The Globe and Mail | By Judy Darcy and Brian Payne | April 16, 2002
Ontario's former premier Mike Harris called it the biggest privatization in Canadian history; his successor, Ernie Eves, shows no sign of changing course. But labour unions and environmental groups call it a huge mistake -- and two unions are now in court trying to stop it.
It's the breakup and sale of Ontario Hydro, one of North America's biggest electric utilities, and it's happening without public hearings, enabling legislation or a mandate from the public. The implications affect all Canadians.
First, the facts. The Harris government moved to deregulate the electricity market in Ontario by breaking up the old Ontario Hydro, creating one company to generate power (Ontario Power Generation) and another to distribute it through the transmission grid (Hydro One). On Dec. 12, 2001 -- one day before the legislature rose for its winter recess -- the Ontario government announced it would sell Hydro One. On March 26 -- the eve of the Easter holiday weekend -- the government posted official notice of its privatization plans on the Internet, indicating that shares would go on sale within weeks.
There had been no notice to the legislature or the public of the government's intention to sell its stake in the electricity grid. In fact, Energy Minister Jim Wilson explicitly assured the legislature when Hydro One was created that it was not the government's intention to privatize. Last week, Justice Arthur Gans of the Ontario Court of Justice, now hearing the unions' challenge to the sale, wondered aloud if Ontario voters had been "sandbagged."
The case raises troubling questions for all of us. Queen's Park is setting a dangerous precedent in our legislative traditions: selling our common wealth without public discussion or a legislative mandate.
Hydro One returns dividends in the tens of millions every year to Ontario taxpayers, and is legislatively required to act in the public's interest as long as it is owned by the public. If the divestment of a critical public asset and its transformation into a for-profit enterprise doesn't deserve debate, what does?
The legitimacy of government action comes into question when politicians override the legislative process. Citizens must use the courts to press for the public debate that governments should have the courage to carry out.
It is important to remember that public hearings and legislative oversight have been part and parcel of similar privatization deals in this country. When Queen's Park announced its intention to privatize Highway 407 in February, 1998, more than a year before it introduced the enabling legislation, the public had time to consider it and have a legislative debate on its merits.
Why we would need legislation to privatize a stretch of highway, while we can sell off the province's electricity transmission grid without recourse to the legislature or to public hearings, remains a mystery. In the cases of Air Canada, CN, and other privatization schemes, government introduced legislation and held a debate, usually with extensive hearings.
If "good government" is to mean anything in this country, it must include a commitment by those in power to deal fairly and squarely. Promising one thing in public and in a legislature, and then turning around and doing the opposite without debate or a public airing of the issues undermines democratic institutions.
Being forced to resort to the courts to open up debate on important issues of public policy should give rise to deep concerns among Canadians about whether our elected politicians even understand our democratic traditions. Judy Darcy is national president of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Brian Payne is president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada.The Globe and Mail:
