The ever shifting fortunes of Ontario Conservative Party are making the news again, and local MPP Randy Hillier has taken on the role of attacker in chief against former party leader Patrick Brown. Hillier was one of the first MPP’s to insist that Brown step down back in January when allegations about his sex life were about to be revealed on a CTV news report.

Then, over the last few days, after Brown submitted his nomination papers to run for his old job, Hillier has been the most vocal sitting Conservative MPP seeking to discredit and even invalidate Brown’s candidacy.

On Sunday, Hillier released a statement condemning Brown, and asserting that he is not fit to run for party leader.

It reads, in part, “Patrick Brown is unfit to be in the Progressive Conservative Caucus, he is unfit to be leader and he is unfit to be premier.”

The statement goes on to assert that Brown “wilfully and dishonestly lied to the people of Ontario” on national TV, that he “must explain and answer” for the sale of fraudulent party memberships. Although the statement does not directly accuse Brown of direct financial impropriety, it does ask about the whereabouts of $200,000 in membership fees.

A subsequent statement by Hillier, which came after a report in the Globe and Mail raised further questions about Brown’s financial dealings with a PC candidate, went even further.

In that statement, Hillier said that Brown “is unfit to sit in the legislature”.

At the end of his first statement, Hillier said that he “is aware and has evidence of further ethical breaches, dishonest behaviours and will be making them public at a later date.”

At the end of his second statement, he said that he “has every confidence that he [Brown] will be answering to these charges in front of a judge.”

Hillier also said he will be filing the evidence that has been collected with the relevant “law and compliance enforcement agencies”

On Tuesday, as the Ontario Legislature re-opened after the long Christmas break, Hillier was front and centre, repeating what he said in his statements for the benefit of the assembled Toronto and provincial media.

Later in the afternoon, he went even further, filing a complaint with the Ontario Integrity Commissioner, charging Brown with final infractions. He cited four: Payments on Patrick Brown’s $2.3 Million House Incongruent with Declared Income; Failure to Disclose Other Income as Required by Law; unreported gifts of lavish international travel, including trips to India, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, and Fiji; and unreported income allegedly related to nomination acclamations.

It is unclear, at this time, whether all or most of these allegations will be supported by verifiable facts, but they have certainly thrust Hillier into the fray as a the voice of opposition to Patrick Brown.

Hillier has thrown his support to leadership candidate Christine Elliott, whom he hosted at an event in Smiths Falls on Sunday.

There is certainly a desire among many in the party establishment to see the leadership contest nomination committee reject Patrick Brown as a candidate, and Hillier’s actions of the last few days are intended to support that position. Since it was in Brown’s name that most of the current membership of the party was signed up, he could actually win back the leadership, causing turmoil.

There are also people within the party who not only support Brown, but also believe that all of the attacks on him have been orchestrated by his enemies withing the party

Goldie Ghamari, the PC candidate in the riding of Carleton, came out in support of Patrick Brown’s candidacy over the weekend, tweeting on February 16 that “Patrick Brown is officially a Candidate [for party leader]. My family and I couldn't be happier ...”

Ghamari appeared with Brown at an event on the next day. Earlier Ghamari retweeted a post that questioned the “behind-the-scenes connivance” within the party “over the last few weeks” that led to the ousting of Patrick Brown.

Ghamari, readers will remember, accused Hillier of harassment and physical intimidation based on an interaction between the two of them that took place at a party convention back in 2016, an event that is being investigated by the party.

The scenarios for how this will play out are difficult to reconcile

If Patrick Brown becomes party leader again, what happens to Randy Hillier? It’s hard to imagine Hillier on the Brown ‘team’ after what Hillier has done this week. Would he run as an independent, with the Conservatives being forced to find a new candidate?

What if Brown is not allowed to run for leader, what do Goldie Ghamari and all the Brown loyalists do?

Randy Hillier has clearly taken a calculated risk. By choosing to be the blunt instrument that will bring Patrick Brown down, he will clearly lose if Brown survives. But even if Brown is defeated and finally departs the scene, Hillier will undoubtedly pay a price, sooner or laterds. Randy Hilllier has been a renegade and a grandstanding figure ever since his Lanark Landowner Days, with the tractor convoys to Ottawa and Toronto, red suspenders and all.

But this is different. This is no longer Rural Randy making a point. He is doing the dirty work for the wing of the right and centre wings of the party, and the one who does the dirty work, sooner or later, often pays the price.

Ontario is providing financial support through the Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program to help the Township of Frontenac Islands with flood recovery efforts.

Heavy rainfall combined with spring runoff and high water levels on Lake Ontario led to significant flooding in Frontenac Islands starting on May 5, 2017. The funds will help restore damaged ferry docks and numerous roads in the township. The township may be eligible for as much as $560,593 in provincial funding under the program.

The Municipal Disaster Recovery Assistance program helps municipalities address extraordinary emergency response costs and damage to essential property or infrastructure like bridges, roads and public buildings, as a result of a natural disaster.

When the Ontario Liberal government took power in 2003, one of the key issues for municipal governments was dealing with all of the downloaded costs that had been one of the features of municipal amalgamation under the previous Conservative administration under Mike Harris.

The municipal share of costs for social programs, ambulance service, policing, and other services had increased or been instituted for the first time. While the McGuinty, and now the Wynne Liberals have not taken uploaded entire sectors as municipalities had wished, they have uploaded some costs. They also brought in, early in their first mandate, a funding program aimed at helping more vulnerable municipalities cope with the cost of uploaded services. Over time, the program, which is now called the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF) has become focussed on helping rural, remote and financially challenged municipalities cope with a variety of costs. The program includes a rural communities grant, a fiscal circumstances grant, and an assessment equalization grant.

The way the program works in 2018, larger municipalities (in relative terms) such as South Frontenac, which has over 10,000 households and an average property assessment of $307,000, will receive $1.52 million in 2018, up slightly from $1.49 in 2017.

A smaller township, such as Addington Highlands, with 2,500 households and an average property assessment of $177,000 will be receiving $2.04 million, up from $1.8 million in 2017.

To illustrate the realtive impact of the grant on the two townships budgets, the OMPF grant for South Frontenac equals less than 8% of the amount council collects from taxpayers, whereas in Addington Highlands it equals about 75%.

North Frontenac Township will receive $1.6 million in OMPF payments in 2018, up $240,000 from the $1.4 million that they received last year. There are 3,500 households listed for North Frontenac at an average value of $250,000.

Central Frontenac Township will receive $2.05 million in 2018, up $75,000 from $193 million in 2017. There are 4,100 households in Central Frontenac, at an average value of $218,000.

Slowly, quietly and with care, the idea of a Basic Income Guarantee, with the appropriate acronym BIG, has been gaining momentum. Advocates are now aiming for the implementation of a pilot project in Ontario to be instituted by the Wynne government in Ontario.

A lunch speaking event was hosted by the Community Foundation of Greater Kingston and Area on Monday (December 5). Toni Pickard, the founder and co-ordinator of the Kingston Action Group for a Basic income Guarantee spoke first. She described herself as “a bit like the opening act for the stars” in reference to the other speakers, former Senator and Master of Massey College Hugh Segal, and retired Judge and Deputy Minister at the Federal and Provincial Level George Thomson.

Before Thomson and Segal talked about the specific tasks they have undertaken on behalf of the Ontario government in recent months, Pickard described the role of the Kingston Action Group as two-fold. One is to raise awareness in the local community about the concept and history of a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada, and the other is working to keep governments, at all levels, focused on issues of poverty.

The idea of instituting a Basic Income Guarantee in Canada had a certain momentum in the 1970's, culminating in a pilot program in Dauphin, Manitoba. It then faded from consideration for almost 25 years in Canada, although it has been active elsewhere, and has been building, thanks in part to the efforts of the three people who spoke in Kingston on Monday.

A Basic Income Guarantee is just that, a guaranteed level of income for all, enough to pay for food, shelter, clothing, healthcare and necessities. Mechanism for achieving that are diverse and each has social and economic implications.

Toni Pickard talked about how Big has gained momentum in Ontario over the last three years. When the Kingston Action Group was founded, “it was one of four such groups in Ontario, and there are now 27, so you can see where this has gone. There are about 23 groups in the rest of the country so you can see that Ontario is leading the push for BIG in Canada.”

Among the accomplishments of the Kingston Action Group, which has membership from South Frontenac as well, have been calls for the provincial and federal governments to explore basic income from the the City of Kingston and the Township of South Frontenac. When Hugh Segal spoke, he talked first about an effort that he has been involved in for the past ten years and about how important public participation has been.
“Presentations in the legislature and meetings with government officials have been important, but so are the meetings that I’ve been to in church basements across the province, including the one at Sydenham Street United,” he said.

Last spring, Segal was approached by the government of Ontario and asked to develop a report outlining the necessary steps to develop a pilot project in Ontario.  The report which he delivered to them at the end of August, and was released to the public in September, is called Finding a Better Way:
A Basic Income Pilot Project for Ontario.

One of  the key points in the Segal report is that the pilot gauge the impact of eliminating Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) payments and replacing them with an income guarantee.

As he said in the Executive Summary to the report: “The main purpose of the Basic Income Pilot must be to test the broad policing, control, and monitoring now present in OW and ODSP with a modestly more generous basic income, disbursed automatically to those living below a certain income threshold.”
What Segal wants the pilot project to evaluate, is the impact of this change on poverty reduction among OW and ODSP recipients, and to determine whether it will encourage work, reduce stigmatization, and produce better health and life outcomes for them.

“There are many, many good people, trained social workers spending their time confirming eligibility of recipients for OW or ODSP benefits who could be doing what they are trained to do, helping and counselling people,” he said on Monday.

By replacing OW and ODSP with BIG, the distinction between program recipients and working people who are also below the income level of the BIG, which is essentially the poverty line as determined at any given time, would be diminished.

Segal says that the pilot should be a test of the financial impact of a Basic Income Guarantee on the “net fiscal position of the province, on labour market/workplace behaviour, and on net health and educational outcomes in the pilot area.”
He envisions two different kinds of pilot projects. One would take place in an urban setting, in which participants would receive different levels of basic income supports to test the impact of a change on their lives.

“Testing different parameters should help to identify the best combination to reduce poverty, while not discouraging people from improving their incomes through labour force participation,” the report said.
Participation in the pilot would be voluntary and none of the participants are to see a decrease in the supports they currently receive.

A second pilot would be similar to the one done in Dauphin, Manitoba 30 years ago. It is to take place in small communities, and will cover the entire population with the same payment system. The idea is to test the community level impact of the BIG. The report calls for three sites to be chosen, one each in Southern and Northern Ontario, and one to be chosen and planned in close collaboration with First Nations Communities.
There is one major proviso in the report. It does not want to see what Segal termed a “BIG Bang approach, in which all social supports not specifically related to poverty are replaced with a single monthly cheque.”
Also, the idea of all Ontarians receiving a fixed payment, which is then paid back through taxation, is not being recommended.

The report wants the planning for site selection, and other background work for the pilot studies to commence by March 1st of 2017, with pilots to follow after that and run for three years.
The final speaker was George Thomson. He was appointed on June 29th of this year to head the Income Security Working Reform Group by the Ontario Minister of Community and Social Services (MCSS) Dr. Helena Jaczek.

Thomson’s 15 member group is tasked with working in concert with the BIG Pilot initiative to look in detail at income security systems in Ontario, make proposals reform and provide a multi-year implementation plan for income security reform.

Thomson gave a power point demonstration outlining some of the work his group has been doing.

“We are looking at income security with or without a Basic Income Guarantee. We deal with all of the details of phasing in reforms to a system that currently delivers $153 billion in payments each year” he said, adding that his group is 1/3 of the way through its task, which they plan to complete by July.

“We have a focus on low income individuals, not only those on social assistance. We are learning from the experience of reforms that are already in place to benefits for seniors and children, identifying benefits that should be paid outside of social assistance,” he added.

Thomson echoed Segal’s assertion that there is momentum at the provincial level, with support from the federal level, for some real changes to be made in the way income supports are delivered in Ontario, but that optimism is tempered by the deadline of the next election. With the Wynne government mired in controversy over a number of issues, including electricity costs which impact those who would benefit from a Basic Income Guarantee more than other Ontarians, all three of the speakers in Kingston on Monday indicated that the BIG movement needs major momentum behind it sooner rather than later.

Toni Pickard encouraged everyone in attendance to get active.

“Help us to initiate a nationwide conversation ...  talk to your MP and MPP,  join the consultation that is taking place in Kingston on January 9,” she said.

The questions that followed the presentations were all from supporters of BIG. They were concerned with it being brought in sooner than later and being as inclusive as possible. The general feeling was that when the general public learns about the proposals that come with it, opposition disappears.

“People worry about cheats,” said Hugh Segal, “but most people will use the extra money that will come from this to move to better housing or buy more and better food. Likely 5% or 10% will game the system. In 2008, 5% to 10% of traders on Wall Street were gaming the system and look what happened. I’ll take my chances with this modest increase in payments coupled with a decrease in the stigma of poverty.”

It started as a conversation about how to deliver services to Norcan Lake, a waterfront sub-division located in North Frontenac that is accessible only from the Township of Greater Madawaska. It has morphed into a new organisation called the Rural Mayors' Forum of Eastern Ontario.

North Frontenac mayor, Ron Higgins, and Municipality of Greater Madawaska mayor, Glenda McKay, talked in the spring about the Norcan Lake issues, which they were not able to resolve, but while they were talking they quickly saw that the two municipalities had other issues in common. They then talked in general about shared services. The two met at the Eastern Ontario Municipal Conference, and their conversations led to an informal meeting of politicians from a number of small municipalities located north of Highway 7 one evening at the conference.

“We realised that we had issues that were different from the larger, less isolated municipalities and decided it was an idea to hold a meeting,” said Higgins.

A meeting in October in Madawaska Highlands was followed by one in North Frontenac in November and a third meeting this past Sunday in Maynooth, Hastings County.

At this time, the group has decided there are enough common issues to be dealt with that it makes sense for them to establish the Rural Mayors' Forum of Eastern Ontario (RMFEO), which they have done this week.

A press release was released by Ron Higgins on behalf of RMFEO. It says that the 13 member municipalities “have crafted a mission, vision and objectives. Its specific mission is to identify opportunities for collaboration to improve operational effectiveness and long-term sustainability, with a vision to work closely with stakeholders to coordinate common goals. Over the coming months a strategy will be put in place to communicate and work with other organizations and government bodies.”

The first issue that will be addressed by the group is the billing model for policing services that are provided by the Ontario Provincial Police.

“We have found some flaws in the model and will be doing some more research into the model for our next meeting,” said Higgins.

Three of the mayors, all from municipalities in Renfrew County, will be working over the Christmas holidays to complete that research. Once a report is considered at the next RMFEO meeting, a decision will be made as to how to use the report to try and effect a change in the model so that it is less of a burden on municipalities that do not contain a larger population centre.

Other issues that are being looked at include broadband service in isolated locations and the approval process under the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund.

“One of our members was refused funding under that program on the grounds that they had a very robust asset management plan in place and could finance the project using loans. We all were told to put good asset management plans in order to be eligible for grants. We are going to look into the possibility that smaller municipalities are losing out in the way these grants are handed out,” said Higgins.

Over the coming months, RMFEO will be publicizing its strategy and seeking out other partners throughout Ontario to initiate collaborative discussions aimed at ensuring that small rural communities in Eastern Ontario and elsewhere have favourable and equitable representation.

The member municipalities of RMFEO include: Addington Highlands, Bruedenell, Lyndoch and Raglan, Central Frontenac, Greater Madawaska, Hastings Highlands, Horton, Lanark Highlands, Madawaska Valley, McNab/Braeside, Mississippi Mills, and North Frontenac.

Local municipalities have received notification about funding for 2016 from the Province of Ontario under the Ontario Municipal Partnership Fund (OMPF). While the funding favors smaller, more rural municipalities, which are the ones that will be hardest hit by increases in the cost of policing services starting next year, the OMPF has not increased to any great extent.

North Frontenac Township, which will be paying over $145,000 more for OPP (Ontario Provincial Police) costs than they did in 2015, have seen their OMPF allocation go up by $77,100, to $1.183 million.

Central Frontenac will see an increase of $76,400, to $1.74 million.

Addington Highlands will see an increase of $47,000, to $1.65 million.

South Frontenac will see an increase of $17,700, to $1.49 million.

The provincial government set up a funding program after a series of costs were downloaded to municipal governments by the Province of Ontario over 15 years ago. These included policing costs, which until then had been fully funded in rural municipalities by the province. The revised version of the program, now called OMPF, is designed to compensate smaller municipalities for unspecified costs related to running a municipality.

The stated goal of the OMPF, according to the provincial government website, “is to help support areas with limited property assessment and recognize the challenges of northern and rural municipalities, while targeting funding to those with more challenging fiscal circumstances.”

Conservation Authorities are pleased to participate in the discussion and review of the Conservation Authorities Act as announced by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

“The role of Conservation Authorities around Ontario’s natural resources has changed significantly over the years in response to increasing challenges to our water and land resources,” said Kim Gavine, General Manager of Conservation Ontario.

“Stresses such as climate change, rapid growth, and changing land uses significantly challenge the health of Ontario’s watersheds. The work of Conservation Authorities has had to change in order to reflect this and we expect to see this discussed through the review of the Conservation Authorities Act.”

Ontario’s 36 Conservation Authorities are local watershed management agencies that deliver a wide variety services and programs that protect and manage water and other natural resources in partnership with all levels of government, agencies, industry, and landowners.

The original Conservation Authorities Act was established in 1946. Some amendments have been made over time, including those in the 1990s which addressed local programs, fees, partnerships and other areas. In 2006, the scope of Conservation Authorities’ regulatory responsibilities changed to encompass additional water related hazards.

The Minster of Natural Resources and Forestry has posted a discussion paper for a 91-day comment period. The Ministry states that the objective for this review is to ‘improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities that may be required in the face of a changing environment’.

The discussion paper highlights and solicits feedback around three areas of interest: governance, funding mechanisms, and roles and responsibilities of Conservation Authorities.

To access the link to the discussion paper and comment online, visit the Environmental Registry at http://www.ebr.gov.on.ca/ and search for EBR Registry Number 012-4509 or “Conservation Authorities Act”

http://apps.mnr.gov.on.ca/public/files/er/Discussion_Paper_2015.pdf

That would be costly.

I interviewed Randy Hillier on Monday about the new Ontario Conservative Party leader, Patrick Brown. He said Brown had stolen the show from Kathleen Wynne after Quebec Premier Couillard addressed the legislature early that morning and I should check out the media reports.

Indeed, Patrick Brown managed to score a solid blow on Wynne at his very first opportunity, simply by congratulating the Premier of Quebec on his ability to both balance the Quebec budget and keep hydro rates low.

The message Mr. Brown was not so subtly delivering was that hydro rates in Ontario are on the way up and the province has a budgetary deficit of almost $9 billion this year.

There is a lot of history to hydro rates in Ontario and Quebec, and no doubt Mr. Brown and his party will make their policy differences with the Wynne Liberals very clear in the near future. It is not a stretch to say the Liberals are vulnerable on everything to do with hydro.

But as far as the budget deficit is concerned, does Mr. Brown want Ontario to follow in Quebec's footsteps, as he indicated on Monday? Budgets are complicated documents, but they do relate directly to income taxes.

The provincial income tax rate in Quebec is 16% on the first $41,495 of taxable income; 20% on the next $41,455; and 24% on the next $17,000.

The rate in Ontario is 5.05% on the first $41,000 of taxable income; 9.15% on the next $41,000; 11.16% on the next $68,000; and 12% after that.

An Ontario resident earning $1,000,000 a year pays less provincial tax on the millionth dollar they make than each and every Quebec resident pays on the very first taxable dollar they make, 4% less.

I'm no economist, but it's fair to say that if Ontarians paid the income taxes that Quebecois pay, the Ontario budget might indeed be easy to balance.

I don't believe Patrick Brown is seriously proposing that we triple Ontario income tax rates in order to balance the books in Ontario. I believe he was trying to make an impression, to put Kathleen Wynne on the defensive and make a few headlines for himself.

In future he might want to be careful about elevating the government of Quebec over that of Ontario. As mistake-ridden as Ontario politics can be, they have problems in Quebec as well.  

Randy Hillier took a back seat during the Conservative Party of Ontario's recent leadership campaign. This was in stark contrast to the role the two-time incumbent MPP played the last time his party chose a leader. At that time he ran for the position and threw his support behind the eventual winner, Tim Hudak.

“I felt that it was more important for the party membership to make the decision about the new leader rather than being influenced by members of the caucus,” he said. “I voted for Patrick.”

Hillier said he is very encouraged by how the newly elected party leader, Patrick Brown, energized and re-invigorated the party through the leadership campaign.

“To put it in context, in '09 there were four candidates who were in the election for leader, and combined we sold 35,000 memberships. This guy sold over 40,000 memberships. I know what it is like to sell memberships. It takes an astonishing amount of effort and innovation” he said.

Hillier added that the public will see the impact of Patrick Brown over time.

“With only three weeks left in this sitting and him not in the house, there is not much that will happen. It takes time to consult with the membership and come up with policies that reflect what the membership stands for. That is something we have been missing. We have waited for the leader and his group to announce our policies and that hasn't worked for us,” he said.

Randy Hillier's standing within the party has improved since former leader Tim Hudak stepped down shortly after last year's election, which brought a fresh majority to the Liberal Party under Kathleen Wynne.

Under Hudak, Hillier had been relegated to the back benches for challenging an internal party ruling over a leadership review. But since Hudak left, he said he is “back on the front benches” serving as party critic for the Labour portfolio.

“Patrick won the vote in 80 of the ridings. He has a mandate to take his time and help us rebuild and reform the party, to take our time and bring forth a clear, coherent message to deliver to Ontarians in three years' time,” he said.  

Janet Brooks of Ompah was one of over 60 protesters who attended the Enough is Enough Hydro One protest, which took place outside of the Hydro One offices in Perth on May 2. The event attracted local and area residents fed up with the high cost of their bills.

Brooks described her financial situation as desperate, and says she has had to put the home she bought seven years ago up for sale. Presently her outstanding Hydro One bill is $4,000. “My second mortgage people are repossessing my home and I have nowhere to go,” she said in tears. Brooks, who is a single mother, said that unfortunately her situation is not unique. “I know of others in the Ompah area who are experiencing the same kind of situation and I know of 10 other home owners in the area who are going to have to walk away from their homes.”

She approached drivers stopped at the corner of Highway 7 and Drummond St., asking them to sign a petition that will be presented in the Legislative Assembly at Queens Park on May 13 the same day that a large Enough is Enough Protest will be taking place there. “As a kid I used to be afraid of the dark, Brooks said, “ and now because of Hydro One I am scared of the light because I cannot afford it.”

The Saturday protest in Perth was organized by Jeanette Kosnaski of Barry's Bay and Jenny Gates, both administrators of the Enough is Enough Hydro One group, which to date has over 21,000 members. Kosnaski said that the group is fighting Hydro One's delivery charges for rural Ontarians, as well as the HST charge, the debt retirement charge and smart meters. The petition that the group was passing around at the demonstration demands “The removal of all hidden charges that make up the delivery charge, and its replacement with one standard charge for all Ontarians." The petition also demands the immediate replacement of smart meters by analog meters.

Randy Hillier, MPP for Lanark, Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, spoke at the protest and blamed Hydro One's inflated regulatory and delivery charges on mismanagement and exorbitant wages. He said that the Green Energy Act is also to blame because FIT contracts “compel Hydro One to purchase renewable energy at inflated over market rates”.

He listed a number of solutions that he believes would fix the problems. These included auditing the MDMR (Meter Data Management Repository) and either scrapping or altering it; trimming wages to employees at Ontario Power Generation and Hydro One; canceling the Green Energy Act; stopping all new FIT contracts and imposing a tax on the excess profits of FIT developers, with the proceeds reimbursing Hydro One customers. Hillier said that he welcomes “an end to the Hydro One monopoly to allow for competition in a free market place”.

Tracy Stewart-Simmons of Carp also spoke at the event. Kosnaski encouraged those present to join the Enough is Enough Hydro One group and invited all present to attend a larger protest that will take place at Queens Park in Toronto on May 13 from noon until 3pm. The group is arranging bus transportation for out-of-towners, and speakers at the event will include MPP Randy Hillier, Steve Clark, Parker Gallant, Cindy Moyer and others yet to be confirmed. Kosnaski hopes to see many bodies in Toronto on May 13. “We need to get out there and make the Ontario government know that this is no longer acceptable.” For more information visit Enough is Enough Hydro One on Facebook.