Author
|
Topic: Liberals Destroying Jobs in Ontario
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 25 October 2006 07:44 PM
From Howard Hampton and the NDP:Dalton McGuinty wants us to believe forest sector communities have no future. The reality is that forest sector communities and jobs can be sustained. Direct Jobs Lost Total Direct jobs lost 4,965 jobs Direct and indirect jobs lost 12, 500 jobs (* A data backgrounder from the B.C. softwood summit 2001 that there are a total of 2.5 jobs lost for each forestry job lost) Monthly Hydro bill for a mill province May'05 - Apr '06 Ontario $2, 512, 589 N.B. $1, 682, 200 Nwfdlnd $1, 616, 700 Sask $1, 504, 876 Quebec $1, 315, 645 B.C. $1, 077, 312 Manitoba $ 948, 020 (from Manitoba Hydro's "Utility Rate Comparisons Survey of Canadian Electricity Bills" May 2006) For more than a century, Ontario was a manufacturing powerhouse that formed the foundation of prosperity and economic security for working families. Now, under the McGuinty Liberals, that foundation is crumbling,” Hampton said. quote: On Dalton McGuilty's watch, over 118,000 working people in manufacturing and forestry have lost their jobs. That’s 10 per cent of Ontario’s manufacturing workers gone. The desperate plight of Ontario’s working families is underscored by a Royal Bank report that downgrades Ontario’s manufacturing-based economy, saying it is at a “standstill” and on the verge of a recession.
[ 25 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 October 2006 06:22 AM
McGUINTY’S POLICIES CLAIM ANOTHER VICTIM in Sault Sainte Marie quote: QUEEN'S PARK - NDP Leader Howard Hampton said the McGuinty Liberals sky-high hydro prices helped force a Sault Ste. Marie mill into bankruptcy protection.“Forestry workers and Northern communities continue to be punished by a McGuinty government mired in inaction,” Hampton said. “Today, St. Mary’s filed for bankruptcy protection. Last week it was Nairn Centre losing 140 good paying forestry jobs, while mills in Nakina and Dubreuilville laid off workers temporarily,” said Hampton. Today, St. Mary’s Paper in Sault Ste. Marie, the earliest industrially developed site in Northern Ontario, filed for bankruptcy protection. Amongst the mitigating factors that lead to today’s bankruptcy protection filing, is the high cost of hydro prices. “We’ve read the promises. We’ve heard the platitudes. We’ve watched the photo-ops. When are working families actually going to see some action to sustain Ontario’s good manufacturing and forestry jobs? Dalton McGuinty - stop dithering and start delivering for the North,” Hampton said.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 October 2006 07:24 AM
Hampton says our forest products industries were able to adapt to many adversities over the years and were aided by governments in the past. demand for newsprint is down and book paper up.Hampton says: quote: So why have our paper, pulp and sawmills been forced to pay 7 cents per kilowatt hour -- which they can't afford -- for hydro-electricity that we produce in our own backyard for less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour. The answer is because that is the hydro rate policy of the McGuinty Liberal government.
[ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 October 2006 07:31 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: The proximate cause of these events is the slowdown in the US housing market.
And let's not forget U.S. protectionism in insulating inefficient U.S. industries from cheaper Canadian products - value of the dollar in their affording to cart-away our stuff - weak and ineffective leadership in Ottawa over softwood lumber trade issues. How many of our closed-down forestry products plants and sawmills will be scooped up by American companies down the road after our Liberal government works toward running them into the ground and destroying so many jobs in the mean time ?. [ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 26 October 2006 07:50 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: So why have our paper, pulp and sawmills been forced to pay 7 cents per kilowatt hour -- which they can't afford -- for hydro-electricity that we produce in our own backyard for less than 2 cents per kilowatt hour. The answer is because that is the hydro rate policy of the McGuinty Liberal government.
Because that's what it costs to buy it on the market. Ontario is a net importer of electricity. [ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 October 2006 08:01 AM
Howard Hampton says:How could Northern Ontario lose so many good jobs ? Hydro rates play a crucial role. Paper mills and pulp mills use a lot of electricity in the manufacturing process. For some paper mills, hydro-electricity is the biggest single cost item amounting to 30 percent - 35 percent of the budget just to pay the hydro bill. In 2003 when the McGuinty government started driving hydro rates through the roof, companies started closing their paper mills across Northern Ontario. As one paper mill manager told H.H. - "Companies aren't going to operate paper mills in Northern Ontario where the hydro bill is $2.5 million dollars a month when we can move production to Quebec, or British Columbia, or Manitoba and pay $1 million/mo. or less for the same amount of hydro electricity"[/quote] Stephen, why are the "pragmatic" Liberals in Ontario being so business un-friendly ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 October 2006 08:07 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
Ontario is a net importer of electricity.[ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
I think you're wrong, Stephen. Northern Ontario doesn't supply electricity to S. Ontario OR the U.S. market, because the North is an island unto its own wrt electrical power generation. The north doesn't have the electrical power distribution lines to transmit large amounts of electrical power south. Unlike Southern Ontario, the North has NO electrical power supply shortages. Come on you Liberal shills, try harder. I've gotta take a work break. [ 26 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 26 October 2006 10:48 AM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Northern Ontario doesn't supply electricity to S. Ontario OR the U.S. market, because the North is an island unto its own wrt electrical power generation. The north doesn't have the electrical power distribution lines to transmit large amounts of electrical power south.
A map of Ontario's grid Say, here's thought: is it possible - just possible - that the NDP is rolling out the pork barrel of lower electricity prices for Northern Ontario in an attempt to win back the riding of Sault-Ste-Marie? Or is that too cynical?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 October 2006 12:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
A map of Ontario's grid Say, here's thought: is it possible - just possible - that the NDP is rolling out the pork barrel of lower electricity prices for Northern Ontario in an attempt to win back the riding of Sault-Ste-Marie? Or is that too cynical?
If you look at that map, those are 230 kV power transmission lines north of the Sault to Hornepayne, Terrace Bay, Schreiber, T-Bay and beyond. ONDP leader Howard Hampton says, quote: [i]"The high-capacity transmission lines required to ship our plentiful supply of affordable electricity to the U.S. or to Southern Ontario don't exist." In fact, North Western Ontario is virtually an electricity island by itself, which is why the lights stayed on in North-Western Ontario when the blackout occurred everywhere else in the province in the summer of 2003.
N-W Ontario couldn't selloff its cheap power to "the market" down there if they wanted to because the power lines couldn't handle the electrical pressure required to push that kind of power over long distances. Less than 2 cents to produce, Stephen. N-W Conservative and Liberal governments of the past in Ontario signed long-term contracts to supply New York and Northern U.S. states with what was some of the least expensive to-produce electrical power in the world. And the Yanks are holding Ontario to their contractual obligations. That wasn't an Ontario NDP government that promised them the moon at the expense of future industrial growth here. N-Western Ontario hydro-electric power is still some of the cheapest hydro-electric power in the world to produce from falling water. Stephen, Why are Dalton McGuilty's Liberals so business un-friendly Ontario?. Come on you Liberal shills, you must try harder. Scuse, another work break calls ...
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 26 October 2006 12:41 PM
I provided a map above that shows that Northern Ontario is, in fact, connected to the rest of the world.I can find nothing that suggests that electricity costs 2 cents per kw/h to produce. Ontario has been importing electricity for years. If there really was idle capacity in NW Ontario because of a lack of capacity to deliver it elsewhere, why hasn't anyone suggested running some more lines up there?
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 26 October 2006 07:33 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: I can find nothing that suggests that electricity costs 2 cents per kw/h to produce.
Power Dams in and around Kenora are producing the cheapest electrical power and capable of supplying the many lumber and veneer mills in and around that area. The Sault's power generation from moving water is relatively local as well. quote: Ontario has been importing electricity for years. If there really was idle capacity in NW Ontario because of a lack of capacity to deliver it elsewhere, why hasn't anyone suggested running some more lines up there?
Yes, but the North West, as I was saying, is self-sufficient for power needs, and especially so now that so many mills are dropping off line. I don't think the South looks at our end of the province as a significant source of electrical power. At least Brascan, the largest corporate donor to Ernie Eves political campaign at something like $150 thousand bucks way back when, hasn't broken the bank in building any such power lines or transmission equipment. Electrical power in the N-W can't be exported anywhere but right there where it's needed most but at friendly-to-business prices. This is all McGuilty's fault and has little to do with the mess Harris left them in in S. Ontario with the shortest-lived experiment in world history in private retail electricity markets.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 27 October 2006 12:47 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: I provided a map above that shows that Northern Ontario is, in fact, connected to the rest of the world.I can find nothing that suggests that electricity costs 2 cents per kw/h to produce. Ontario has been importing electricity for years. If there really was idle capacity in NW Ontario because of a lack of capacity to deliver it elsewhere, why hasn't anyone suggested running some more lines up there?
Having reread my earlier post, I realize that I didn't provide enough information about it to motivate people (especially Stephen) to chase it. Physics vs economics I would venture to say that even Stephen realizes that physics trumps economics. The physics of treating electricity as a tradable commodity (moving it long distances as prices shift) means that the cost of the required network is much higher than if you treat it as a planned commodity (consistent supply sources). The result is that electricity is more expensive and more unreliable because the network is more likely to break under a trading scheme. Increasing supply close to consumption is a good thing, far away is a bad thing. As far as thinking about more transmission from the north it is on the list of things to do. I am not entirely convinced of the economics without major northern power development. Lines are expensive. The James Bay lines cost 3.1 billion. That was a third of the cost of the James Bay project. BTW Howard Hampton has a very good reputation for understanding the power situation in Ontario, even among non NDPers. I can personally attest to the staff (well, at least the counsel) at the Ontario Energy Board confirming that. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: jrootham ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 27 October 2006 03:26 AM
You can plan supply with a certain amount of precision, sure - but not demand. That article just highlights that there are certain costs and risks in the electricity market - just as there are costs and risks in every market. It doesn't show that the costs and risks of the electricity market outweigh the gains from being able to make some extra money when you have excess supply and the gains from being able to purchase electricity when you have excess demand.But the discussion is moot - Ontario is a net importer of electricity. It can either participate in the market or start rationing supply (blackouts/brownouts) during peak periods. Increasing demand by making electricity cheaper while simultaneously cutting yourself off from what the North American market can supply won't improve matters. eta: Or is the point that the transmission costs are so high that Ontario Hydro would be better off selling it for (say) 3 cents in Sault-Ste-Marie despite the higher (but not high enough to cover transmission costs) price it could get in Southern Ontario? It's certainly true that it'd be more efficient to produce closer to demand. Transmission costs are important - my colleague Jean-Thomas Bernard has an estimate of transmission losses of something like 28% for James Bay. It would probably be a good idea if electricity prices reflected transmission costs. If that's Hampton's point, then that's fair enough. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 27 October 2006 04:48 PM
That would be disturbing if jobs weren't being created in other sectors. But they are. Here's what's been happening to total employment:Do you see a drop of 118k there? Me neither. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 27 October 2006 06:09 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: That would be disturbing if jobs weren't being created in other sectors. But they are. Here's what's been happening to total employment:
Yes, I think the Liberals should publish that graph across Northern Ontario to spread the cheer. Without new job creation at all for new workers entering the workforce, it would be economic depression scenario. We're hemoraging good paying manufacturing and forestry jobs. I don't think it's a victory for workers to replace jobs like that with burger flipping, gas station attending and Walmart wage slavery. That graph hasn't put a dent in our rates of child poverty. The Liberals are not only unfriendly to business in the North, they refuse to acknowledge the loss of living wage employment for over 118, 000 hard working Ontarians. And just before Christmas, too. Howard Hampton is right, Northern Ontario needs its own electricity regulation board to ensure we aren't tied into the mess in Southern Ontario created by the conservatives and ongoing with the current batch of incompetents at Queen's Park. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 27 October 2006 06:10 PM
quote: Originally posted by Red T-shirt: Forget total number of jobs, what counts is the value of those jobs. Are they paying a living wage? Can you raise a family on the income they provide? Do they come with decent benefit packages? Seems the answer in most cases is NO.We are losing good manufacturing jobs and they are being replaced with a large number of low wage, no benefit service sector jobs.
No, and no. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 27 October 2006 06:32 PM
You can either- stop using the phrase 'Liberal shill', or - present an actual argument based on real, verifiable data. If that's not possible, I'm going to have to limit myself to pointing out when you've made particularly egregious errors of fact. But only when I feel that there's a risk that someone might actually be taking you seriously.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 27 October 2006 06:41 PM
To what errors are you referring, Mr PowerGrid to the world ?. Stephen, just admit the McGuilty Liberals are full of ##it when it comes to Northern Ontario where the NDP has support. This is nothing but vindictive payback slash gross incompetence by small-minded Liberals in Toronto. The water's flowing over the dams up there along with the potential to electrify living wage jobs for Northerners. How pragmatic is that, gosh-darnit?. Emotional outburst removed And don't worry, Liberal politicians aren't being taken seriously at all in the North right now. Mill owners are saying the Liberals are very unfriendly to business in the North. It's not just the NDP pointing this out to us. Dalton McGuilty and his governing backbenchers are slow as molasses on a January morning in Wawa. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 27 October 2006 11:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
No, and no. [ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
But NAPO is saying: quote: Among wealthy industrialized countries Canada has the second highest number of low- wage workers. Only the US has more people in low-wage jobs.Canada’s economy and income distribution
- Canada is now a low-wage economy with 25.3% of Canadians working low paid jobs. In Scandinavia only 5% of workers are in low-wage employment.
- The economy is producing fewer well paid jobs and more low-wage precarious work (e.g. part time, contract). For example, all of the job growth in March 2005 was in part time employment. (I mentioned this before about Canada's FTP job creation numbers down overall in the 14 years after FTA compared with the same period before. You nailed up the raw numbers, I pointed out that we still did better in the 14 years before, but you never answered)
- Wage increases in Canada have gone mostly to the top 10% income earners not those in the lower income groups. In fact, for 50% of income earners their wages have stagnated or decreased. This includes youth. (As your source link to http://economistsview.typepad.com mentions about a measly 2 percent overall wage increase for Canadian workers since NAFTA. Savings rates are at all time lows, and Monica Townson has a good piece on "no rest for the wicked" on the front page of rabble.)
Ontario cuts growth estimate Ya, let's rely on Republican economies for a long-term plan quote: “People have been telling you for over two years that we’re losing jobs. You’re too late, much too late,” NDP Leader Howard Hampton told Sorbara in the legislature. “Anything that you start now is not going to have an effect for all those hundreds of thousands who’ve already lost their jobs.” Opposition Leader John Tory said the Liberals were more interested in using the economic update to boast of past accomplishments and attack policies of former governments than they were in developing plans to help the economy. ... While accounting changes left Ontario with a surplus of $300 million in 2005-06, there will be a projected deficit of $1.9 billion in 2006-07 and a $2.2 billion shortfall in 2007-08 followed by a $1 billion deficit in 2008-09.
[ 28 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838
|
posted 30 October 2006 04:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon: You can plan supply with a certain amount of precision, sure - but not demand.
That's not true. Aggregate demand is pretty easy to forecast in the short term and not incredibly hard in the medium term. The long lead times of megaprojects are harder to forecast for. quote:
That article just highlights that there are certain costs and risks in the electricity market - just as there are costs and risks in every market. It doesn't show that the costs and risks of the electricity market outweigh the gains from being able to make some extra money when you have excess supply and the gains from being able to purchase electricity when you have excess demand.
Gordon, I'm dissapointed in you. That's not what the paper said. It said that building a transmission system to support trading is more expensive than building one to support managed supply. In particular it's hard to know how much more it will cost because of (amongst other things) the secrecy involved in private firms. The net result of a trading scheme is that costs are higher and reliability is reduced. Further it pointed out that the cost (net of fuel prices) of generating electricity rose after deregulation. That's not the intended result. quote: But the discussion is moot - Ontario is a net importer of electricity. It can either participate in the market or start rationing supply (blackouts/brownouts) during peak periods. Increasing demand by making electricity cheaper while simultaneously cutting yourself off from what the North American market can supply won't improve matters.eta: Or is the point that the transmission costs are so high that Ontario Hydro would be better off selling it for (say) 3 cents in Sault-Ste-Marie despite the higher (but not high enough to cover transmission costs) price it could get in Southern Ontario?
Bingo. The penny drops. In fact, at the moment for large volumes of electricity the cost is infinite, the line has a very limited capacity. It turns out that the capacity of transmission lines depends a lot on how long they are, and relatively low voltage lines like the one to northwestern Ontario have very limited capacity over long distances. I seem to not have explained myself carefully enough about the pricing proposal. Ontario Power Generation needs to charge enough to cover its total costs. If it drops the price in the north it has to raise the price in the south. Which will eventually have positive effects on consumption, as you have pointed out. quote:
It's certainly true that it'd be more efficient to produce closer to demand. Transmission costs are important - my colleague Jean-Thomas Bernard has an estimate of transmission losses of something like 28% for James Bay. It would probably be a good idea if electricity prices reflected transmission costs. If that's Hampton's point, then that's fair enough.[ 27 October 2006: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
Even more than that, there is also the issue of maintaining proper phase relations. Local plants also produce stabilizing effects that don't show up in the megawatt/hour output of the plant. I suppose you could pay more for local power to encourage stability but that would mean users that could would want to buy distant power which destabilizes the system.
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 30 October 2006 05:43 PM
I think before deregulation of electricity in Ontario, OPG used to charge different rates across the province. I read where some Toronto contracts were for 3 cents/kW-H at one point. OPG charges the same higher rates across the province now, more or less - anywhere from 6 to 8 cents. I get billed for a ten percent transmission loss on my bills. But the cost to generate power in the Kenora area is around 2 cents right now. Those local power dams are sources of some of the cheapest hydro-electricity in the world. Headwaters of Lakes Nippigon and Long Lac, I believe, eventually drain into Lake Superior some 250 feet lower in elevation - power from falling water. I'm guessing the reason for higher transmission power losses in the James Bay region is due to poor earth ground characteristics of muskeg and marshy areas in general for an A/C return path to the generation site. I've worked for mineral exploration companies in N. Ontario-Quebec doing induced polarization surveys, and we were rarely able to get a good ground for taking readings of chargeability and resistivity of the surrounding country rock below the muskeg layer. A news story recently has a dairy farmer in Northern Ontario suing the power company because his cows are producing sour milk and being zapped the odd time by what he claims is AC grounding effect through his cows standing in fields situated near AC power transmission lines and substations. I think it's more efficient to transmit large volume electrical power over high voltage DC transmission lines and equipment. [ 30 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 15 November 2006 12:27 PM
Ontario falls behind quote:
TORONTO -- Jim Foulds isn't surprised that Ontario's jobless rate is worse than the national average. The Red Rock linerboard plant that Foulds worked in for 32 years ceased production last month after owner Norampac announced an indefinite closure of the facility. About 320 workers are affected by the move, which follows a layoff in 2005 that trimmed about 100 jobs. The closure of the town's biggest employer has devastated the small Northern Ontario community, about 100 km from Thunder Bay. FACTORY JOBS GONE The plant shutdown is part of the grim tally of 83,000 factory jobs lost across Canada in the first 10 months of 2006, with Ontario accounting for a whopping 59,000. Last month alone, 18,000 manufacturing jobs were lost in Ontario. Figures released yesterday show Ontario's jobless rate was 6.4% in October, above the national average of 6.2%.
Why are the McGuilty Liberals destroying so many prosperous full-time payroll jobs in Ontario ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 21 December 2006 09:01 PM
Bisson & Angus Call for Halt to Abitibi Dam Severance quote: There’s something called a water lease agreement that the province of Ontario has signed with Abitibi. And if you read the water lease agreement, it says, the Minister may terminate the lease with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council, if he deems the termination to be in the public interest. So the Minister does have the authority under the power lease agreement.”Bisson says those power dams were built and licensed in order to produce electricity for those mills, not for the purpose of selling electricity to the grid, thus putting those mills out of commission when the electricity prices are going up. “The community is asking you, as their local member and as a minister of the crown to be the champion. Will you do what is right, and will you make sure that Abitibi does not use the electricity for those power dams, for anything else other than what they were intended for—and that is to deliver electricity to the mills in Iroquois Falls?” Timmins-James Bay MP Charlie Angus says it’s very disturbing to see david Ramsay’s response to the people of Iroquois Falls. “The fact is out future is dependant on the ability to access resources. I have talked to hundreds of people in the community that are concerned about what is happening and the lack of concern by their MPP and Ontario government.”
Tembec chops 230 jobs at Smooth Rock Falls, and more jobs to disappear Why are Dalton McGuilty and his Liberals destroying so many good paying jobs in Ontario ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677
|
posted 29 December 2006 11:25 PM
I'm not really sure what it is that you are advocating.Energy bills are set relative to the cost - intended to discourage massive energy consumption. So, do you think we should make exceptions for corporations - get them to pay less for hydro but ask everyday consumers to pay more? Or do you think we should lower the price of energy all around - and take a loss on it - so that we can subsidize energy costs - and crank up energy use - but gosh, we are doing so well with Kytoto, I guess we can afford that? And, do you think that we should prop up the manufacturing industry when the writing is on the wall that low-skilled high paying manufacturing jobs are doomed because of globalization? Or perhaps you think Dalton can seperate from Canada, and set his own rules as to what goods can come into the country? Please tell me your master plan.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 January 2007 07:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by Palamedes: I'm not really sure what it is that you are advocating.Energy bills are set relative to the cost - intended to discourage massive energy consumption.
Not true. As was mentioned in this thread already, electrical power is being produced in North-Western Ontario for somewhere between 2 and 3 cents a kiloWatt hour. But because of Dalton McGuinty's plan for electricity pricing across Ontario, northern mills are closing down because they are being made to pay what are the highest electricity bills in the country. quote: So, do you think we should make exceptions for corporations - get them to pay less for hydro but ask everyday consumers to pay more?
I think we have been subsidizing auto manufacturing in Southern Ontario for years in order to keep jobs in Ontario. The NDP backed loans for Algoma Steel which was facing bankruptcy in the 1990's. Liberals said at the time about Algoma Steel, "Sink or swim" Since the NDP helped out Algoma, sales of steel ingots and steel product to China have soared, and Algoma's shares have skyrocketed. If we allow worker-owned saw mills, several of them viable today because of Bob Rae's financial backing in the 1990's, and llow Pulp and Paper towns to go under, those mills will likely be scooped up by foreign interests at firesale prices down the road. This is nothing more than a political vendetta carried over by a vindictive Liberal Party of Ontario on Northerners for voting NDP in the 1990's to today. But today, and largely because of Dalton McGuinty's Liberal government policies for the highest electricity prices in the country, Ontario lumber and saw mills and paper mills are moving to other provinces where the price of electricity is considerably less than in Northern Ontario. They just can't pay their electricity bills in Ontario, and relocating to a province where electricity rates reflect true cost of producing is the most obvious solution for the industry. And what's going on with ALCAN in B.C. is a crime against democracy and everything decent. Similar things are happening in Ontario with publicly-owned resources handed off to private enterprise over the years. quote: Or do you think we should lower the price of energy all around - and take a loss on it - so that we can subsidize energy costs - and crank up energy use - but gosh, we are doing so well with Kytoto, I guess we can afford that?
The experiment in dregulated electricity markets has been a disaster in the United States as well as other countries. Mike Harris' conservative government experiment in deregulated electricity markets was the shortest-lived trial run in the world. quote: And, do you think that we should prop up the manufacturing industry when the writing is on the wall that low-skilled high paying manufacturing jobs are doomed because of globalization?
Canada's is still a hewer of wood and drawer of water economy. Paul Martin said so before voters gave him and his kleptocrats the heave-ho. World demand for our raw materials will continue until our two old line parties do to lumber, oil and gas what they did to fish stocks of the Grand Banks, or until we elect governments that will manage them for future viability. Management of our raw materials will require thousands of workers trained in forestry management as per Sweden and Russia but not Brazil or Indonesia. I think Canada does not need to be a net exporter of electrical power to the U.S. Manufacturing is still an important part of the world's richest economies. What we don't need is for Canada's manufacturing sector to be more than 50 percent foreign-owned and controlled. I'm not sure why that you believe that manufacturing is dead in the water because of globalization, or perhaps bc of global warming, but it's not true. Manufacturing will be an important part of the world's richest economies for some time to come. We do have to change our priorities drastically though. Maurice Strong said in 2001 that Canada has a role to play in helping the U.S. curb its voracious appetite for Canadian energy. We shouldn't be having to build coal-fired or even nuclear power plants in order to help them be greener. America is a giant terraWatt light bulb that needs to learn to conserve, and as we do ourselves. Destroying jobs here without a plan to transform our's into a high tech economy isn't necessary in the mean time. quote: Or perhaps you think Dalton can seperate from Canada, and set his own rules as to what goods can come into the country?.
Ditching Dalton McGuilty and his Liberal government's flawed and expensive plans for building more nuclear power plants would be a start, yes. [ 05 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710
|
posted 06 January 2007 05:53 AM
It was always explained to me that nuclear was cheap for base load. That's why Ontario invested in nuclear, cheaper than coal if the plants ran all the time. Turns out nuclear costs about 6 cents a kw hr and coal costs 3 cents a kw hour. The Ontario dependancy on nuclear is entirely a local industry support initiative and has made electricity more expensive than in the USA. Only Ontario and France has such a reliance on nuclear. I was totally muddled about all that.Fidel thinks that the price of electricity is a McGuinty policy. In fact I believe the blended price of electricity to a provincial one price for all was set some 40 years ago. The big users get a break on the price if they agree to shut down in the case of a peak load over capacity surge but otherwise they pay the one price. However I see Fidels point that it has robbed N. Ontario. [ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ] [ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bruce_the_vii
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13710
|
posted 06 January 2007 11:56 AM
Those would be the facts. The rest of the world stayed away from nuclear energy and Ontario way overbuilt.I wonder from time to time what goes on at Ontario Hydro and even read Howard Hamptons book on the topic. However the best comment I've heard was from my mother-in-law who said "we aren't suppose to know" about what goes on. I read Hampton's book and can recall him argueing that the shutdown reactors were reparable according to the union. In fact Hampton as leader of the opposition and author of a book on the topic doesn't know either. I don't think it's generally known but AECL has a new reactor design which is lightwater cooled. The old tube design is maintained but they are cooled by light water. Is it as safe as the old heavy water design? The pamphlet says "it's ten times safer than the old design". Thanks for the info. [ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ] [ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ] [ 06 January 2007: Message edited by: bruce_the_vii ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 06 January 2007 05:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by bruce_the_vii:
I read Hampton's book and can recall him argueing that the shutdown reactors were reparable according to the union. In fact Hampton as leader of the opposition and author of a book on the topic doesn't know either.
The power workers union suggested getting rid of OHN management would save us loads of money, and that we didn't need to shut down 5000 MegaWatts of capacity which, despite its problems, was still being operated safely. Hampton said as a result of the shutdown, we loaded up with an extra $6 billion in OH debt and greatly increased fossil fuel emissions. We'll never know if the PWU or the American experts brought in to assess the situation were right. The shutdown also led to the power shortages during the summer of 2002. That happened during a time in which at least one person that I know of died as a result, in a poorly planned deregulation of the electricity marketplace by the Eves Conservative government that led to huge rate increases. quote: Is it as safe as the old heavy water design? The pamphlet says "it's ten times safer than the old design". Thanks for the info.
quote: California has demonstrated energy efficiency and conservation works, Hampton said.Since 2000, the U.S. state has built the equivalent of 12 power plants with energy efficiency investments. That has replaced the need for 12,000 megawatts of generation.The McGuinty Liberals lag far behind other jurisdiction on energy efficiency and conservation. Manitoba invests 33 times more in efficiency than Ontario (as a percentage of annual revenue). California invests 30 times more. And Quebec invests 15 times more. “Dalton McGuinty going nuclear without trying efficiency and conservation is like doing brain surgery to cure a headache. It's risky, expensive, drastic and totally irresponsible – especially when there are positive, practical alternatives like energy efficiency and conservation the premier should be pursuing with vigour,” Hampton said.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 07 January 2007 10:06 AM
It was known since before Harris' Energy Competition Act was plowed thru the ON legislature in 1998 that the nuclear recovery program was in trouble. The Conservatives denied any and all mistakes in their plans for Hydro. In Question Period on October 27, 1998, NDP Energy Critic Wayne Lessard addressed Energy Minister Jim Wilson: "There's one thing we do know, and that is that you are paying top dollar for you nuclear asset optimization plan, but from what we heard yesterday, the only conclusion we can reach is that the plan isn't working. Your own staff tell us that the nuclear assets aren't worth a plug nickel. That means only one thing, that rates are going to go up. If the nuclear power plants fail, rates are going to go up"Wilson's reply was that their plan presented in the legislature by the Ministry of Finance and group of experts indicated that prices would remain stable, and, even go down over the next several years as competition was introduced. In 2002, the nuclear plants failed and electricity rates in Ontario skyrocketed. And here's the best part. Carl Andrognini, the American nuclear expert, left the country in January 2000 and hauling back to the States with him a humungous severance package that included a lifetime pension worth $12, 500 USDN per month. That's nice booty for three years work for the Conservative Party and Government of Ontario. McGuinty's ppl haven't figured out what to do with the deregulation disaster handed to them by the uncommon nonsense revolutionaries in the Harris-Eves' train wreck. But the Liberal plan is beginning to look a lot like the Tory plan before them, indecisive and very expensive, dangerous and environmentally unfriendly nukes.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 07 January 2007 04:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by bruce_the_vii: Conservation is important but I figure what is really need is for people to live within their means. This would cut down on the waste. It's a win/win scenario. The government should distribute a pamphlet with a lecture on how people should do this, it might catch on.
We need to conserve and support efficient use of electrical power. There are millions of buildings across Ontario, commercial, residential, and public, and very few of them are as energy efficient as they should be. The government has a role to play in helping citizens and industries refurbish, re-insulate and make them less costly to heat and electrify. Howard Hampton mentions this in his book. He says that up-front financing is required, just like it would be in building a new generating station. Hampton's NDP is promising to create a non-profit public agency called "Efficiency Ontario" to arrange financing for, and to promote and enforce the retrofiting of older buildings with energy efficient building materials and devices. This monumental task is what's required - and it's being done in other countries and provinces. A public awareness campaign with pamphlets is a good idea, but it also needs a central authority to accept responsibility in ensuring that certain goals are achieved. We can't expect little old ladies living on fixed incomes to retrofit their older homes with new building technology out of their own pockets. It just wouldn't happen, even though it would make their homes more valuable. The same is true of industry. Under an NDP government, they would expect to be prodded into compliance with rules and regulations. That's not happening under McGuinty's Liberal government which, and like the Conservatives, do not believe in public ownership. And there are industries in Ontario specializing in leading edge building technologies. The NDP realizes that such a publicly-sponsored campaign would help stimulate Ontario's manufacturing sector, now in recession since the McGuinty Liberals tookover government. We need to maintain public ownership of electrical power generation in Ontario. Because of the nature of electrical power and its transmission, deregulation of electricity will always result in more expensive electricity than if it was publicly-owned, produced, and sold at cost. Neo-Liberalization schemes for electricity markets is wrong, and both American and Canadian citizens by the tens of millions not only didn't ask for it, they don't want it. [ 07 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palamedes
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13677
|
posted 10 January 2007 09:35 PM
Fidel,In regards to manufacturing: It is true that manufacturing will remain, but two things are different than in the 1970's. Firstly, we have globalization - and secondly the West's attempt to keep the rest of the world uneducated and dependent on our technologies is failing. So, in our new reality, we have to be aware of the fact that there is no reason to pay 25$ an hour for unskilled labour in Canada, when a company could pay 5$(or less) for unskilled labour in China. Now then, there are some things that make more sense to be manufactured in Canada. These are the products I think make sense here: 1) High cost to ship relative to production. If something weighs a lot, and takes up a lot of space - then it costs a lot to transport. Thus, it might make sense to have it produced in Canada - where we have better access to the North American market. We have advantages in producing autos here - but not to the extent where we pay our workers 200 times what people would get overseas. 2) Highly skilled workers - if Canada can create an education barrier to entry in the industry - then we can continue to pay our workers a large amount because there will be little competition. 3) Scarce resources - if Canada leverages our resources, such that other nations do not have the resources to manufacture the products, then we do not have to compete on the Global market. However, anytime we have unskilled workers making 30$+ / hour - it is doomed to failure without government protection either through denying consumers the right to lower prices through purchasing foreign products - or by giving money to those workers. As much as I like to see people make a decent wage, when I hear stories of unskilled Ford workers making 80,000 for 35 hours - plus massive overtime because the union won't let them bring in temporary workers to avoid overtime - the idea of giving government money to keep them to keep them alive instead of those workers taking a paycut - seems preposterous. Canada has huge problems right now - homelessness, poverty, the environment, our pathetic contribution to foreign aid - and to devote resources to ensure unskilled workers get paid far more than they deserve makes no sense to me.
From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 11 January 2007 12:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by Palamedes: Fidel,In regards to manufacturing: It is true that manufacturing will remain, but two things are different than in the 1970's. Firstly, we have globalization - and secondly the West's attempt to keep the rest of the world uneducated and dependent on our technologies is failing.
Firstly, I just want to say that I didn't expect such a well-informed response to my somewhat meandering posts. You certainly seem to know what you're talking about, and I'm at a disadvantage in so many topics important to us all. But we can all try to understand, and babblers have helped me so much in these regards. It's a wonderful site full of so many broad-minded opinions and insights. I think the manufacture of everything frivelous and based on oil and its derivatives is over. And we've started down a slow transition to an alternate service-based socialized economy. The capitalists realized years ago that economy based on materialism and oil is a dead end for humanity. In the mean time, these oil wars and wars of conquest are based on typical Wall/Bay Street month-to-month balance sheet near-sighted but economic planning nonetheless. They never roll out a new product before old stock is cleared from the shelves. And by this general assumption, I'm thinking they must have a new plan for driving the economy and propping up status quo by way of "comparitive wealth" and maintaining it all with the same global financial and banking cabal called the monetary system as of about a thousand years ago. I think the plan is to abandon physical goods and move into service sector, and I think it's world-wide public spending on health care, education, and child care services. This is already common knowledge wrt "GATS"(as opposed to GATT) agreement. We could be a world beater here in Canada. The most under-achieving Canadian worker could be trained in the highest tech manufacturing, services, or anything more productive than what's happening now. There's a terrible waste of human capital happening right now in Canada. Every over-indulgence has a cost. They've been far too obsessed w curbing inflation on behalf of a handful few by what I understand. So if the future is with high tech economy, then I think the same ideological struggle will simply shift from profiteering on material goods based on oil derivatives to whatever else might be produced and consumed wrt to the coming shift away from oil economy. The global banking system will want to maintain its usurous relationship with us all, we can count on that. And i think we may be able to look forward to some technological advances, some of which might have happened 50 or a hundred years ago had it not been for the focus on wars of conquest and world chaos in general. I think spectacular things are in store for people in the next 10 to 30 years from now. Things like this have been quoted since forever, but I think the advances in science and technology expected will be beyond most people's wildest dreams. And the youth of tomorrow will be counting on these advances happening and working in their favour.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 11 January 2007 11:21 AM
quote: Originally posted by scooter:
The forest sector cannot be sustained. Planting a limited selection of tree dooms the forest in the long run. It is a short sighted statement and I'm disappointed it came from the NDP.
Well that's just not true, and even the Green Party would tell you that. The future of Canadian forests depends on managing them more efficiently than the two old line parties have done over the last 100 years. We shouldn't be encouraging multinational logging companies with 99 year leases for cutting rights signed by the two old line parties in places like B.C. and expect them not to clear cut and strip mountains bare and devastate old growth forests. Even the Americans themselves are telling Canadian governments that we're not charging enough for stumpage fees. We have to place a higher value on our own natural resources, or forestry jobs in Canada will eventually become unsustainable. Mills will close, they will be picked up for a song by large multinationals, and then we will see unsustainability in our forestry sector. Canada employs fewer forestry sector workers per hectare than other countries in the world where they are still recovering from turn of the last century era unsustainable logging practices, like Scandinavia. Forestry jobs don't all have to entail driving a skidder or operating mechanized cutting equipment to level the timberline as an ocean of logs is trucked south 24-7. That's unsustainable. Dalton McGuinty's unrealistic pricing scheme for electricity is driving lumber mills into Quebec and Manitoba where commercial electricity bills are significantly lower than in Northern Ontario, which has the highest electricity rates among all Canadian provinces. We've lost an estimated 120,000 forestry and manufacturing jobs in Ontario, directly and indirectly as a result of mill closures. The Liberals have no plan for sustainable forestry in Ontario, and it's clear they have abandoned the North in favour of subsidizing auto manufacturing industry in the South. quote: Practical Solution 6: Restore the 260 hectare limit on clearcuts and enforce sustainable forestry practices that protect the health of the forest and the local economy. Howard Hampton and the NDP blew the whistle over a year ago on this government's practice of approving massive 10,000-hectare clearcuts, even though the law limits clearcuts to 260 hectares unless there are exceptional circumstances. The NDP will immediately stop this practice. Howard Hampton and the NDP will work with communities that rely on the forestry industry to develop value-added strategies, protect local jobs by preventing the transfer of wood from mills, and ensure there is adequate staffing in the Ministry of Natural Resources to monitor and manage our valuable forests.
[ 11 January 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|