, and apologized for the delay in responding) and we recently received a reply, which we excerpt.

On the issue of aviation safety at Collingwood, the Minister writes:

As you may be aware, aviation in Canada is regulated by Transport Canada under the authority of the Aeronautics Act and the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs).  Federal regulations require that airports and aerodromes comply with the applicable CARs; however, land use is a provincial/territorial/municipal issue, and the federal government has no approval authority regarding the creation of wind farms and the placement of wind turbines.

The provincial Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change is the approval authority for such projects, and the municipalities are responsible for issuing any required building permits.  Transport Canada’s role with respect to wind turbines is to assess these structures for lighting and marking requirements in accordance with the CARs that pertain to obstacles.

Certain airports have federal airport zoning regulations (AZR) that restrict the height of obstacles within the protected area and protect their certification status.  These airport zoning regulations are intended to protect the airport and its associated assets from development that is incompatible with its continued viable operation.  Since Collingwood Regional Airport is not a certified aerodrome, it is not eligible to request that AZR be implemented to protect the surrounding lands.

On the issue of communication with the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Minister Raitt writes:

I would like to note that Transport Canada has met with senior officials at the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and NAV CANADA to discuss approaches for working together to ensure effective consultation and guidance for project proponents.  Transport Canada is also examining options to address obstacles in the vicinity of aerodromes and airports and enforcing the AZR where they exist.

Did Minister Murray mislead the Legislature when he stated that the federal officials refuse to speak with him? Was this part of the Wynne government’s narrative at the time, i.e., that they were getting no cooperation from the federal government? Why did he not simply say that federal government regulations do not apply to Collingwood? Why didn’t he answer that he was working with federal Transport officials? Why instead did he use the question from MPP Wilson as an opportunity to belittle Ontario citizens’ concerns about safety and mislead on federal-provincial relations?

Just asking.

Wind Concerns Ontario


New wind farm applications start March 3, IESO announces

Independent Electricity System Operator

February 6, 2015, 4 PM

The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) wishes to thank all those who submitted feedback on the draft Large Renewable Procurement Request for Proposals (draft LRP I RFP) and draft Contract (draft LRP I Contract) during the feedback period. In order to review and consider feedback received from stakeholders, the IESO is extending the posting date of the final LRP documents to March 3, 2015.

While the LRP I RFP and LRP I Contract are being finalized, the IESO has released an update document to provide Qualified Applicants and interested stakeholders with more information on some of the changes that are expected to be incorporated into the final LRP documents. The update document also outlines a new process for Qualified Applicants that will be used to provide supplementary information on connection availability for certain network Circuits identified in the Circuit TAT Table. The update document is available on the LRP web page.

Please also note that from this date forward, all new information on the LRP will be posted to the new LRP pages on the IESO website. All previously posted information and material on the LRP continues to be available on the legacy LRP pages. This legacy material will be migrated to the new LRP pages soon.

Any questions on the changes to the LRP documents or the screening process should be sent to

Economic disaster ahead if Canada follows Ontario: MP Cheryl Gallant

Gallant on Hampton and the NDP: too bad they lost their way and now support the Green Energy Act, which is devastating Ontario
Gallant on Hampton and the NDP: too bad they lost their way and now support the Green Energy Act, which is devastating Ontario

MP Cheryl Gallant (PC Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke) told the House of Commons today that if anyone wanted to see what Canada would look like under a Liberal government, or to see the effect that so-called “environmental” measures such as carbon taxes, they have only to look at the Province of Ontario.

The NDP in Ontario are on record as supporting the Green Energy Act. What has to be unusual is that the Leader of the Opposition counts as his special adviser the former leader of the Ontario NDP, Howard Hampton, the guy who had to answer for the mess Bob Rae left behind.

    I invite Canadians to read his comments in the provincial Hansard, vilifying the corruption of a few Liberal Party insiders receiving contracts for hundreds of millions of dollars for industrial wind turbines. Those hundreds of millions of dollars now add up to billions.

    If Ontarians want to know why their electricity bill is so high, just read Howard’s comments. It is too bad his party became forgetful so quickly and supported the Green Energy Act. …

    Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has been totally blindsided to the purpose of my explaining what is going on in the provinces. What has been going on in the province of Ontario, as agreed by the official opposition’s provincial counterparts, is one and the same. In the same way that a carbon tax is being imposed in Ontario, as the province agreed to, so would we see at the federal level. If he wants to see what Canada would look like were the opposition ever to form government, all he has to do is look at the economy of Ontario.