Skip to main content
The Globe and Mail
Support Quality Journalism
The Globe and Mail
First Access to Latest
Investment News
Collection of curated
e-books and guides
Inform your decisions via
Globe Investor Tools
Just$1.99
per week
for first 24 weeks

Enjoy unlimited digital access
Enjoy Unlimited Digital Access
Get full access to globeandmail.com
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
Just $1.99 per week for the first 24 weeks
var select={root:".js-sub-pencil",control:".js-sub-pencil-control",open:"o-sub-pencil--open",closed:"o-sub-pencil--closed"},dom={},allowExpand=!0;function pencilInit(o){var e=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1];select.root=o,dom.root=document.querySelector(select.root),dom.root&&(dom.control=document.querySelector(select.control),dom.control.addEventListener("click",onToggleClicked),setPanelState(e),window.addEventListener("scroll",onWindowScroll),dom.root.removeAttribute("hidden"))}function isPanelOpen(){return dom.root.classList.contains(select.open)}function setPanelState(o){dom.root.classList[o?"add":"remove"](select.open),dom.root.classList[o?"remove":"add"](select.closed),dom.control.setAttribute("aria-expanded",o)}function onToggleClicked(){var l=!isPanelOpen();setPanelState(l)}function onWindowScroll(){window.requestAnimationFrame(function() {var l=isPanelOpen(),n=0===(document.body.scrollTop||document.documentElement.scrollTop);n||l||!allowExpand?n&&l&&(allowExpand=!0,setPanelState(!1)):(allowExpand=!1,setPanelState(!0))});}pencilInit(".js-sub-pencil",!1); // via darwin-bg var slideIndex = 0; carousel(); function carousel() { var i; var x = document.getElementsByClassName("subs_valueprop"); for (i = 0; i < x.length; i++) { x[i].style.display = "none"; } slideIndex++; if (slideIndex> x.length) { slideIndex = 1; } x[slideIndex - 1].style.display = "block"; setTimeout(carousel, 2500); }

Maybe it will come out to a little more than $1-billion. Maybe it will wind up a little less. At the end of the day, other than to opposition politicians and headline writers, it doesn't really matter how round the number is.

What matters, beyond the unseemly burden that will be borne by Ontario's hydro ratepayers in return for relocating a couple of power plants, is the cautionary tale of what happens when a premier sets aside his better judgment to look out for his own political interests.

From the moment more than three years ago when Dalton McGuinty abruptly caved in to local opposition to a gas-fired plant in Oakville, through to the scrapping of a similar project in Mississauga the following year, that's what this saga has really been about. But only after Tuesday's release of an Auditor-General's report on the Oakville cancellation was it possible to grasp just what Mr. McGuinty set in motion when he compromised his principles.

Story continues below advertisement

To be sure, there is no shortage of scapegoats for how that decision wound up costing at least $675-million, in addition to another $275-million for a similar, subsequent cancellation in Mississauga.

The Ontario Power Authority, the agency responsible for committing to these projects and then trying to negotiate out of them, has taken its share of blame for failing to get better deals. Now, it's former political staff from the Premier's office under fire for unhelpful interventions in the negotiations, including the unnecessary promise to "make whole" the company that was supposed to build the Oakville plant – a pledge that apparently caused the plant's relocation to eastern Ontario to cost far more than it needed to.

The fact is, though, that all of those people were put in positions they shouldn't have been in, because the rug was pulled out from underneath them.

For the better part of two terms in office, Mr. McGuinty had displayed a willingness to do what he thought was necessary to build up the inadequate energy infrastructure he had inherited, rather than what might be most politically expedient. And the Oakville plant in many ways epitomized that willingness. After it was green-lit by the OPA, Mr. McGuinty stood by the project in the face of protests by well-heeled suburbanites – arguing that it was needed to supply the fast-growing Greater Toronto Area, and even holding it up as an example of his lack of interest in NIMBYism.

Then, a year out from his toughest election at his Liberals' helm, the former premier decided that saving the seat of Oakville's Liberal MPP was more important. This decision was made abruptly, and the political staff and bureaucrats were clearly caught sufficiently off-guard that they blundered into the ensuing negotiations without much idea what they were doing.

It has since become fairly clear that Mr. McGuinty was influenced by people who ran his campaigns, who persuaded him to ignore advice he was getting from people who actually worked for government. But much as those operatives make for inviting targets, the responsibility ultimately rests in one place.

It was Mr. McGuinty's job to balance off political interests and policy ones. For much of his time in office, he did a decent job of it. Then he failed, miserably, and now both the province and his party are paying the price.

Story continues below advertisement

Following the release of the auditor's report on Tuesday, Mr. McGuinty's successor Kathleen Wynne was stuck holding the bag – a position with which she is by this point well acquainted. Gamely striking the balance between being an apologist for her predecessor and a Paul Martin-style "mad as hell" reaction, she insisted the whole thing was a learning experience and held up as proof the promise of a new rule to prevent political staff from engaging in commercial transactions.

That may not be a bad idea, insofar as it goes. But one hopes it's not the only lesson she drew. The more important one is to trust her own instincts and be true to her own beliefs of how government should be run – that is, if Mr. McGuinty's mistakes don't drive her from office before she's there long enough to have to worry about such things.

Follow related topics

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies